U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN NO. 
 A. C. TRUE, Director* 
 
 A DIGEST 
 
 OF 
 
 Ijlfi: 
 
 E. VI 
 
 BY 
 
 C. F. LAlSrCfAV( >.1JTIIY, Ph.D. 
 Office of Experiment Stations. 
 
 630.7061 
 UW5 12 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1 90 3 
 
L 
 
66] 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN NO. 126. 
 
 . C. TRUE, Director. 
 
 A DIGEST 
 
 OF 
 
 nrm\T 
 
 iM hi 
 
 X. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. F. LAlNTGrWC .)KTIIY, F»h. D. 
 
 Office of Experiment Stations. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1903. 
 
OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 
 
 A. C. True, Ph. I).— Director. 
 
 E. W. Allen, Ph. D. -^Assistant Director and Editor of Experiment Station Record. 
 
 W. H. Beal — Chief of Editorial Division. 
 
 C. E. Johnston— Chief Clerk. 
 
 editorial departments. 
 
 E. W. Allen, Ph. D., and H. W. Lawson — Chemistry, Dairy Farming, and Dairying. 
 
 AV. H. Beal — Agricultural Physics and Engineering. 
 
 Walter H. Evans, Ph. D. — Botany and Diseases of Plants. 
 
 C. F. Langwortiiy, Ph. D. — Foods and Animal Production. 
 
 J. I. Schulte — Field Crops. 
 
 E. V. Wilcox, Ph. D. — Entomology and Veterinary Science. 
 
 C. B. Smith — Horticulture. 
 
 D. J. Crosby— Agricultural Institutions. 
 
 2 
 
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 U. S. Department 'of Agriculture, 
 
 Office of Experiment Stations, 
 Washington, D. C. , January <29, 1903. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a bulletin prepared by 
 C. F. Langworthy, Ph. D., of the Office of Experiment Stations, which 
 summarizes and discusses the results of experiments on the feeding 
 and care of horses, and especially the investigations of recent years. 
 The attempt has been made to include all the work which has been 
 carried on at the experiment stations in the United States as well as 
 some of the more important foreign investigations. Statistics were also 
 gathered regarding the rations fed horses used by express companies, 
 cab companies, fire departments, packing houses, breweries, etc., in 
 different regions of the United States, with a view to learning the nutri- 
 ents supplied to horses performing different amounts of work. The 
 data have been compared with similar values for horses fed at a num- 
 ber of the experiment stations under more or less definitely known 
 conditions. The rations fed army horses in this and other countries, 
 the horses of French and other cab companies, etc., have also been 
 included for purposes of comparison. 
 
 Thanks are due to Director W. A. Henry of the Wisconsin Station, 
 Director H. J. Patterson of the Maryland Station, and Mr. G. M. Rom- 
 mel of the Bureau of Animal Industry of this Department, for valu- 
 able suggestions, and to Mr. H. A. Pratt of the Department of the 
 Interior, for assistance in making the calculations involved in preparing 
 the material. 
 
 Believing that the bulletin will prove a useful summary of the infor- 
 mation at present available regarding the feeding of horses, I recom- 
 mend that it be published as Bulletin No. 125 of this Office. 
 
 Respectfully, A. C. True, 
 
 Director. 
 
 Hon. James Wilson, 
 
 Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduction 7 
 
 Principles of nutrition 9 
 
 Composition of feeding stuffs 12 
 
 Comparative value of feeding stuffs 15 
 
 Cereal grains 15 
 
 Leguminous seeds 20 
 
 Oil cakes and other commercial by-products 20 
 
 Forage crops, fresh and cured 22 
 
 Roots and tubers 27 
 
 Molasses and other by-products of sugar making 28 
 
 Fruits, fresh and dried 31 
 
 Injurious feeding stuffs T 32 
 
 Method of feeding 33 
 
 Cooked and raw feed 34 
 
 Dry and soaked feed 34 
 
 Ground and unground feed 34 
 
 Cut and uncut coarse fodder 35 
 
 Cost of a ration 36 
 
 Fattening horses for market 36 
 
 Watering horses 37 
 
 Digestibility of feeding stuffs 40 
 
 Comparative digestibility by horses and ruminants 44 
 
 Rations actually fed and feeding standards 46 
 
 Method of calculating rations 58 
 
 Muscular work and its effect on food requirements 59 
 
 Measuring muscular work 59 
 
 Muscular work in its relation to the ration . 62 
 
 Effect of muscular work on digestibility 65 
 
 Metabolism experiments and the deductions drawn from them 66 
 
 Measuring the respiratory quotient and the deductions drawn from it 67 
 
 Proportion of energy of food expended for internal and external muscular 
 
 work 68 
 
 Energy required to chew and digest food 69 
 
 4 ' True nutritive value ' ' of feeding stuffs 69 
 
 Fixing rations on the basis of internal and external muscular work 71 
 
 Summary 73 
 
 5 
 
RECENT EXPERIMENTS IN HORSE FEEDING. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The scientific study of different problems connected with the feeding 
 of farm animals has been followed for something over half a century. 
 Some of the very early work was with horses, but more generally it 
 was carried on with other domestic animals. Within the last few years 
 this phase of the problem has received much more attention, and feed- 
 ing tests, digestion experiments, and more complicated investigations 
 have accumulated in considerable numbers. The bulk of this work 
 has been carried on in France and Germany; a creditable amount, 
 however, has been done in this countiy, notabh r by the agricultural 
 experiment stations, and the results of these experiments and obser- 
 vations have been published from time to time, and are veiy useful. 
 Mention must be made also of the work of practical feeders, which is 
 of great value. 
 
 In the present bulletin the attempt is made to bring together some 
 of the more important results and deductions which may be gathered 
 from the American and foreign experimental work, especiall}" that of 
 recent years. It is not the purpose to provide practical feeders with 
 directions for feeding according to a particular formula; indeed this 
 is not necessary, if it were possible, for practical feeders understand 
 the needs of their horses and how to meet them. The object is rather 
 to summarize matter which seems interesting and valuable, and which 
 in many cases may give the reason for something of which the wisdom 
 has long been recognized in practice. 
 
 In addition to the bulletins, reports, and other works cited in the 
 following pages, a large number of scientific and popular journals, 
 treatises on horse feeding, and similar publications have been consulted, 
 as well as reports issued by American and foreign experiment stations. 
 
 That a scientific study of the feeding of horses may not be without 
 direct practical value is shown by the work of Grandeau, Leclerc, Lava- 
 lard, and others for the Paris Cab and 'Bus companies. By means of 
 experimental studies of the food value and digestibility of different 
 feeding stuffs, carried on under definite conditions, it was possible to 
 so modify the ration fed to the thousands of horses belonging to one 
 of these companies that an annual saving of 1,000,000 francs or over 
 was effected, while at the same time the health and strength of the 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 horses were maintained at the usual standard. This was accomplished 
 in the instance cited by demonstrating the value of Indian corn, against 
 which there was a prejudice in France, and substituting it in part for 
 oats. 
 
 The returns from scientific studies arc not always so immediate, but 
 the results are usual ly of use when the experiments have been well 
 planned and carried out. 
 
 The problem of horse feeding is one which each feeder solves more 
 or less for himself, the opinion regarding what is and w T hat is not sat- 
 isfactory feed varying more or less with the time and place. Opinions 
 may differ as to the value of this food or that, but it is evident that 
 the actual food requirements of a horse performing a given amount of 
 work can not vary as a result of a change of opinion on the feeder's 
 part. With horses, as with all animals, including man, the real prob- 
 lem is to suppl} T sufficient nutritive material for building and repairing 
 the body and furnishing it with the energy- necessary for performing 
 work, whether it be that which goes on inside the body (the beating 
 of the heart, respiratory movements, etc.), or the work which is per- 
 formed outside the body (hauling a load, etc.). The body temperature 
 must also be maintained at the expense of the fuel ingredients, but 
 whether material is burned in the bod} 7 primarily for this purpose, or 
 whether the necessary heat is a resultant of the internal muscular 
 work, is not known with certainty. 
 
 The problem of successfully feeding horses differs somewhat from 
 that encountered in feeding most domestic animals. Cattle, sheep, 
 and pigs are fed to induce gains in weight, i. e. , to fatten them, or in 
 the case of milch cows to produce gains in the form of a bod} T secre- 
 tion (milk) rather than as fat in the body. In a similar wa} T sheep 
 are fed for the production of wool, and poultry for the production of 
 eggs. Sometimes cattle are also fed as beasts of burden. Horses are 
 fed almost universally as beasts of burden, whether the work consists 
 in carrying a rider or drawing a load. 
 
 Mares with foal require food for the development of their young, 
 and after birth the colt needs it for the growth and development of 
 the body as well as for maintenance. Such demands for nutritive 
 material are common to all classes of animals. Sometimes horses are 
 fed to increase their weight; that is, to improve their condition. For 
 instance, animals are often fattened by horse dealers before they are 
 sold. However, generally speaking, the problem in horse feeding is 
 to supply sufficient nutritive material for the production of the work 
 required and at the same time to maintain the body weight. The 
 almost universal experience of practical horse feeders, and the results 
 of many carefully planned experiments, agree that there is no surer 
 test of the fitness of any given ration than that it enables the horse 
 fed to maintain a constant weight. If the animal loses weight it 
 
 
9 
 
 is evident that the ration is insufficient, while if gains in weight arc 
 made and the animal becomes fat it is evident that more U>^(\ is given 
 than is necessary. Provided the horse is in good condition, it is seldom 
 desirable to induce any considerable gain in weight. Reference is not 
 made to the small daily fluctuations in weight, hut to gains or losses 
 which extend, over a considerable period. The most satisfactory ration 
 must necessarily be made up of materials which are wholesome and 
 arc relished by the horse. It should also be reasonable in cost. It 
 must be abundant enough to meet all body requirements, but not so 
 abundnnt that the horse lavs on an undesirable amount of flesh. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF NUTRITION. 
 
 The foundation principles of nutrition are the same in the case of all 
 animals, including man. A brief discussion of the properties of food 
 and the general laws of nutrition follows. 
 
 The study of foods and feeding stuffs has shown that although the} T 
 differ so much in texture and appearance they are in reality made up 
 of a small number of chemical constituents, namely, protein, fat, car- 
 bohydrates, and ash, together with a larger or smaller amount of 
 water. The latter can be often seen, as in the juice of fresh plants. 
 In dry hay no water or juice is visible. A small amount is, however, 
 contained in minute particles in the plant tissues. 
 
 Protein is a name given to the total group of nitrogenous materials 
 present. The group is made up mainly of the true proteids and 
 albumens, such as the gluten of wheat, and of nitrogenous materials 
 such as amids, which are believed to have a lower feeding value than 
 the albumens. 
 
 The group " fat " includes the true vegetable fats and oils, like the oil 
 in cotton seed or corn, as well as vegetable wax, some chlorophyl (the 
 green coloring matter in leaves, etc.), and other coloring matters; in 
 brief, all the materials which are extracted by ether in the usual labo- 
 ratory method of estimating fat. The name u ether extract" is often 
 and very properly applied to this group. Chemically considered, the 
 true fats are glycerids of the fatty acids, chiefly oleic, stearic, and 
 palmitic. 
 
 The group ' ' carbolrydrates " includes starches, sugars, crude fiber, 
 cellulose, pentosans, and other bodies of a similar chemical struc- 
 ture. This group is usually subdivided, according to the analytical 
 methods followed in estimating it, into " nitrogen-free extract" and 
 4 'crude fiber;" the former subdivision including principally sugar, 
 starches, and most of the pentosans, and the latter cellulose, lignin, 
 and other woody substances which very largely make up the rigid struc- 
 ture of plants. 
 
 The proteids contain nitrogen in addition to carbon, oxygen, hydro- 
 gen, and a little phosphorus and sulphur. The fats consist of carbon, 
 
10 
 
 oxygen, and hydrogen, as do also carbohydrates. In the carbohy- 
 drates, however, the oxygen and hydrogen are always present in 
 the proportions in which they occur in water, namely, two atoms of 
 hydrogen to one of oxygen. 
 
 The group "mineral matter" includes the inorganic bodies present 
 in the form of salts in the juices and tissue of the different feeding 
 stuffs, the principal chemical elements found being sodium, potassium. 
 calcium, chlorin, fluorin, phosphorus, and sulphur. The term " ash " 
 is often and very properly used for this group, since the mineral 
 matter represents the incombustible portion which remains when any 
 given feeding stuff is burned. 
 
 As noted above, the functions of food are (1) to supply material to 
 build and repair the body, and (2) to yield energy. The chemical 
 composition of a feeding stuff serves as a basis for judging of its value 
 for building and repairing body tissue. Its value as a source of energy 
 must, however, be learned in another way. The most usual way of 
 measuring energy is in terms of heat, the calorie being taken as a unit. 
 This is the amount of heat which would raise the temperature of 1 
 kilogram of water 1° C, or 1 pound of water 4 U F. Instead of this the 
 unit of mechanical energy, the foot- ton (the force which would lift 1 
 ton 1 foot) may be used, but it is not as convenient. One calorie cor- 
 responds very nearly to 1.54 foot-tons. The heat of combustion of 
 foods and feeding stuffs is ordinarily determined with the bomb calo- 
 rimeter or other suitable devices. The fuel value of any food is equal 
 to its heat of combustion less the energy of the excretory products 
 derived from it and may be learned by taking into account the chem- 
 ical composition of the food or feeding stuff, the proportions of the 
 nutrients actually- digested and oxidized in the bod} T , and the propor- 
 tion of the whole latent energy of each which becomes active and use- 
 ful to the body for warmth and work. However, the fuel value ma} T 
 be and often is calculated from the composition of the food material 
 supplied, since it has been found that 1 gram of protein furnishes 4.1 
 calories, 1 gram fat 9.3 calories, and 1 gram carbohydrates 4.1 calo- 
 ries, or 1 pound protein 1,860 calories, 1 pound fat 4,220 calories, and 
 1 pound carbohydrates 1,860 calories." 
 
 The relation between the quantities of nitrogenous and nitrogen-free 
 nutrients in the ration is called the nutritive or nutrient ratio. In cal- 
 culating this ratio 1 pound of fat is taken as equivalent to 2.25 pounds 
 of carbohydrates — this being approximately the ratio of their fuel 
 
 a These values, which have been often used in the past, are known to be unsatis- 
 factory, but are retained because better and more generally accepted data, obtained 
 in experiments with animals, are not available. 
 
 In discussions relating to human food later and more accurate values have been 
 proposed, namely, 1,820 calories per pound for protein and carbohydrates and 4,040 
 calories per pound for fats. 
 
11 
 
 values — so that the nutritive ratio is actually that of the protein to the 
 carbohydrates plus 2.25 times the fat.„ 
 
 The body is necessarily made up of the same chemical elements as 
 occur in food. Nitrogen is the characteristic element of body tissue and 
 fluids. Carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are also present, as well as the 
 elements making up the various mineral matters of the body. Protein 
 is the only nutrient which contains nitrogen, therefore this nutrient is 
 essential for building and repairing body tissues. The carbon, oxy- 
 gen, and hydrogen may be supplied theoretically by protein, fat, or 
 carbohydrates; but a well-balanced diet or ration contains all in proper 
 proportion. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates may be burned with the 
 formation of carbon dioxid and water, and therefore all may serve as 
 sources of energy. 
 
 The mineral matter in food is required for a number of different 
 purposes, a considerable amount being needed for the formation of 
 the skeleton. Some is also present in the organs and tissues. It can 
 not, however, be regarded as a source of energy, according to com- 
 monly accepted theories, since it can not be burned with the formation 
 of carbon dioxid and water. The water present in food is not a 
 nutrient in the sense that it serves for building tissue or yielding 
 energy, but it is essential, serving to carry the food in the digestive 
 processes, to dilute the blood, and for many other physiological pur- 
 poses. The oxygen of the air is required by all living animals for the 
 combustion, or oxidation, of the fuel constituents of food. 
 
 When foods are burned in the body, i. e., oxidized, they give up the 
 latent energy present in them. In determining the fuel value of pro- 
 tein, due allowance is made for the fact that combustion is not as com- 
 plete in the body as in a furnace. In the latter, practically all organic 
 materials are burned to carbon dioxid, water, and nitrogen; in the 
 body, to carbon dioxid, water, and some cleavage product containing 
 nitrogen, such as urea, uric acid, hippuric acid, and similar bodies 
 which require further combustion before the free nitrogen is liberated. 
 Combustion in a furnace and combustion in the bod} T do not appear to 
 be at all similar, but, generally speaking, they are the same from a 
 chemical standpoint. The former takes place rapidly with the evolu- 
 tion of heat, and usually of light; the latter, more slowl} T and incon- 
 spicuous^. If food is likened to fuel and the body to a furnace, the 
 respiratory products given off from the lungs correspond to the com- 
 bustion products which pass out through the flue. Ashes, in so far as 
 they consist of material which will not burn (sand, bits of rock, etc.), 
 and bits of coal which do not burn because they fall through the grate, 
 or for some similar reason escape combustion, represent the feces (the 
 indigestible and accidentally undigested material derived from the food). 
 The bits of coal found in the ashes which are partially burned, but 
 still contain some material valuable as fuel, correspond to the urea 
 
12 
 
 and other incompletely oxidized nitrogenous bodies excreted in the 
 urine. There is this difference, however, the furnace would have 
 completed the combustion of the partly burned bits of coal if the}' had 
 not been shaken out with the ashes, while the body can not burn the 
 urea more completely. The body differs from a machine in a number 
 of important ways; for instance, it is itself built up of the same mate- 
 rials which it utilizes as fuel, and further, if an excess of fuel, i. e., 
 food, is supplied, it may be stored as a reserve material for future use, 
 generally in the form of fat or glycogen. 
 
 The amount of work performed by a horse, for convenience in meas- 
 urement, may be resolved into several factors, as follows: (1) The 
 energy expended in chewing, swallowing, and digesting food, keeping 
 up the beating of the heart, circulation of the blood, respiratory move- 
 ments, and other vital processes ; a (2) the energy which is expended 
 in moving the body, walking, trotting, etc., which is usually spoken of 
 as energy required for forward progression; and (3) the energy which 
 is expended in carrying a rider, as in the case of a saddle horse, or 
 drawing a load, as in the case of a draft animal or carriage horse. 
 
 The character of the road, whether level or up or down hill, is an 
 important factor in determining the amount of work. It is evident 
 that more energy is required to lift the body at each step and move it 
 forward when climbing an incline than when walking on a level. In 
 the same way, when a load is drawn uphill it must be raised as well 
 as drawn forward. 
 
 Work may be measured as foot-pounds or foot-tons, or by any other 
 convenient unit. A foot-pound is the amount of energy expended in 
 raising 1 pound 1 foot; a foot- ton, that expended in raising 1 ton 1 
 foot; a commonly used unit of force is the u ton power," equivalent 
 to 550 foot-pounds per second. Work may also be measured in terms 
 of heat, i. e., calories. This is especially convenient in discussing 
 problems of nutrition, since the heat of combustion is one of the factors 
 usually determined or calculated when foods are analyzed; and further- 
 more, the feeding standards which have been proposed for horses and 
 other farm animals show the requirements per day in terms of nutri- 
 ents and energy. One calorie corresponds, as stated above, very 
 nearly to 1.54 foot-tons. 
 
 COMPOSITION OF FEEDING STUFFS. 
 
 The feeding stuffs of most importance for horses are cereal grains, 
 such as oats and corn, either ground or unground; leguminous seeds, 
 as beans and peas; cakes, and other commercial bj^-products, as oil- 
 's The heat of the body is closely connected with this kind of work, and may be 
 derived either from the combustion of material directly for that purpose, or may be 
 the result of the energy liberated when internal muscular work is performed, or 
 may be due to both causes acting together. 
 
18 
 
 cake, gluten food, and so on; fodder crops, green or cured; and differ- 
 ent roots, tubers, and green vegetables. In quite recent times cane 
 molasses, boot molasses, and other beet-sugar by-products, have 
 assumed more or less importance in this connection. The composition 
 of a number of those different feeding stuffs may be Been by reference 
 to the table below, which shows the average composition as determined 
 by analysis, and when possible tho digestible nutrients furnished for 
 horses by each 100 pounds of the feeding stuffs, the latter data having 
 been calculated, as explained elsewhere (p. 4o). by the aid of figures 
 obtained in digestion experiments with horses. In a number of cases 
 such calculations have not been made, for the reason that experiments 
 showing tho digestibility of feeding stuffs had not been found, nor were 
 results of experiments made with similar feeding stuffs available. The 
 comparatively large number of feeding stuff's of which the digesti- 
 bility has not been determined indicates one of the lines of work which 
 might be profitably followed. 
 
 Table 1 . — Average composition of a number of feeding stuffs. 
 
 Digestible materials in 
 100 pounds. 
 
 Kind of food 
 material. 
 
 GREEN FODDER. 
 
 Corn fodder 
 
 Corn leaves and husks 
 
 Cornstalks stripped . . 
 
 Kafir corn 
 
 Rye fodder 
 
 Oat fodder 
 
 Wheat fodder 
 
 Redtop in bloom 
 
 Tall oat grass in 
 bloom 
 
 Orchard grass in 
 bloom 
 
 Meadow fescue in 
 bloom 
 
 Italian rye grass com- 
 ing into bloom 
 
 Timothy at different 
 stages 
 
 Kentucky blue grass 
 at different stages . . 
 
 Hungarian grass 
 
 Red clover at differ- 
 ent stages 
 
 Alsike clover in 
 bloom a 
 
 Crimson clover" 
 
 Alfalfa at different 
 stages 
 
 Cowpea 
 
 Soy bean 
 
 SILAGE. 
 
 Corn silage 
 
 Sorghum silage 
 
 Red-clover silage 
 
 Soy-bean silage 
 
 Cowpea-vine silage. . . 
 
 Percentage composition. 
 
 Water. 
 
 Per ct. 
 79.3 
 66.2 
 76.1 
 73.0 
 76.6 
 62.2 
 77.3 
 65. 3 
 
 69.5 
 
 73.0 
 
 69.9 
 
 73.2 
 
 61.6 
 
 65. 1 
 71.1 
 
 74.8 
 80.9 
 
 71.8 
 83.6 
 75.1 
 
 74.4 
 76.1 
 72.0 
 74. 2 
 79.3 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Per ct. 
 1.8 
 2.1 
 .5 
 2.3 
 2.6 
 3.4 
 2.3 
 2.8 
 
 2.4 
 
 2.6 
 
 2. 1 
 
 3.1 
 
 3.1 
 
 4.1 
 3.1 
 
 4.4 
 
 3.9 
 
 4.8 
 2.4 
 4.0 
 
 Fat. 
 
 4.2 
 4.1 
 
 Perct. 
 
 0.5 
 
 1.1 
 
 .5 
 
 1.4 
 
 .7 
 
 1.3 
 1.2 
 1.3 
 
 1.0 
 
 .4 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 .3 
 1.2 
 2.2 
 1.5 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen- 
 free 
 ex- 
 tract. 
 
 Per ct. 
 12.2 
 19.0 
 14.9 
 15.1 
 6.8 
 19.3 
 12.0 
 17.7 
 
 15.8 
 
 13.3 
 
 11.3 
 
 13.1 
 
 20.2 
 
 17.6 
 14.2 
 
 13.5 
 
 11.0 
 8.4 
 
 12.3 
 
 7.1 
 
 10.6 
 
 15. 
 15.3 
 11.6 
 7.0 
 7.6 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 5.0 
 
 8.7 
 
 7.3 
 
 6.9 
 
 11.6 
 
 11.2 
 
 5.9 
 
 11.0 
 
 9.4 
 
 8.2 
 
 10.8 
 6.8 
 
 11.8 
 
 9.1 
 
 9.2 
 
 7.4 
 5.2 
 
 7.4 
 4.8 
 6.7 
 
 5.8 
 6.4 
 8.4 
 9.7 
 6.0 
 
 Ash. 
 
 Per ct. 
 1.2 
 2.9 
 .7 
 2.0 
 1.8 
 2.5 
 1.8 
 2.3 
 
 2.0 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.1 
 
 2.8 
 1.7 
 
 2.0 
 
 ].: 
 
 2.7 
 1.7 
 2.6 
 
 1.5 
 1.1 
 2.6 
 2.8 
 2.9 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.05 
 2. 12 
 
 3.75 
 
 Nitro- 
 
 fiber - nulri 
 ents. 
 
 ex- 
 tract 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 10.94 
 
 8.91 
 6.80 
 
 9.96 
 
 En- 
 ergy 
 in 100 
 lbs. di- 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Calo- 
 rics. 
 
 3.79 
 
 3.46 
 2. I:'- 
 
 3.46 
 
 33,796 
 
 28, 681 
 21,669 
 
 31, 936 
 
 a Digestibility calculated from values obtained with green alfalfa. 
 
14 
 
 Table 1. — Average composition of a number of feeding stuffs — Continued. 
 
 Kind of food 
 
 material. 
 
 HAY AND DRY COABSE 
 FODDER. 
 
 Corn fodder, field 
 
 cured 
 
 Comleaves, field cured 
 Corn husks, field cured 
 Cornstalks, field cured 
 Corn stover, fieldcured 
 Kafir-corn stover, field 
 
 cured 
 
 Barley hay 
 
 Oat hay 
 
 Wheat hay 
 
 RedtopcutatdiilVivnt 
 
 stagesa 
 
 Red top cut in blooma. 
 
 Orchard grass« 
 
 Timothy 
 
 Kentucky blue grass a . 
 
 Hungarian grass" 
 
 Meadow fescue a 
 
 Italian rye grassa 
 
 Mixed grasseso 
 
 Rowen (mixed)a 
 
 Mixed grasses and 
 
 clovers «.. 
 
 Swamp hay a 
 
 iSalt-marsh hay 
 
 Red clover., 
 
 Red clover in bloom b. 
 
 Alsike clover b 
 
 White clover b 
 
 Crimson clover & 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 Cowpea 
 
 Soy bean 
 
 Flat pea 
 
 Soy-bean straw 
 
 Wheat straw 
 
 Rye straw c 
 
 Oat straw c 
 
 Buckwheat straw 
 
 ROOTS AND TUBERS. 
 
 Potatoes . 
 Carrots . . 
 
 GRAINS AND OTHER 
 SEEDS. 
 
 Corn, dent 
 
 Corn, flint 
 
 Corn, all varieties... 
 
 Kafir corn 
 
 Chicken corn 
 
 Barley 
 
 Oats 
 
 Rye 
 
 Wheat, all varieties . 
 Cotton seed, whole, 
 
 with hulls 
 
 Cowpea 
 
 MILL PRODUCTS. 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 Oats, ground 
 
 Corn and cob meal . . . 
 Barley meal 
 
 Percentage composition. 
 
 Water 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 42.2 
 30.0 
 50.9 
 68.4 
 40.5 
 
 19.2 
 10.6 
 16.0 
 
 8.8 
 
 8.9 
 
 8.7 
 
 9.9 
 
 13.2 
 
 21.2 
 
 7.7 
 
 20.0 
 
 8.5 
 
 15.3 
 
 16.6 
 
 12.9 
 
 11.6 
 
 10.4 
 
 15.3 
 
 20.8 
 
 9.7 
 
 9.7 
 
 9.6 
 
 8.4 
 
 10.7 
 
 11.3 
 
 8.4 
 
 10.1 
 
 9.6 
 
 7.1 
 
 9.2 
 
 78.9 
 
 88.6 
 
 10.6 
 11.3 
 10.9 
 12.5 
 14.8 
 10.9 
 11.0 
 11.6 
 10.5 
 
 15.0 
 11.7 
 15.1 
 11.9 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 "4.5 
 6.0 
 
 2.5 
 1.9 
 3.8 
 
 4.8 
 9.3 
 7.4 
 6.0 
 
 7.9 
 8.0 
 8.1 
 5.9 
 7.8 
 7.5 
 7.0 
 7.5 
 7.4 
 11.6 
 
 10.1 
 
 7.2 
 
 5.5 
 
 12.3 
 
 12.4 
 
 12.8 
 
 15.7 
 
 15.2 
 
 14.3 
 
 16.6 
 
 15.4 
 
 22.9 
 
 4.6 
 
 3.4 
 
 3.0 
 
 4.0 
 
 5.2 
 
 2.1 
 1.1 
 
 10.3 
 10.5 
 10.5 
 10.9 
 10.6 
 12.4 
 11.8 
 10.6 
 11.9 
 
 19.6 
 23.5 
 
 9.2 
 11.0 
 
 8.5 
 10.5 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Per ct, 
 
 1.1 
 
 1.6 
 2.5 
 2.7 
 1.8 
 
 1.9 
 2.1 
 2.6 
 2.5 
 3.9 
 2.1 
 2.7 
 1.7 
 2.5 
 3.1 
 
 2.6 
 2.0 
 2.4 
 3.3 
 4.5 
 2.9 
 2.9 
 2.8 
 2.2 
 2.9 
 5.2 
 3.2 
 1.7 
 1.3 
 1.2 
 2.3 
 1.3 
 
 5.0 
 5.0 
 5.4 
 2.9 
 2.6 
 1.8 
 5.0 
 1.7 
 2.1 
 
 20.1 
 
 1.7 
 
 3.9 
 3.5 
 2.2 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen- 
 free 
 ex- 
 tract. 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 34.7 
 35.7 
 28. '■>> 
 17.0 
 31.5 
 
 39.6 
 48.7 
 40.6 
 55.3 
 
 47.5 
 46.4 
 41.0 
 45.0 
 37.8 
 49.0 
 38.4 
 44.9 
 42.1 
 39.4 
 
 41.3 
 45.9 
 44.0 
 38.1 
 33.8 
 40.7 
 39.3 
 36.6 
 42.7 
 42.2 
 38.6 
 31.4 
 37.4 
 43.4 
 46.6 
 42.4 
 35.1 
 
 17.3 
 7.6 
 
 70.4 
 70.1 
 69.6 
 70.5 
 58.8 
 69.8 
 59.7 
 72.5 
 71.9 
 
 28.3 
 55.7 
 
 68.9 
 52.3 
 64.8 
 66.3 
 
 Crude 
 liber. 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 14.3 
 21.4 
 15.8 
 11.0 
 19.7 
 
 26.8 
 23.6 
 27.2 
 22.5 
 
 28.6 
 29.9 
 32.4 
 29.0 
 23.0 
 27.7 
 25.0 
 30.5 
 27.2 
 22.5 
 
 27.6 
 26.6 
 30.0 
 24.8 
 21.9 
 25.6 
 24.1 
 27.2 
 25.0 
 20.1 
 22.3 
 26.2 
 40.4 
 38.1 
 38.9 
 37.0 
 43.0 
 
 .6 
 
 1.3 
 
 2.2 
 1.7 
 2.1 
 1.9 
 8.7 
 2.7 
 9.5 
 1.7 
 1.8 
 
 18.9 
 
 3.8 
 
 1.9 
 
 18.0 
 
 6.6 
 
 6.5 
 
 Ash. 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 2.7 
 5.5 
 1.8 
 1.2 
 3.4 
 
 8.0 
 5.3 
 6.1 
 5.6 
 
 5.2 
 4.9 
 6.0 
 4.4 
 6.3 
 6.0 
 6.9 
 6.9 
 5.5 
 6.8 
 
 5.5 
 6.7 
 7.7 
 6.2 
 6.6 
 8.3 
 8.3 
 8.6 
 7.4 
 7.5 
 7.2 
 7.9 
 5.8 
 4.2 
 3.2 
 5.1 
 5.5 
 
 1.0 
 1.0 
 
 1.5 
 1.4 
 1.5 
 1.3 
 4.5 
 2.4 
 3.0 
 1.9 
 1.8 
 
 4.0 
 3.4 
 
 Digestible materials in 
 100 pounds. 
 
 1.4 
 3.1 
 1.5 
 
 2.6 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 4.51 
 4.57 
 4.62 
 1.25 
 4.45 
 4.28 
 4.00 
 4.28 
 4.23 
 6.62 
 
 5.77 
 4.11 
 
 6.85 
 6.91 
 7.13 
 8.74 
 8.47 
 10.67 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.85 
 1.09 
 
 5.95 
 6.07 
 6.07 
 
 9.39 
 8.51 
 
 6.99 
 9.06 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.39 
 .43 
 
 .51 
 1.18 
 .81 
 .43 
 .56 
 .35 
 .52 
 .64 
 
 .54 
 .41 
 
 .95 
 1.29 
 .83 
 .83 
 .80 
 .42 
 
 .85 
 .79 
 
 1.51 
 
 2.39 
 2.39 
 
 2.58 
 
 3.60 
 .72 
 
 2.55 
 3.12 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen- 
 free 
 ex- 
 tract. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 26. 93 
 26.31 
 23. 25 
 21 . 29 
 21.43 
 
 27. 78 
 21.77 
 25. 51 
 23.87 
 22. 34 
 
 23. 42 
 26.02 
 
 11.35 
 11.87 
 12.86 
 12.35 
 
 9.13 
 11.00 
 10.28 
 12. 11 
 10.80 
 
 8.93 
 
 10.96 
 10.56 
 
 24. 19 
 21.46 
 25. 84 
 24.96 
 23. 24 
 29.98 
 
 12.20 
 13.10 
 11.91 
 
 17. 20 
 7.13 
 
 62. 09 
 61.83 
 61.39 
 
 9.27 
 8.19 
 9.57 
 9.01 
 10.17 
 9.75 
 
 6.74 
 6.89 
 6.55 
 
 . 05 
 
 45.25 2.82 122,062 
 63.29 1.70 139,747 
 
 64.70 
 45. 03 
 
 .38 
 2.59 
 
 a Digestibility calculated from values obtained with meadow hay. 
 b Digestibility calculated from values obtained with red clover hay. 
 c Digestibility calculated from values obtained with wheat straw. 
 
If) 
 
 Table I. Averag* composition of a number of feeding stuffs Continued. 
 
 
 Percentage composition. 
 
 Digestible materials i" 
 hm) pounds. 
 
 En- 
 
 in KM) 
 
 lbs. di- 
 gesti- 
 ble 
 
 nutri- 
 ents 
 
 Kind of food 
 material. 
 
 Water. 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Kal. 
 
 Niln. 
 gen- 
 
 Eree 
 ea 
 
 tract. 
 
 Crude 
 
 fiber. 
 
 Ash. 
 
 Pro- 
 tein. 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen- 
 tract. 
 
 Crude 
 
 Bber. 
 
 Mill. PRODUCTS — con. 
 
 Perct. 
 
 13.1 
 10.5 
 
 11.9 
 
 10.7 
 
 11.1 
 
 8.7 
 
 8.6 
 
 7.s 
 
 7.7 
 12.2 
 75.7 
 
 8.0 
 11.8 
 11.9 
 12.1 
 11.8 
 11.6 
 
 8.2 
 11.1 
 
 9.2 
 
 9.9 
 25.7 
 25.1 
 
 Perct. 
 6.7 
 20.2 
 
 '.<. 6 
 
 2. I 
 
 9.8 
 
 9.8 
 
 30.0 
 
 23.4 
 
 16.0 
 
 12.3 
 
 5.4 
 
 24.1 
 
 14.7 
 
 15.4 
 
 15.6 
 
 14.9 
 
 12.5 
 
 42.3 
 
 4.2 
 
 32. 9 
 
 35.9 
 "7.3 
 a 2. 1 
 
 Perct. 
 
 II. s 
 1.2 
 
 1. 1 
 .5 
 
 a. 3 
 
 6.2 
 8.8 
 8. 8 
 7.1 
 2.8 
 1.6 
 6.7 
 2.8 
 4.0 
 4.0 
 4.5 
 3.0 
 13.1 
 2.2 
 
 7.9 
 
 3.0 
 
 ::::::: 
 
 Perct. 
 
 7s.:; 
 51.1 
 
 71 
 
 0.4 
 
 11. t 
 
 9 
 
 Perct. 
 
 0.7 
 
 2.6 
 
 2.2 
 14 
 
 Los. 
 
 Los. 
 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Calo- 
 rit f. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ground corn and oats 
 (equal parts) 
 
 u kSTK l'KoDL'CTS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 51.9 SOI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 id.:. 
 62; 6 
 49.2 
 53.2 
 59.4 
 61.8 
 12.5 
 14.8 
 
 3. 8 '>- 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11.2 
 
 2.6 
 6.2 
 6.1 
 7.3 
 3. 8 
 13.0 
 
 1.5 
 
 .8 
 1.1 
 3.7 
 3.6 
 1.0 
 3.4 
 3.5 
 5.8 
 3.3 
 4.6 
 2.9 
 7.2 
 2.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oat feed 
 
 
 
 
 
 Barley screenings — 
 Brewere' grains, wet.. 
 Brewers' grains, dried. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 63.9 , 3.3 
 53. 9 90 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wheat middlings 
 
 60.4 
 56.8 
 65.1 
 23.6 
 33.4 
 
 4.6 
 7.4 
 4.9 
 5.6 
 
 46. 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wheat screenings 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Linseed meal, old 
 
 35. 4 S. 9 5. 7 
 86.8 8.8 5.6 
 
 
 
 
 Linseed meal, new 
 
 
 
 
 
 Beet-sugar molasses .. 
 Cane-sugar molasses.. 
 
 ft 58. 2 
 6 69. 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 8.8 
 3.2 
 
 7.3 
 
 3.2 
 
 58.2 
 69.3 
 
 
 
 259, 182 
 
 29S, 398 
 
 (i Largely nonalbuminoid nitrogenous materials. 
 • 6 Very largely sugars. 
 
 COMPARATIVE VALUE OF FEEDING STUFFS. 
 
 CEREAL GRAINS. 
 
 It will be seen that the cereal grains resemble each other quite 
 closely in composition, being characterized by fairl} T low water con- 
 tent and a considerable amount of protein and nitrogen-free extract. 
 Some crude liber, derived from the outer or bran layei' of the corn, is 
 also present. The superiority of one grain over another must there- 
 fore depend, in large measure, if it exists at all, on some factor other 
 than composition. It has been urged by many that oats possess a 
 peculiar stimulating body called "avenin," and are on this account 
 superior to other grains for horses. Oats undoubtedly possess a 
 flavor or some such characteristic which makes them a favorite food 
 with horses, but the most careful chemical study has failed to reveal 
 any substance of the nature of the theoretical avenin. Recent experi- 
 ments" have shown that the fat of oats and oat straw is more thoroughly 
 digested than that of other cereals. This is suggested as a possible 
 explanation of the superior feeding value of oats. 
 
 «Landw. Jahrb., 29 (1900), p. 483. 
 
16- 
 
 It is believed by many that horses show more spirit when oats form 
 part of the ration. Discussing this subject, Director W. A. Henry, a 
 of the Wisconsin Experiment Station, says: 
 
 Horses nurtured on oats show mettle which can not be reached by the use of any 
 other feeding stuff. Then, too, there is no grain so safe for horse feeeding, the ani- 
 mal rarely being seriously injured if by accident or otherwise the groom deals out 
 an oversupply. This safety is due in no small measure to the presence of the oat 
 hull, which causes a given weight of grain to possess considerable volume, because 
 of which there is less liability of mistake in measuring out the ration; further, the 
 digestive tract can not hold a quantity of oat grains sufficient to produce serious dis- 
 orders. Unless the horse is hard pressed for time or has poor teeth oats should be 
 fed in the whole condition. Musty oats should be avoided. 
 
 Horsemen generally agree that new oats should not be used, though Boussingault, 
 conducting extensive experiments with army horses, arrived at the conclusion that 
 new oats do not possess the injurious qualities attributed to them. 
 
 In the opinion of Lavalard:^ 
 
 Not only may single grains and other single foods be substituted for oats, but more 
 or less complex mixtures may be used as well. We believe that both from a hygi- 
 enic and an economic standpoint our experiments have settled this matter, which 
 has provoked so much, discussion. An examination of the statistics we have gath- 
 ered in the last thirty-five years show that, although a great saving has been effected, 
 it has not been at the expense of the productive power of the horses. 
 
 Boussingault, perhaps, first suggested on the basis of experiments 
 that other materials may be substituted for oats in the ration of 
 horses. He prepared a table of nutritive equivalents, using hay as a 
 unit of comparison. This was not very satisfactory, since the com- 
 position of hay varies within wide limits. 
 
 The grain most commonly substituted for oals in this country is 
 Indian corn or maize. It is so commonly used, especially in the South 
 and West, that it is difficult to realize the prejudice which has existed 
 against it in -other countries. It has been asserted that there are 
 climatic and other conditions which render corn a suitable horse feed 
 in America which do not exist elsewhere. This hardly seems reason- 
 able, and has not been borne out by the numerous experiments under- 
 taken in France, Germany, and other countries. Such experiments 
 have demonstrated the value of corn and shown the truth of the 
 opinions generally held in this country, namely, that it is a safe and 
 satisfactory feeding stuff for horses. 
 
 Barley, rye, and wheat are sometimes fed to horses. Their resem- 
 blance to oats will be seen by reference to the table. All these grains 
 should be substituted on the basis of chemical composition, and not 
 pound for pound. As would be expected, the ground grains differ 
 little from the same varieties before grinding. 
 
 Bran, shorts, middlings, and other by-products vary in composition, 
 but all have a low water content, while the crude fiber content is gen- 
 
 « Feeds and Feeding, Madison, Wis., 1898. 
 
 b Experiment Station Record, 12 (1900-1901), p. -L 
 
17 
 
 (Mall \ rather high. Their nutritive ingredients are principally protein 
 and carbohydrates. The high crude fiber content Is due to the faci 
 that these products represent the outer layer- of the grain, which are 
 
 more hard and firm in construction than the interior portion, which 
 consists largely of starch. 
 
 The total Dumber of tests to compare different feeding stuffs for 
 horses which have been undertaken by the agricultural experiment 
 stations in the United States is not large compared with the tests 
 made with other farm animals. The results obtained are, however, 
 interesting. Some of those which have to do with grain, whole and 
 ground, follow: 
 
 At the Maine Station Jordan a made a comparison with oats and a 
 mixture of one-third pea meal and two-thirds middlings for Percheron 
 colts. No advantage was observed for the oats over the mixture. A 
 comparison of oats with mixed grains (middlings, gluten meal, and 
 linseed meal), also made with colts, showed that considerably larger 
 gains were made on the mixed grain ration, which was also the more 
 nitrogenous. 
 
 At the Utah Station J. W. Sanborn 6 tested the effect of feeding 
 grains (rye. oats, and bran) and cut hay, mixed and separately. So 
 far as the test showed, the two methods of feeding were equaU} T satis- 
 factory. No regular variation in the weight of the two lots of horses 
 was observed when the comparative value of the whole and cut hay 
 (alfalfa and clover mixed) was tested. 
 
 The comparative value of corn and oats supplementing bran and 
 hay was also tested at the Utah Station/ The grains were ground 
 and mixed before feeding. In these and other tests referred to above 
 it appears that during the summer corn and timothy were not as good 
 as oats, wheat, and clover for maintaining horses. During the winter 
 corn and timothy were as satisfactory as oats, clover, and timothy in 
 maintaining weight. During the spring and summer wheat or bran 
 and mixed hay produced greater gains in weight than oats, wheat, or 
 bran and mixed hay. In another trial ll corn meal and timothy hay 
 did not sustain work horses as well as oats, wheat, and clover hay. 
 
 The value of oats versus bran and shorts, the feeding value of wheat, 
 wheat versus bran and ground wheat, were tested with horses and 
 mules b} T J. H. Shepperd ( at the North Dakota Station. Bran and 
 shorts were found to have practically the same feeding value as oats. 
 Unground wheat w T as poorly digested, and it was therefore believed 
 undesirable to feed it as a sole grain ration. When wheat was added 
 to a ration of bran and shorts 1:1 no advantage was gained. On the 
 basis of tests reported, bran and ground wheat 1 : 2 was considered 
 
 a Maine Station Rpt. 1890, p. 68. 'Utah Station Rpt. 1892, p. 30. 
 
 & Utah Station Bui. 13. « North Dakota Station Bui. 20. 
 
 cTJtah Station Bui. 36. 
 
 17399— No. 125—03 2 
 
18 
 
 a more satisfactory grain ration for horses at light work than whole 
 oats. 
 
 The New Hampshire Station studied the value of different grain 
 mixtures for horses with the view to determining whether the cost of 
 a ration could not be diminished by lessening the amount of oats fed. 
 The rations consisted of different mixture- of oat-, bran, corn, gluten 
 ived, linseed-oil meal, ami cotton-seed meal. Fairly good results were 
 obtained with all the grain mixture-, the mixture containing cotton- 
 seed meal being Least satisfactory, a- it was not relished at first by the 
 horse-. It i- stated by C. YV. Burkett, who carried on the tests, that 
 the oat> proved no more satisfactory than the other concentrated feed- 
 ing stuffs, either in respect to the general condition of the animal or 
 the efficiency for work, and the conclusion was drawn that a combi- 
 nation of feeding stuffs, furnishing the desired nutriment at a reason- 
 able cost, should be considered in preparing rations for horses. A 
 mixture of bran and corn, half and half, is regarded as a good substi- 
 tute for corn and oats for work horses. 
 
 In a study of alfalfa hay and timothy hay for horse> at the Utah 
 Station * the comparative merits of oats and a mixture of bran and 
 shorts were also tested. The conclusion was drawn that the mixed 
 grain could be satisfactorily substituted for oat-. 
 
 The barley grown on the Pacific coast is extensively used in the 
 feeding of horses, and its use for this purpose is old in other countries. 
 Elsewhere barley is not extensively used as a feed in the United States. 
 doubtless owing to the fact that it is in such demand for brewing pur- 
 poses that it is usually high in price. Wherever it is grown, how- 
 ever, it is frequently possible to secure at a low cost grain which is off 
 color owing to rain or fog during harvest, and which, for this or some 
 other reason, is unlit for brewing, but valuable as feed. 
 
 Barley may be fed whole to horses having good teeth and not required 
 to do severe work. Since ground barley, like wheat, forms a pasty 
 mass when mixed with saliva it is regarded as more satisfactory to 
 crush than to grind it. if for any reason it is considered undesirable to 
 feed the grain whole. 
 
 At the North Dakota Station J. H. Shepperd' has recently studied 
 the value of barley as a feed for work horses and mules. For some 
 months this grain was fed with timothy hay to three horses and two 
 mules. The mules did not eat the barley with marked reli.-h at any 
 time, hut for two months, during which time they were performing 
 light work, they ate enough to keep them in condition. The work was 
 then increased, hut they would not eat a correspondingly greater quan- 
 tity of barley, and soon began to refuse it altogether for a day or so 
 
 "New Hampshire Station Bui. 82. ^ Xortk Dakota Station Bui. 45. 
 
 frUtah Station Bui. 77. 
 
 
19 
 
 at a time. The mules were then given oats on alternate months. This 
 grain was eaten with relish, and gains in weight were made. Although 
 the trial lasted nine months, the mules persistently refused barley. 
 
 Of the horses mentioned above, two were work horses. They were 
 fed alternately barley and oats with timothy hay for nine periods of 
 twenty-eight days each. They ate the barley without regard to the 
 amount of work required of them. On the oat ration there was an 
 average daily gain of 0.38 pound per horse. On the barley ration 
 there was an average daily gain per horse of 0.15 pound. In both 
 cases the horses averaged 5.50 hours' work per day. 
 
 This trial indicates that horses, when taxed to the limit by hard work, 
 can not he supported upon barley quite so well as upon oats, and that 
 it is worth slightly less per pound than oats with stock which is given 
 a medium amount of work. It indicates further that mules take less 
 kindly to barley than do horses, and that horses which are inclined to 
 be "dainty" will not eat barley so readily as oats. 
 
 Malted barley was compared with oats in a trial made with four 
 work horses. The two grains were alternated, in different periods. Oat 
 hay was supplied as coarse fodder. The malted barley was prepared 
 as follows: After soaking in water for twenty-four hours the grain 
 was spread on the floor in a layer 6 inches or less in depth and allowed 
 to remain until the sprouts were 0.5 to 0.75 inch long; it was then fed. 
 On the oat ration there was a daily gain of 0.49 pound, and on the 
 malted barley there was an average daily loss of 0.76 pound per horse. 
 When fed malted barley the horses ate 0.1 pound more grain than 
 when fed oats. In this test the horses worked between five and six 
 hours per day on an average. 
 
 A mixture of malted barley and bran was also compared with oats, 
 the two rations being alternated as above. The grains were mixed in 
 the proportion of two parts of barley (before malting) to one part of 
 bran. As in the above test, oat hay was fed with the grain. The 
 horses worked some seven hours per day r . When fed a barley and bran 
 ration they ate an amount equivalent to about 17.4 pounds of dry grain 
 per day. There was an average daily loss of 0.8 pound per horse. 
 When fed the oat ration an average of 16.2 pounds was consumed 
 per da}% and there was an average daily gain per horse of 0.22 pound. 
 In other words, the horses did not maintain their weight on the bran 
 and malted barley, although they ate a larger quantity than when the 
 oat ration was fed. 
 
 These trials indicate that malted barley is not an economical feed 
 for work horses, and that the addition of 1 part bran to 2 parts of 
 malt, as measured by the dry barley, from which it was produced, is 
 neither a cheap nor satisfactory feed for hard- worked horses. 
 
 Few experiments have been reported on the feeding value of Kafir 
 corn for horses. At the Oklahoma Station, according to Morrow and 
 
20 
 
 Bone," 41 bushels of ground Kafir corn were fed during- a year to a 
 pair of work horses in addition to other grain and coarse fodder. 
 From this test and others made with different farm animals the con- 
 clusion was drawn that Kafir corn is a healthful, palatable, and nutri- 
 tious feed with a feeding value somewhat less than that of corn. This 
 grain is very flint}', and to secure the best results should be ground. 
 According to information recently received from the station, Kafir 
 corn is highly esteemed local^ as a feed for horses, many being kept 
 throughout the year on this grain and prairie ha}'. The unthrashed 
 heads are commonly fed, a head of Kafir corn being regarded as 
 equivalent to an ear of corn. 
 
 At the Mississippi Station 6 chicken corn, a variety of Kafir corn, 
 was compared with corn meal as a feed for mules doing heavy work, 
 mixed hay being fed in addition to the grain ration. The mules fed 
 the chicken corn lost in weight a little more than those fed corn meal. 
 According to those making the test "the feeding value of the chicken 
 corn is about as high as that of the corn." 
 
 LEGUMINOUS SEEDS. 
 
 Beans and other leguminous seed resemble the cereal grains in hav- 
 ing a low water content. In Europe horse beans are common feeding 
 stuff for horses. Lavalard say s : c 
 
 The experiments made many years ago for the Paris cab companies warrant the 
 statement that when beans replace oats, only half the quantity should be used. 
 Tests made with army horses have confirmed this conclusion. The chemical compo- 
 sition of beans shows why they are regarded as more nutritious than oats alone. 
 Beans may be advantageously fed to horses required to perform long continued, sud- 
 den, or severe labor. The opinion is prevalent in England that in hunting it is always 
 possible to recognize horses fed with beans by their great endurance. In accord with 
 the practice of the leading racing stables, we used a large proportion of beans in the 
 ration of young horses which were being trained. The results obtained were most 
 satisfactory. 
 
 OIL CAKES AND OTHER COMMERCIAL BY-PRODUCTS. 
 
 The various cakes, gluten materials, and similar feeding stuffs are, 
 generally speaking, commercial by-products. Thus, cotton-seed cake 
 is the material left after the oil has been expressed from the cotton 
 seed. In the same way, linseed cake is the residue obtained in the 
 manufacture of linseed oil. If this cake is ground it becomes linseed 
 meal. In the manufacture of beer the malted grain is known as brew- 
 ers' grain and is best fed after drying. When starch is manufactured 
 from corn, the nitrogenous portion of the grain is rejected and consti- 
 tutes gluten feed and gluten meal. The cereal breakfast food com- 
 panies have placed many feeding stuffs upon the market made up of 
 
 a Oklahoma Station Rpt. 1899, p. 31. c Loc. cit. 
 
 & Mississippi Station Bui. 8. 
 
21 
 
 various by-products obtained in the manufacture of their breakfast 
 foods and similar products. These feeding stuffs vary in value, but 
 may generally be said to represent the branny portion of the grains 
 from which they are derived. 
 
 A comparison was made by E. B. and L. A. Voorhees of dried 
 brewers' grains when substituted for oats, pound for pound, at the 
 New Jersey stations, eight horses heavily worked during the summer 
 being used. As shown by weight and general condition of the animals, 
 the brewers' grains were fully equal to the oats, pound for pound, 
 while their cost was considerably less. In a second trial, dried 
 brewers' grains were compared with a mixture of wheat bran and 
 linseed meal 5 : 1.5 when fed in addition to timothy hay and corn. The 
 uniformity in the amount of feed consumed and the weight of the 
 animals, taken in connection with the work performed, indicates that 
 there was no material difference in the value of the two rations. 
 According to calculations made (timothy hay at the time being worth 
 $18, wheat bran $17.50, corn meal $22, dried brewers' grain $17, and 
 linseed meal $29 per ton), a farm horse weighing 1,000 pounds can be 
 fed for $30.84 during the six months of the year when the most work is 
 performed if dried brewers' grain furnishes the bulk of the necessary 
 protein, and for $33.49 if wheat bran and linseed meal are the chief 
 sources of this nutrient. If the fertilizing value of the feeding stuffs 
 is taken into account the difference in favor of the brewers' grains is 
 less marked. 
 
 In tests made by Emery b at the North Carolina Station horses were 
 satisfactorily fed 2 pounds of cotton-seed meal per head daily as part 
 of the mixed ration. When the amount was increased to 3.5 pounds 
 the results were not as favorable. It is stated that neither of the 
 horses used in the test showed am r symptoms which indicated that 
 cotton -seed meal disagreed with them. It is also stated that at the 
 Biltmore estate 2 pounds of cotton-seed meal per head daily were fed 
 to the horses and mules with 13 to 15 pounds of cut ha} T and finely cut 
 corn feed, 4 pounds of wheat bran, and 6 pounds of corn meal. On 
 Sundays the ration was made up of whole corn and oats and uncut hay. 
 According to later information the feeding of cotton-seed meal has not 
 been found satisfactory at Biltmore. In the tests with mixed rations, 
 carried on at the New Hampshire Station (p. 18), the cotton-seed mix- 
 ture was least satisfactory. 
 
 In the opinion of Director Stubbs, c of the Louisiana stations, cotton- 
 seed meal may be fed with satisfactoiy results to horses and mules. 
 At the Louisiana stations 1 or 2 pounds per mule per day have been 
 fed with success. Six pounds is regarded as the maximum quantity 
 
 "New Jersey Stations Bui. 92, Rpt. 1893, p. 179. 
 ^ North Carolina Station Bui. 109. 
 c Louisiana Planter, 28 (1902), p. 178. 
 
22 
 
 which it is desirable to feed, and, in Director Stubbs's opinion, this 
 amount should be led up to gradually. He notes that only bright yel- 
 low cotton-seed meal of a nutty, pleasant odor and taste should be 
 used, and that no reddish or musty meal should be fed. It is stated 
 that excessive quantities of cotton-seed meal should be avoided, since 
 it is a very concentrated feed. It should be gradually added to a 
 ration, carefully mixed with other feeds, until mules learn to relish it, 
 and no uneaten residues should be allowed to ferment in the feed boxes. 
 The cereal grains, ground and unground, commercial by-products, 
 leguminous seeds, oil cakes, and similar products are very frequently 
 called concentrated feeds, the name being suggested I)}- the fact that, 
 generally speaking, the food value, especially the protein content, is 
 high in comparison with the bulk. So far as the general experience 
 and the results of American and foreign feeding experiments go, most 
 of the common feeding stuffs in the group are wholesome and valuable 
 for horses. If any one of these feeding stuffs is substituted for oats, 
 which may be taken for a standard, the substitution should be propor- 
 tional to the composition of the two feeds and not pound for pound. 
 
 FORAGE CROPS, FR*ESH AND CURED. 
 
 The various forage crops — grass, clover, Kafir corn, corn, etc. — all 
 have a high water content; that is, they are more or less succulent 
 and juicy. They contain, however, considerable nutritive material, 
 usually protein and carbohydrates, and are valuable feeding stuffs. 
 
 The leguminous forage crops — alfalfa, clover, cowpeas, soy beans, 
 vetch, etc. — are richer in protein than the grasses. When the forage 
 crops are dried and cured the resulting hay is richer in proportion to 
 its bulk than the green material: in other words, it has been concen- 
 trated by the evaporation of the greater part of the water present. 
 However, this is not the only change which has taken place. When 
 hay is properly cured it undergoes a peculiar sort of fermentation or 
 oxidation which materially affects its composition. 
 
 As shown by Holdefleis's a recent investigations, fermentation 
 improves the hay by diminishing the quantity of crude fiber and by 
 increasing the relative amount of other nutrients, especially nitrogen- 
 free extract. The greater the fermentation the more the crude fiber 
 is diminished, and this is especially marked when hay is dried on 
 racks. Hay which has undergone proper fermentation has a better 
 flavor and agrees better with animals and is apparently more digesti- 
 ble than hay which has dried quickly in the sun without fermentation. 
 Fermentation apparently diminishes the amount of pentosans in hay. 
 especially in the case of hay from grasses. It also seems that the 
 relative amount of true protein is increased. 
 
 "Mitt, Landw. Inst. Univ. Breslan, 1899, p. 59. 
 
23 
 
 The feeding value of different forage crops, fresh and cured, depends 
 in considerable degree upon the stage of growth, as has been shown 
 by a number of chemical studies of the composition of different crops 
 and cuttings of alfalfa, young and more matured corn forage, etc. 
 Generally speaking, the nutritive value of the crop increases until 
 growth is complete and diminishes somewhat as the plants mature or 
 become overripe. Straw, the fully ripened stalk of cereal grains, 
 contains some nutritive material, but is less nutritious than the same 
 portion of the plant (ait before ripening. In the perfectly ripe con- 
 dition the nutritive material, elaborated in different portions of the 
 ordinary forage plants, has been conveyed to the seed and used for its 
 development or stored as reserve material. 
 
 Green forage crops are frequently preserved by ensiling. In this 
 process the material undergoes a peculiar oxidation which correspond- 
 ingly changes it in composition and food value. Some of the carbo- 
 hydrates are changed into alcohol, acetic and other acids, and crude 
 fiber is undoubtedly softened somewhat, and possibly the silage is thus 
 rendered more digestible. Bodies having peculiar flavor and odor are 
 also formed. 
 
 The green crops, hay, straw, other cured crops, and silage are fre- 
 quently called " coarse fodder" or " roughage." This term is due to 
 the fact that the} T contain a comparatively small amount of nutritive 
 material and a high proportion of crude fiber as compared with their 
 total bulk. Although inferior to concentrated feeds in composition, 
 they are an essential part of the ration of horses and other farm ani- 
 mals, serving to give the required bulk to the food and being useful in 
 other ways. 
 
 It is believed that unless the food, when taken into the stomach, is 
 comparatively bulky and the mass is more or less loose in structure, 
 it is not readily acted on by the digestive juices. The intestinal tract 
 of the horse is long in proportion to the size of the animal, and food 
 remains in it for several days. Experiments indicate that crude fiber, 
 which is only slightly digestible by man, is quite thoroughly digested 
 by horses, and even more thoroughly digested by ruminants, owing its 
 digestibility^ to the fact that it is fermented for a comparativeh T long 
 period by micro-organisms in the intestines. 
 
 Regarding the need of straw in a ration to supply the necessary bulk, 
 LavalardV' opinion follows: 
 
 The statement is often made that horses can not do without straw [to supply coarse 
 fodder]. This is an error, for we have fed horses hay and oats during very long 
 periods, and have never noticed that they suffered any inconvenience or detriment. 
 This is a matter of importance, since it is often inconvenient to obtain straw [even 
 for bedding], and in such cases peat, sawdust, sand, etc., may be profitably used as 
 bedding in place of straw. 
 
 «Loc. cit. 
 
24 
 
 This does not mean that crude fiber, one of the important constitu- 
 ents of coarse fodder, is not required, but rather that a sufficient 
 amount of crude fiber was supplied by the hay and oats in the c 
 cited by the author. As part of a series comprising some fifteen 
 
 experiments carried on at the Maryland Station." an attempt was made 
 to feed the horses <>n oat- alone. At the beginning of the trial one 
 
 horse consumed 6, grams (13.2 pounds) and the other 6,750 grams 
 
 ( 14.:* pounds) of oat- per day. but after a few days refused to eat. The 
 experiment could not be continued long enough to permit the determi- 
 nation of the coefficients of digestibility. Under the experimental 
 conditions it was regarded as impossible to maintain horses on a grain 
 ration alone: it seemed certain that they required some coarse fodder 
 in addition. From such experiments the general deduction is obvious 
 that the common practice of feeding horses on a ration of grain and 
 coarse fodder is reasonable and based on the actual physiological 
 requirements of the animal. 
 
 A number of feeding experiments have been made on the compara- 
 tive value for horses of different forage crops, fresh and cured. The 
 American experiment stations have studied the more important coarse 
 fodders in use in this country. A summary of their work follows. 
 
 D. O. Nourse h of the Virginia Station reported a number of trials 
 of the value of corn silage for horses and mules. Gradually increas- 
 ing amounts were fed until they were given all the silage they could 
 eat. with hay and grain in addition. Provided animals are gradually 
 accustomed to it. as shown by these tests, silage is a satisfactory feed 
 for horses and mules. 
 
 In tests carried on by J. H. Shepperd'' at the North Dakota Station 
 oat straw and prairie hay were compared. Oat straw was found to be 
 a cheaper horse fodder than hay. but when it was used more careful 
 feeding was necessary to keep the horses in good condition. In a 
 subsequent test d brome grass hay gave as good results when fed to 
 work horses as timothy hay. 
 
 In a study of different grain mixtures for work horses, carried on 
 at the New Hampshire Station.' the relative merits of timothy hay 
 and corn stover were also studied. The rations consisted of 12 pounds 
 of hay and corn stover alone or mixed, fed with 14 pounds of mixed 
 grain. During the test, which covered nearly three months, the two 
 sorts of coarse fodder were found equally satisfactory. Although the 
 corn stover cost only one-third as much as the timothy hay. the con- 
 clusion was drawn that it has a feeding value equal to timothy hay fed 
 with suitable mixtures of either corn and oats or corn and bran, and 
 that when corn stover or timothy hay supplied the coarse fodder in a 
 
 Maryland Station Bui. 51. ''North Dakota Station Bui. 45. 
 
 ''Virginia Station Bui. 80. < New Hampshire Station Bui. 82. 
 
 eNorth Dakota Station Bui. 20. 
 
25 
 
 ration, oats and corn, half and half, and bran and corn, half and half, 
 have generally equivalent feeding values. 
 
 Bermuda grass hay and timothy hay, tVd in addition to corn, wnv 
 compared with working mules at the Mississippi Station." No marked 
 differences in the cost of the rations nor in the gains made by the 
 mules were observed. 
 
 The Oklahoma Station b reports a test in which Kafir corn stover was 
 fed to horses and mules, the amount eaten by the horses averaging 
 some 32 pounds per day and by the mules some 41 pounds. From 
 this and tests of other farm animals the conclusion was drawn that 
 Kafir corn stover is about equal in feeding value to corn stover, and 
 that running stalks through a thrashing machine is a satisfactory 
 method of preparing this feeding stuff. 
 
 At the Utah Station c a ration of timothy hay and grain was com- 
 pared with one consisting of clover, oats, and wheat, two lots of work 
 horses being used. The nutritive ratio of the first ration was 1:14.8; 
 of the second, 1:5.5. For more than half the test the grains w r ere fed 
 unground. Somewhat better results were obtained with a ration hav- 
 ing the narrower nutritive ratio. However, in a second test,^ the 
 ration having a wide nutritive ratio (1:15.2) gave results as satisfactory 
 as the one having a narrower ratio (1:7.8). 
 
 Later, at the Utah Station, the comparative merits of alfalfa hay and 
 timothy hay were investigated by L. A. Merrill 6 in tests with work 
 horses and driving horses, which extended over four years. In some of 
 the tests as much as 25 pounds of alfalfa or timothy hay with 10 pounds 
 of bran and shorts was fed per head daily. In other tests the amount 
 of hay was considerably smaller and the amount of grain larger. In 
 some cases oats were fed instead of bran and shorts. Generally speak- 
 ing, the timotlry ration was the more expensive and the horses did not 
 maintain their weight on it as well as on the alfalfa ration. 
 
 Tests were also made in which the feeding value of an alfalfa ration 
 without grain was studied. It was found that 20 pounds of this mate- 
 rial was sufficient to maintain the weight of a horse weighing nearly 
 1,400 pounds, provided no work was performed. When at hard work 
 some 33 pounds of alfalfa ha} T was barely sufficient to maintain the 
 weight. When the work was very severe 40 pounds of alfalfa hay was 
 not an adequate ration, although it was about the limit which could be 
 eaten. Regarding the experiments, the statement was made in effect 
 that it is doubtful if there is any econom} T in feeding a horse 40 pounds 
 of alfalfa per day. It is certain that better results can be secured by 
 limiting the amount of ha} T to 20 pounds and substituting for the extra 
 20 pounds enough grain to make up the cost. This would secure at 
 
 a Mississippi Station Bui. 15. <' Utah Station Bui. 30. 
 
 ^Oklahoma Station Rpt. 1899, p. 18. *Utah Station Bui. 77. 
 
 cUtah Station Rpt. 1892, p. 30. 
 
26 
 
 current prices [1902] 8 pounds of bran and shorts or 3.6 pounds of oats 
 per day, and this amount with 20 pounds of alfalfa will make a better 
 maintenance ration than 40 pounds of alfalfa. Aside from the finan- 
 cial consideration it should be emphasized that if digestive disorders 
 are to be entirely avoided concentrated foods must make up part of 
 the diet of the horse. 
 
 Considered as a whole the experiments are very favorable to the 
 use of alfalfa hay as a coarse fodder for horses. The fact is recog- 
 nized that, like other leguminous crops, it contains a larger amount 
 of protein in proportion to its bulk than timothy. Feeding alfalfa 
 did not exercise any bad effects on the health of the horses. It is 
 stated that attacks of colic and other digestive disorders can be pre- 
 vented by a judicious system of feeding. The amount of hay fed on 
 most Utah farms, it is believed, could be reduced at least one-half. 
 It may be economical to reduce the amount of ha}' and increase the 
 amount of grain fed to horses. In this connection the author says: 
 
 It is folly to claim that a horse will not eat more than is necessary if allowed the 
 liberty of the stack and the grain bin. The argument is sometimes made that a 
 horse under natural conditions, on pasture, never eats more than is necessary, and 
 that under these conditions he is never subject to digestive disorders. While this is 
 undoubtedly true, it must be kept in mind that as soon as we stable the horse and 
 require work of him, we have taken him away from his natural condition and placed 
 him under unnatural environments. 
 
 It was observed that larger amounts of water were consumed on the 
 alfalfa ration and that the amount of urine excreted was also larger 
 and had a higher specific gravity. The excess, however, was never 
 found great enough to cause any inconvenience. These experiments 
 at the Utah Station are especially interesting since they confirm the 
 results of twelve years' practical tests of the feeding value of alfalfa. 
 During this period the station horses have always received this 
 material as a coarse fodder, except when they were fed other rations 
 for experimental purposes. 
 
 From a study of the comparative digestibility of alfalfa hay and 
 meadow hay by horses, Muntz and Girard a concluded that the former 
 is superior as regards nitrogenous constituents and the latter as regards 
 carbohydrates. 
 
 In studies at the Wyoming Station, undertaken by F. E. EmeiyHo 
 determine what constituted maintenance rations for horses performing 
 little work, alfalfa hay constituted the principal feed, no grain being 
 supplied. It was found that farm horses required to perform very 
 little work maintained their weight on an average daily ration, per 
 1,000 pounds live weight, of 13.75 pounds alfalfa hay and 2.25 pounds 
 oat straw. A driving horse maintained his weight on a daily ration 
 of 17.71 pounds alfalfa hay and 2.83 pounds oat straw per 1,000 pounds 
 live weight. 
 
 «Ann. Agron., 24 (1898), p. 5. & Wyoming Station Press Buls. n. ser. 5, 10. 
 
27 
 
 In discussing the subject of alfalfa for horses, the California Station" 
 says in effect that in regions where it is a staple crop the quantity of 
 protein which can be supplied in green and cured alfalfa is SO great 
 that much less grain is required than when the coarse fodder consists 
 of cereal hays only. For the Pacific coast, where cereal hays replace 
 so largely those from meadow grasses, the station recommends a ration 
 of alfalfa hay with wheat hay or barley hay and grain. 
 
 In a recent discussion of the problem of horse feeding under local 
 conditions. Director Stubbs, 6 of the Louisiana stations, emphasizes the 
 value of cowpea vine hay. 
 
 The outcome of the different experiments is in accord with the 
 observation of careful feeders, viz, that the various common coarse 
 fodders may be fed to horses as circumstances demand. Although 
 timothy hay is in many regions regarded as the preferable coarse feed, 
 yet experience has shown that corn fodder, ha} r from wheat, barley, and 
 other cereal grains, and from clover, and alfalfa may be substituted for 
 it. That this is what might be expected is shown by a study of the com- 
 position of these feeding stuffs. As will be seen by reference to the 
 table above (p. 13), they resemble each other very closely in the char- 
 acter and amount of nutrients which they contain — alfalfa, clover, 
 and other leguminous hays being richer in protein than the cured 
 grasses and cereal forage. Straw is not much fed to horses in the 
 United States, but is a common feeding stuff in Europe. As shown by 
 its composition and digestibility (pp. 11, 41), it compares quite favor- 
 abh T with other coarse fodders. The substitution of one coarse fodder 
 for another in a ration should always be made on the biisis of compo- 
 sition and digestibility, rather than pound for pound. 
 
 Very few tests have been made on the comparative value of differ- 
 ent uncured feeds or different sorts of pasturage in horse feeding, 
 though all the common forage crops are regarded as wholesome if 
 properly fed. In discussing green crops for horses, c Lavalard says: 
 
 Such feed is very dependent upon the fertilizer used for the crop, the method of 
 harvesting, and the condition of the animal fed. Green fodder does not contain 
 sufficient nutritive material to make it in any real sense a feeding stuff for horses 
 performing much work. The same may be said of certain plants which have been 
 much advertised from time to time, such as furze, couch grass [sacchaline], etc. 
 
 ROOTS AND TUBERS. 
 
 Carrots, Swedish turnips or ruta-bagas, and other roots and tubers, 
 green vegetables, and fruits contain a high percentage of water and 
 small amounts of the different classes of nutrients. Generally speak- 
 ing, the percentage of crude fiber is smaller than in the green forage 
 crops; but since the proportion of nutritive material is small in com- 
 parison with the total bulk, they are ordinarily referred to as coarse 
 
 
 "California Station Bui. 132. 
 
 &Loc. cit. 
 
 c Experiment Station Record, 12 (1900-1901), p. 4. 
 
28 
 
 fodder. The use of these materials as food for horses has been 
 attempted at different times with varying success, but it is not fol- 
 lowed to any great extent in this country. In the opinion of a recent 
 German writer, about L2 pounds of raw potatoes per 1,000 pounds live 
 weight may be fed to horses with advantage and, if supplemented 
 with proper feed, there need be no fear of physiological disturbances. 
 When fed in this amount the potatoes should be mixed with hay or 
 cut straw to insure their being properly chewed. If small, they may be 
 fed whole; if large, they should be sliced. In any case only healthy. 
 ripe, unsprouted tubers should be used. It is said that horses should 
 not be watered immediately after a ration containing potatoes. 
 
 MOLASSES AND OTHER BY-PRODUCTS OF SUGAR MAKING. 
 
 The beet chips, diffusion residue, and other by-products obtained in 
 the manufacture of beet sugar, consist of the sugar beet from which a 
 considerable portion of the carbohydrates has been removed. The 
 total amount of nutritive material present, however, is fairly large. 
 These products, property speaking, are also coarse fodders. Molasses, 
 which consists almost entirely of carbohydrates (sugars), was used as 
 early as 1830 as a feed for horses, and has recently attracted consider- 
 able attention in this connection. When used for this purpose it is 
 usually sprinkled on dry feed, being first diluted with water, or it is 
 mixed with some material which absorbs it and renders it easy to 
 handle, such as peat dust, or with some material rich in nitrogen, as 
 dried blood. In the latter case the mixture more nearly represents a 
 concentrated feed than the molasses alone, or molasses mixed with an 
 absorbent material only. Cane-sugar molasses is also used as a feed- 
 ing stuff. It differs from beet molasses in that it contains glucose in 
 addition to cane sugar, and has a much smaller percentage of salts. 
 
 In this connection the experiments reporting the successful feed- 
 ing of cane molasses to over 400 work horses at a sugar plantation in 
 the Fiji Islands a are of interest. As high as 30 pounds of molasses 
 was fed per head daily at different times, but the ration finally adopted 
 consisted of 15 pounds of molasses, 3 pounds of bran, and -4 pounds of 
 maize. In addition, green sugar cane tops were fed. The health of 
 the horses remained excellent. Molasses did not cause diarrhea, but 
 rather constipation, which was counteracted by feeding bran. Feeding 
 molasses effected a saving of over $45 per head per annum. However, 
 it was believed that such a saving was possible only by reason of 
 large quantities of waste molasses and valueless cane tops available on 
 the spot. In discussing tnese experiments the following statements 
 were made: 
 
 For working horses the sugar in cane molasses is a satisfactory substitute for starchy 
 food, being readily digested * * * and 15 pounds can be given to a 1,270-pound 
 working horse with advantage to the health of the animal and to the efficiency of its 
 
 «Agr. Gaz. New South Wales, 9 (1898), p. 169. 
 
29 
 
 work. It produces do undue fattening, softness, nor injury to tiif wind. The high 
 proportion of salts in it has no injurioos effect. An albuminoid ratio as low as L:11.8 
 has proved highly suitable for heavy continuous work when a sufficient quantity of 
 digestible matter is given. 
 
 According to W. C. Stubbs, a of tin 1 Louisiana stations, cane-sugar 
 molasses has been used extensively with success for a number of years 
 for feeding horses and mules in Louisiana, many feeders keeping 
 mules exclusively on a ration of rice bran and molasses in addition to 
 cowpea hay. The general custom is to feed the molasses from a large 
 trough, allowing the mules to cat it ad libitum. It is said they will con- 
 sume with apparent relish from 8 to 12 pounds per head daily. The 
 mules at the Louisiana stations have been fed molasses daily ad libitum 
 for eight or ten years, and, according to Director Stubbs, show its good 
 effects "in their splendid condition, lively action, and endurance of 
 work." 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to note the results obtained by 
 G. E. Griffin b in the experimental feeding of cane-sugar molasses to 
 army horses in Porto Kico. In accordance with the local custom, this 
 material was fed with chopped grass, the ration being gradualh T sub- 
 stituted for the usual ration of oats and hay. The molasses was diluted 
 with 25 per cent of water, and as much as possible was mixed with the 
 chopped grass. The remainder was added to the drinking water. The 
 test reported continued some five months and led to the deduction that 
 35 pounds of grass and 13 to 15 pounds of molasses daily per 1,000 
 pounds live weight is sufficient to maintain a horse in good condition 
 in a climate like that of Porto Rico. This method of feeding, it was 
 believed, had some disadvantages, which were as follows: 
 
 Molasses attracts insects, notably flies and ants; it sticks to the animal's coat, 
 smears his face and breast, halter and halter strap, soils the clothing and equipment 
 of the men, and causes some trouble and delay in mixing it with the grass, which 
 must be cut fine. 
 
 G. H. Berns c reports the successful feeding of molasses to 100 .draft 
 horses working ten hours a day hauling very heavy loads usually at a 
 walk. The horses averaged 1,700 pounds in weight and were fed per 
 head, night and morning, 1 quart of molasses diluted with 3 quarts of 
 water and thoroughly mixed with 6 pounds of cut hay of good qual- 
 ity, 1.5 quarts of corn meal, and 2.5 quarts of coarse bran. In addi- 
 tion they were fed 5 quarts of dry oats in the middle of the day and 
 11 pounds of long hay at night. It is stated that the horses gradually 
 improved in condition and gained in weight during the fourteen months 
 covered by the test, their coats becoming sleek and glossy, while the 
 amount of work performed was the same as before the molasses ration 
 was adopted. In the meantime their general health is said to have 
 
 «Loc. cit. c'Amer. Vet. Rev., 26 (1902-3), p. 615. 
 
 &Amer. Vet. Rev., 25 (1901-2), p. 894. 
 
30 
 
 been excellent, and cases of acute indigestion or spasmodic colic very 
 rare, although formerly quite frequent. The molasses ration was 
 
 decided upon after its value had been demonstrated in a test with two 
 horses. A ration similar to the above was also fed with success to a 
 number of driving horses. 
 
 In general, do disturbance was observed in changing from an ordi- 
 nary to a molasses ration. As part of a mixed ration, the author 
 calculates that 1 quart of molasses will replace 3 to 4 quarts of oats of 
 good quality. He believes that " molasses of a good quality is a most 
 nutritious food for horses, easily digested and assimilated, and will in 
 many eases correct faulty digestive processes," and that "molasses- 
 fed horses will do fully as much work and at the same time remain, as 
 a rule, in much better general condition than animals fed on dry food, 
 while the cost of feeding is reduced from 25 to 33 per cent." 
 
 A- an outgrowth of this work Dr. Berns states that molasses has 
 been successfully fed, under his direction, to 2,500 or 3,000 horses. 
 
 The value of beet-sugar molasses as a part of a ration for horses and 
 other farm animals was tested several years ago by Dickson and Mal- 
 peaux a in France. The test with horses was made with four animals fed 
 a total ration of 15.4 pounds of oats. 11 pounds of alfalfa hay. and 
 11 pounds of wheat straw. Molasses was gradually substituted for 
 part of the oats, until 13.2 pounds of the latter and 2 of the former 
 were fed. The molasses was mixed with the drinking water. The 
 feeding was continued for about six weeks, and all the horses gained 
 slightly in weight. The authors regard the substitution of molasses 
 for part of the oats as entirely satisfactory, since it was readily eaten 
 and the vigor and weight of the horses were maintained. 
 
 Grandeau h has very recently deseribed a number of practical tests 
 in which molasses mixtures were added to the rations of horses. The 
 cost of the ration was diminished and the health and condition of the 
 animals maintained. Similar results have been reported by other 
 investigators in France and by Wibbens* in Holland. From all these 
 investigations it seems fair to conclude that molasses can be safely 
 fed to horses when its cost in comparison with other feeding stuffs 
 warrants its use. Apart from the nutritive material it supplies, it has 
 a value as an appetizer and frequently renders poor hay or other feed 
 more palatable. 
 
 The feeding value of blood molasses (a mixed feed containing dried 
 blood and beet-sugar molasses) was studied in Denmark- with 23 
 horses belonging to a Copenhagen milk company. The horses were 
 divided into two lots. One lot was fed a ration of barle}' and oats 1 :2 
 
 a Ann. Agron., 24 (1898), p. 353. 
 
 & Jour. Agr. Prat., n. ser., 4 (1902), pp. 569. o9\), 697. 
 
 cCnltora, 14 (1902), p. 520. 
 
 dLandinandsblade, 32 (1899), p. 349. 
 
31 
 
 during part of the test, and later of oats and ha\ r. Lot 2 was fed 
 the same ration except thai blood molasses was substituted for part of 
 the grain in the ratio of 1 pound to 2 pounds; 2.5 pounds to 3 pounds, 
 
 and, later, of -J pounds to 1 pounds. This latter ratio represents about 
 what was considered the comparative value of the molasses feed. In 
 earlier Scandinavian experiments the successful feeding of 2. w 2 pounds 
 of beet-sugar molasses per head daily to work horses was observed; 
 other similar tests might be cited. 
 
 FKUITS, FRESH AND DRIED. 
 
 Although horses are often given apples as they are given lumps of 
 sugar, fruit is not generally thought of as a feeding stuff, yet its use 
 for this purpose is by no means novel. The Arabs, according to K. 
 Daumas,* commonly feed their horses fresh dates. In such dates the 
 pits are soft and are eaten with the pulp. Sometimes 3 or -4 pounds 
 of fresh dates are mixed with water to a sort of mush before feeding. 
 It is believed that dates are fattening, but that they do not produce 
 muscle. 
 
 In California and possibly in other regions fruit, especially prunes 
 and other dried fruit, is sometimes fed when the market is overstocked 
 or when for some other reason it can not be profitably sold. Accord- 
 ing to a recent statement/' small prunes of low market value have 
 been successfully fed to horses for a long period. It is stated that 
 the horses eat them with relish. The pits should be crushed before 
 feeding. 
 
 The California Station d has reported analyses of a number of fresh 
 and dried fruits and discussed their value as stock feed. A recent 
 report of the Arizona Station e gives the composition of almond hulls 
 or pericarps, the portion of the almond removed before the nut is 
 marketed, and states that this material has been found to be a fatten- 
 ing feed for horses. 
 
 All common fruits when fresh are very succulent, containing on an 
 average ^0 to 90 per cent water, the nutritive material consisting 
 almost entirely of carbohydrates. When dried — i. e., concentrated 
 by evaporation — they are much more nutritious. Raisins, prunes, 
 dried peaches, etc., contain about 25 per cent water and about TO per 
 cent carbohydrates, of which a considerable part is sugar. The value 
 of sugar as a nutrient is recognized, and it is not surprising, therefore, 
 that fruits, especially after drying, should have a considerable feed- 
 ing value. 
 
 «K. Landt Akad. Handl. Ti.lskr., 34 (1895), p. 24(3. 
 
 &Les Chevaux du Sahara. Paris: Calmann Levy, 1887, p. 134. 
 
 c Pacific Rural Press, 60 (1900), p. 402. 
 
 ^ California Station Bui. 132. 
 
 ^Arizona Station Rpt. 1902, p. 269. 
 
82 
 
 INJURIOUS FEEDING STUFFS. 
 
 In feeding horses precautions should always be taken to avoid mate- 
 rials harmful in themselves, or those which have become harmful. 
 Dirt, small stones, etc., should be removed from grain by proper 
 screening, and all feeding stuffs should be clean. On this subject 
 Lavalard" says: 
 
 Some of our recent experiments have had to do with the methods of feeding. They 
 cover a number of points. The first and perhaps the most important is the advantage 
 of cleaning the grain. Grandeau showed in his experiments that oats could be sat- 
 isfactorily freed of foreign grains and impurities by some of the well-known screen- 
 ing devices. He studied the composition of the impurities, and found that some of 
 them were injurious to the health of the horses. 
 
 The importance of proper cleaning is illustrated by a point in our own experience. 
 A few years ago, after a very severe drought, we were compelled to feed oats containing 
 tares and leguminous seeds, some of which were those of the species of Lathyrus. 
 Symptoms of Lathyrus poisoning were noted in a number of horses. The attacks 
 were frequently severe and sometimes fatal. When oats were properly cleaned this 
 trouble was entirely obviated. Cleaning also increases the density of the oats by 
 removing mineral matter and dust, which may sometimes induce attacks of intestinal 
 obstruction, colic, etc. 
 
 There are a number of plants which are poisonous to horses when 
 eaten in any considerable amount. The loco plants, mostly species of 
 Astragalus, are ordinarily regarded as of this class. These plants have 
 been studied by the Colorado, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, and 
 Oklahoma stations among others, and by this Department, but the 
 results obtained are not entirely conclusive. The poisonous properties 
 of rattlebox ( Crotalaria sagittalis) were demonstrated b}^ the South 
 Dakota Station, and those of some lupines by the Montana Station. 
 According to recent experiments at the Vermont Station b the common 
 horsetail (Equisetum arvense) may cause poisoning when present in hay. 
 It was found that when horses were fed cured horsetail equal in amount 
 to not more than one-fourth of their coarse fodder ration, symptoms 
 of poisoning were noticed, and if the feeding was continued the horses 
 died. The symptoms of poisoning were less noticeable with \ T oung 
 than with old horses, and also when a liberal grain ration was supplied. 
 It was also observed that the green plant was less harmful than the 
 dry, possibly owing to the fact that green fodder is somewhat laxative. 
 
 Eeeds which are ordinarily wholesome may under certain conditions 
 be harmful. Thus there is a widespread and apparently justifiable 
 prejudice against moldy or decomposing feeding stuffs. Experi- 
 ments carried on at the Kansas and Indiana stations showed that the 
 continued feeding of moldy corn induced intestinal and nervous dis- 
 orders of a serious nature. It is a matter of common observation that 
 food which has been wet will ferment or sour readily and cause intes- 
 tinal disorders. This has to be guarded against especially in warm 
 
 "Loc. cit. 
 
 & Vermont Station Bui. 96. 
 
33 
 
 climates. Plants which are ordinarily wholesome may become harmful 
 if infested with ergot. The effect of ergot on horses has been studied 
 
 by the Iowa. Kansas, and Montana stations and others. It la gener- 
 ally conceded that the presence of ergol is a cause of rheumatism. 
 Some \'v(h[* which are regarded as wholesome when properly fed may 
 sometimes prove injurious if fed for a long time, or in improper 
 quantities. Thus, millet hay, in many sections of the Western Dinted 
 States, is believed to cause the so-called millet disease of horses. This 
 question was studied by the North Dakota Station/' It was found 
 that long-continued feeding of millet hay caused lameness and other 
 symptoms of poisoning. From the experiments and observations the 
 conclusion was drawn that feeding millet alone as a coarse fodder is 
 injurious to horses, since it produces an increased action of the kid- 
 neys and causes lameness and swelling of the joints and an infusion 
 of blood into the joints. It may also injure the texture of the bones, 
 rendering them soft and less tenacious. The bad effects due to long- 
 continued feeding of millet were observed whether the crop was cut just 
 when the heads were fully ripe or earlier, although there is a popular 
 belief that the trouble is due to harvesting the crop before the heads 
 are fully ripe. The investigation seemed to show conclusively that 
 feeding millet produced millet disease, but the specific cause tb which 
 the dangerous properties of millet are due was not learned, though 
 later work at the station indicates that it is a glucosid. 
 
 An explanation of the poisoning of stock by young sorghum and 
 some other forage plants is offered by the discovery by Dunstan and. 
 Henry b of a cyanogenetic glucosid in a number of varieties of sorghum 
 (Sorghum vulgar v), which under the influence of a special ferment 
 present in the plant liberates prussic acid. It is thought probable that 
 this acid may be likewise liberated in the digestive tract of animals 
 feeding on the } T oung plants. They did not find the glucosid in the 
 mature sorghum. For a number of years Peters, Avery, and Slade, c 
 at the Nebraska Experiment Station, have studied sorghum poisoning, 
 and have recently demonstrated the presence of cyanic acid in the 
 green leaves of young and old sorghum plants and Kafir corn. 
 
 METHOD OF FEEDING. 
 
 The method of feeding is a subject which is often discussed, the 
 questions of especial interest being the comparative merits of cooked 
 and raw feed, dry and soaked grain, ground and unground grain, and 
 cut or chaffed and uncut coarse fodder. The number of experiments 
 which have to do with these topics is not numerous. 
 
 " North Dakota Station Buls. 7, 26, and 35. 
 &Proc. Roy. Soc. [London], 70 (1902), p. 153. 
 
 c Nebraska Station Rpt. 1902, pp. 50, 55; Jour. Comp. Med. and Vet. Arch., 23 
 (1902), p. 704; Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc., 25 (1903), No. 1, p. 55. 
 
 17399— No. 125—03—3 
 
34 
 
 COOKED AND RAW FEED. 
 
 Boussingault compared oats and an equal volume of rye boiled until 
 the grain burst. The results were not favorable to cooking the feed. 
 According to another of his tests 30.8 pounds of mashed steam pota- 
 toes could not replace 11 pounds of hay. The potatoes were mixed 
 with cut straw and fed cold. 
 
 It is often claimed that cooking feed increases its palatabilit} T and 
 digestibility. The general conclusion drawn from tests with farm 
 animals is that this belief is not warranted and that the cost of cooking 
 is not made up for by the increased value of the ration. Prof. W. A. 
 Henry" states that boiled feed is useful for colts, brood mares, and 
 stallions if fed two or three times per week, and that draft horses 
 which are being prepared for sale or for exhibition may be given 
 cooked feed once a day. In his opinion an excellent feed for horses 
 is made by boiling barley and oats in a kettle with considerable water 
 and pouring the mass over chaffed hay, allowing the whole to stand 
 until the hay is well softened. Bran, roots, and a small quantity of oil 
 meal ma}' be added also. 
 
 DRY AND SOAKED FEED. 
 
 It is often said that soaking feed, especially hard grain, renders it 
 more easily masticated and improves its digestibility. It is doubtful 
 if the matter is as important with horses as some other classes of farm 
 animals. According to Wolff 6 healthy horses with good teeth digested 
 dry beans and corn as well as the same materials which had been soaked 
 in water for 24 hours. 
 
 Soaking or wetting feed may sometimes be of importance as regards 
 the health of horses. According to the experience of an English 
 feeder c chaffed straw, which was fed on account of a shortage in the 
 hay crop, gave better results when soaked than when dry. The dry 
 material caused colic and constipation. It was also observed that the 
 horses relished soaked grain (corn and oats 1:1). 
 
 It is believed that the dust in hay causes heaves, and to avoid such 
 trouble both long and cut hay, especiall\ T clover, is very often damp- 
 ened before feeding to lay the dust. 
 
 GROUND AND UNGROUND FEED. 
 
 Opinions differ as regards the advantages of grinding grain. In 
 Professor Henry's" opinion, for horses which are out of the stable 
 during the day and worked hard, all grains, with the possible excep- 
 tion of oats, should be ground, and for those at extremely hard work, 
 all grain should be ground and mixed with chaffed hay. For idle 
 
 «Loc. cit. "Live Stock Jour., 39 (1894), p. 30. 
 
 & See footnote, p. 60. 
 
85 
 
 horses, oats or grain should noi be ground, nor should bay or straw 
 be chaffed. In other words, provided the animals have time to masti 
 cute their ration thoroughly, grinding i> not necessary. Wheo this 
 
 is not the case, grinding takes the place of thorough mastication to 
 some extent and increases the assimilation of the ration. 
 
 When whole oats were compared with ground wheat and bran by 
 Sheppcrd" at the North Dakota Station the horses fed the former 
 ration ate somewhat more, and showed a slight loss in weight, while 
 doing a little less work than those fed the ground grain. 
 
 In a test of the comparative merits of timothy hay and corn and 
 clover, oats, and wheat made with two lots of work horses at the Utah 
 Station 6 the grains were fed unground for somewhat more than one- 
 half of the experimental period and ground during the remainder of 
 the period. The ground and unground grains were regarded as equally 
 satisfactory. 
 
 At the Iowa Station Wilson and Curtiss c compared whole and ground 
 grains (oats, corn, and barley) for colts, and found that somewhat 
 larger gains were made on the ground feed. 
 
 In the study of the digestibility of the different feeding stuffs car- 
 ried on at the Maryland Experiment Station Patterson d compared a 
 number of whole and ground feeds. His results show that ground 
 oats and corn were more thoroughly digested than the unground grain. 
 In this connection it should be noted that similar results have been 
 obtained in tests with other farm animals, but it is commonly believed 
 that the difference in digestibility is often not sufficient to pay for the 
 additional cost of grinding. 
 
 From the American tests and those which have been made in 
 Europe it appears fair to say that there is no very marked advantage 
 in grinding grain for health} 7 horses with good teeth. Lavalard says: 
 
 Contrary to the opinion of some experts, the writer believes it is not necessary to 
 grind grain for horses. This is especially true in the case of oats. In some of our 
 earlier experiments, where ground grain was fed, it was noticed after a few months 
 that the horses preferred to crush it themselves. Of course this does not refer to old 
 horses [i. e., horses having poor teeth]. They can be fed ground grain to advantage. 
 
 CUT AND UNCUT COARSE FODDER. 
 
 It is perhaps the general opinion that when horses have ample time 
 for chewing and digesting their feed there is no necessity for chaffing 
 or cutting hay and straw. When the time for feeding is limited 
 chaffing and cutting coarse fodder is regarded as advantageous. This 
 is an item of special importance with hard-worked horses kept in the 
 stable only at night. Furthermore, chaffed feed occupies less space 
 for storage than uncut hay or straw and can be readily handled. 
 
 « North Dakota Station Bui. 20. 'Iowa Station Bui. 18, p. 470. 
 
 &Utah Station Bui. 30. ''Maryland Station Bui. 51. 
 
36 
 
 Shredding corn fodder is regarded a> an economical practice, but 
 apparently few experiments on the comparative merits of shredded 
 and whole corn fodder for horses have vet been reported. No marked 
 variation was observed in the weights of two lots of horses fed whole 
 and cut timothy or whole and cut alfalfa and clover hay mixed in a 
 test carried on at the Utah Station/' 
 
 At the Maryland Station Patterson, 6 who studied the digestibility 
 of a number of whole and ground feeds, found that grinding corn 
 shives — i. e.. cornstalks from which the blades, husks, and pith are 
 removed — until the material resembled coarse bran did not destroy its 
 value as a coarse fodder and that the finely ground material supplied 
 the necessary bulk to the ration as well as the same material unground. 
 It was further claimed that the finely ground coarse fodder possessed 
 an advantage over the unground material in that it could be mixed 
 with grain to form a well-balanced ration and fed to horses on ship- 
 board, or under similar conditions, more readily than unground fodder 
 and grain. 
 
 COST OF A RATION. 
 
 The cost of a ration made up of the ordinary grains and coarse 
 fodders has been investigated by at least three of the American experi- 
 ment stations. The Massachusetts Hatch Station recorded the kinds 
 and amounts of foods consumed by three farm horses for five years, 
 with a view to learning the average cost of the daily feed. In the 
 different years the cost of the ration, which consisted of hay, corn, oats, 
 and other common feeding stuffs, varied from 18.5 to 2-i.8 cents per 
 head daily. 
 
 At the Oklahoma Station '■ statistics of the cost of feed of work 
 horses were also recorded in tests of the comparative value of Kafir 
 corn and maize. Red Kafir corn and maize at 20 cents per bushel, 
 oats at 25 cents per bushel, and bran at 25 cents per hundredweight 
 were used. The average cost per horse of a day's labor was estimated 
 to be IT cents. 
 
 Using mixed-grain rations, according to the New Hampshire Sta- 
 tion/ the average cost of feed per horse per year was *7-±.32. The 
 average cost for feed per hour's work performed during the two years 
 covered by the test was 3 A cents. 
 
 The data recorded above are too limited for general deduction. 
 
 FATTENING HORSES FOR MARKET. 
 
 Fattening horses so that they will reach market in good condition 
 for sale is quite an important industry in some regions. For instance. 
 in Iowa there are a number of feeders who thus prepare large num- 
 
 ' Utah Station Bui. 13. ^ Oklahoma Station Bpt 1899, p. 31. 
 
 ^ Maryland Station Bui. 51. ' New Hampshire Station Bui. 82. 
 
 •Massachusetts Hatch Station Rpt. 1893, p. 179. 
 
37 
 
 bers of horses for the Chicago market. Though few, if any, experi- 
 ments have been carried on at the stations to show the feed required 
 per pound of gain, the relative cost of gain, etc., J. A. Craig and 
 H. W. Brettell." of the Iowa Station, have described this industry on 
 t lie basis of data gathered from local feeders extensively engaged in it. 
 
 The horses are usually purchased in the fall, after the farm work is 
 over, and are stabled and fed an abundant ration, care being taken to 
 accustom them gradually to full feed in order to avoid colic. When on 
 full feed the horses studied were given, per head, 10 to 14 ears of coin 
 in the morning, at noon, and again at night, with 3 quarts of oats and 
 bran 1:2 and hay ad libitum in the middle of the forenoon and also in 
 the middle of the afternoon. Recognizing the importance of a long 
 period of rest, no feed was given from or 7 at night until 5 o'clock 
 in the morning. The horses were watered twice a day and were given 
 all the} T would drink. On account of the large number fed, the horses 
 could not be exercised, but as a rule were kept idle in the stable until 
 a few days before they were marketed. To insure good condition it 
 was found advantageous to give 0.5-0.75 pint Glauber salts per head 
 twice a week. Oil meal, it is stated, may also be given to good advan- 
 tage, as it aids greatly in putting on flesh and also makes the skin soft. 
 
 The importance of keeping mangers and feed boxes clean is insisted 
 upon, and attention is especially directed to the need of examining the 
 horses' teeth and removing with a float any sharp points which would 
 make the gums sore and thus prevent the horses from masticating their 
 feed properly. 
 
 With such feeding and care satisfactory gains were generally real- 
 ized. In one instance, it is stated, a horse fed in this manner made a 
 gain of 5.5 pounds per day for a period of fifty days, or 550 pounds in 
 one hundred da}^s. In several instances, with as many as a do/en 
 horses, a gain of 3.75 pounds per head per day was obtained through- 
 out a period of ninety days. 
 
 WATERING HORSES. 
 
 A discussion of the subject of watering horses should take into 
 account the reasons why water is needed, the amounts required, 
 the proper time for watering, and related topics. 
 
 Horses, like other animals, require water to moisten their food so 
 that the digestive juices may permeate it readily, to dilute the blood 
 and other fluids of the body, and for other physiological uses. It 
 may be assumed that under any given normal condition the body con- 
 tains a definite amount of water. When any considerable amount 
 of water is lost from the body, a sensation of thirst is experienced, 
 showing that more water is needed to take its place. Practically all 
 
 "Breeders' Gaz., 35 (1899), p. 781. 
 
38 
 
 the water excreted leaves the body in the feces, urine, perspiration, 
 and breath. The amount eliminated in each, according to Wolff, a 
 
 increases with the amount of water consumed, the largest amount 
 being excreted in the feces. In experiments which he carried on. the 
 total amount of water consumed ranged from L7.363 kilogram- to 
 34.272 kilograms (38.3 to 75.6 pounds). The feces contained from 
 4o.3 to 47. 3 per cent of the total amount excreted; the urine from 
 21.2 to 34.1* per cent. 
 
 In addition to the water drunk by horses, a considerable amount is 
 obtained in the more or less succulent food eaten. The amount of 
 water required is influenced by a number of factors, including the 
 season of the year, temperature of the surrounding air, character of 
 the feed, the individual peculiarities of the horse, the amount and 
 character of the work performed, and probably others. The amount 
 of water needed increases with the temperature and with the amount 
 of work performed, since it is very evident that both of these factors 
 increase the amount which is given off from the body in the form of 
 perspiration. Muscular work also increases the amount of water 
 vapor excreted in the breath. According to Grandeau and Leclerc/-' 
 a horse used in one of their experiments, when at rest, evaporated 6.4 
 pounds of water per day; when walking. <S.6 pounds; when walking 
 and drawing a load. 12.7 pounds; when trotting, 13.4 pounds, and 
 when trotting and drawing a load. 20.6 pounds. It is evident from 
 these figures that the amount of water excreted, and hence the amount 
 required, varies with the work performed. 
 
 It has been found that less water is required when the ration con- 
 sists largely of concentrated feed than when large amounts of coarse 
 fodder are consumed, and it is a matter of common observation that 
 less water is consumed when green, succulent feeds form a consider- 
 able part of the ration than when it consists of dry feed. That the 
 amount of water taken, even in dry feed, may be considerable is shown 
 by the fact that a ration of 12.1 pounds oats and 15.4 pounds hay, 
 according to Wolff's calculation, furnishes some 4.1 pounds water. 
 A succulent ration would furnish much more. In Grandeau and 
 Leclere's experiments with the Paris Cab Company's horses it was 
 found that with a mixed ration the average proportion of water drunk 
 to dry matter supplied was 2.1:1 when the horses were at rest, and 
 3.6:1 when they were used for cab work. In some of Wolff's experi- 
 ments the proportions varied from 2.35:1 to 3.5:1. The effect of the 
 amount of work performed and of individual peculiarities on the 
 amount of water required is illustrated by the following figures 
 obtained by Grandeau and Leclerc: Two horses consumed respectively 
 24.9 and 30.7 pounds of water per day when their work consisted only 
 
 «Landw. .Tahrb.. 1887, Sup. 3. 
 &A1111. Sci. Agron., 1888, II. p. 276. 
 
39 
 
 of walking; when the horses walked and in addition drew a load, tin* 
 amounts of water consumed were 28.9 and 35.4 pounds; when trotting 
 without a load, 31.3 and 27:6 pounds, and when trotting and drawing 
 
 a load, f>2 and 50.7 pounds, respectively. 
 
 In a number of feeding experiments carried on with horses at the 
 experiment stations in the United States the amount of water con- 
 sumed has been recorded. In tests at the New Hampshire Station." in 
 which the ration consisted of different grain mixtures, with timothy 
 hay and corn fodder, it was found that the quantity of water con- 
 sumed varied from 70.94 pounds to l M)A pounds per horse per day. It 
 was observed that both the ration consumed and the amount of work 
 performed influenced the quantity of water drunk, although the indi- 
 viduality of the horse had the most marked effect. 
 
 The amount of water consumed by horses on rations of timothy hay 
 and alfalfa hay (with oats) was studied at the Utah Station.^ It was 
 found that on an average larger amounts were consumed with the lat- 
 ter than with the former, the average amounts per day being some 
 78.51 and 88.85 pounds, respectively. The greater consumption of 
 water on the alfalfa ration induced a greater elimination by the kid- 
 neys, but so far as could be observed this was not attended by any bad 
 results nor was it found inconvenient. 
 
 At the Oklahoma Station c a pair of mules, during hot summer 
 weather, drank 113 pounds of water per head daily, and on one daj^ the 
 pair drank 350 pounds. On an average a pair of mules and horses, 
 each weighing 2,130 pounds, drank 107 pounds of -water per head per 
 day while at moderate work. In these tests the grain ration consisted 
 of Kafir corn, maize, oats, and bran. 
 
 The proper time to water horses is a matter concerning which 
 opinions differ. Many feeders believe that they should be watered 
 before feeding, while others are equally certain that feeding should 
 precede watering. Experiments made on this subject at the Utah 
 Station did not lead to definite conclusions. 
 
 The subject was recently investigated by Tangl d at Budapest. The 
 rations fed consisted of different mixtures of corn, oats, hay. and straw, 
 and a number of experiments were made in which the only condition 
 which varied was the time of watering. In some of the tests the 
 horses drank before and in some after eating, and in others after the 
 grain portion of the ration was eaten but before the hay. 
 
 Regarding these experiments Professor Tangl makes in effect the 
 following statement: So far as w r as observed the time of drinking had 
 
 a New Hampshire Station Bui. 82. 
 6 Utah Station Bui. 77. 
 ^Oklahoma Station Rpt. 1899, p. 31. 
 
 dLandw. Vers. Stat., 57 (1902), p. 329; Twentieth Century Farmer, 1892, No. 
 82, p. 1. 
 
40 
 
 DO cH'oct on the digestibility of a ration of grain and hay. When hay 
 only was fed there seemed to be a slight advantage in watering before 
 feeding. In general, horses may he watered before, during, or after 
 meals without interfering with the digestion and absorption of food. 
 All these methods of watering are equallvgood for the horse, and each 
 of them limy be employed, according to circumstances. It is obvious 
 that certain circumstances may make it necessary to adopt one or other 
 method. For instance, after severe loss of water, such as occurs in 
 consequence of long-continued, severe exertion, the animal should 
 always be allowed to drink before he is fed, as otherwise he will not 
 feed well. Although all methods of watering are equally good for the 
 horse, it is not desirable to change unnecessarily from one method to 
 another. Animals, or at least some of them, appear to be not altogether 
 indifferent to uch a change. In the experiments referred to above it 
 was found that whenever a change was made from the plan of water- 
 ing after feeding to that of watering before, the appetite fell off for 
 some days; not that the horses did not consume the whole of the food 
 given to them, but for some days together they did not eat with the 
 same avidity as before, and took a longer time to consume their rations 
 completely. A similar effect was not observed when the change was 
 from watering before to watering after feeding, or from watering 
 after to watering during meals, or when the change was in the oppo- 
 site direction to the last. It is possible that the method of watering 
 before feeding, until the animal has become accustomed to it, produces 
 a certain feeling of satiety. The time of drinking exercised a marked 
 effect on the amount of water consumed and upon the amount of water 
 excreted. The horses drank the greatest amount of water when it 
 was given after feeding and the least when it was supplied before 
 feeding. This was especially noticeable in the morning when water 
 was sometimes refused if offered before feeding. The excretion of 
 urine was directly proportional to the amount of water consumed. 
 When it is desired to increase the excretion, the author recommends 
 watering after feeding. The method of watering had no effect upon 
 the amount or qualitative composition of the feces. Body weight 
 varied with the amount of water consumed. 
 
 DIGESTIBILITY OF FEEDING STUFFS. 
 
 In the preceding pages reference has been made to the composition 
 of different feeding stuffs and to the tests of the comparative value of 
 different concentrated feeds and coarse fodders. The real value of any 
 feeding stuff is determined, not alone by its composition, but also by 
 its digestibility; that is, by the amount of material which it gives up 
 to the body in its passage through the digestive tract. It is evident 
 that if two feeding stuffs have practically the same composition, but 
 
 
41 
 
 one gives up more materia, to the body than the other, thai Is, is more 
 thoroughly digested, it must actually be more valuable than the other 
 material. The bulk of the Bubstance of almost all feeding stuffs is 
 
 insoluble when eaten. Only material in solution can pass through the 
 walls of the stomach and intestines into the circulation and be utilized 
 by the body, therefore digestibility consists chiefly in rendering insol- 
 uble materials soluble. This is effected by the aid of digestive fer- 
 ments and also by bacteria. 
 
 Digestion experiments are frequently made to learn how thoroughly 
 a given feeding stuff or ration is assimilated. The usual method is to 
 feed the material under consideration for a longer or shorter time, the 
 amount and composition being determined. From the total nutrients 
 consumed, the amount excreted and undigested in the feces is deducted, 
 showing the amount of each retained in the body. It is the usual cus- 
 tom to express the amounts digested in percentages, the results thus 
 obtained being termed coefficients of digestibility. 
 
 The digestibility of a number of different feeding stuffs has been 
 tested with horses in this country and in Europe, although the number 
 of such experiments is much smaller than in the case of cattle and 
 sheep. The most extended series of American experiments with 
 horses was carried on by Patterson at the Maryland Experiment 
 Station. In the table below the American and foreign digestion 
 experiments with horses are summarized. In a few cases values 
 obtained with ruminants are also included in the table, since no coef- 
 ficients of digestibility, obtained with horses, w^ere available, and the 
 data were needed in computing the value of rations discussed later 
 (p. 48). 
 
 Table 2. — Summary of coefficients of digestibility obtained in experiments with horses. 
 
 Kinds of fodder. 
 
 Alfalfa, uncured 
 
 Alfalfa hay 
 
 Alfalfa (hay) stalks 
 
 Alfalfa (hay) leaves 
 
 Red clover hay 
 
 Meadow hay, best quality 
 
 Meadow hay, medium quality. 
 Meadow hay, poor quality. . .". . 
 
 Meadow hay, average 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 Corn stover b 
 
 Ground corn shi ves 
 
 Wheat straw 
 
 Spelt straw 
 
 Corn silage c 
 
 Carrots 
 
 Potatoes 
 
 Shelled corn 
 
 Coefficients of digestibility, 
 
 Protein. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 78.2 
 74.6 
 72.6 
 75.5 
 55.7 
 63.5 
 57.5 
 54.6 
 57.1 
 21.2 
 64.1 
 67.5 
 27.7 
 22.9 
 49.3 
 99.3 
 88.0 
 57.8 
 
 
 Xitrogen- 
 
 Fat. 
 
 free 
 
 
 extract. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 81.0 i 
 70.2 
 
 19.1 
 
 
 63.9 
 
 76.6 
 63.5 
 
 
 28.7 
 
 22.0 
 
 65.5 
 
 18.0 
 
 58.1 
 
 23.6 
 
 52.2 
 
 20.7 
 
 56.7 
 
 47.3 
 
 47.3 
 
 73.6 
 
 68.2 
 
 59.8 
 
 47.0 
 
 65.7 
 
 28.1 
 
 20.2 
 
 17.9 
 
 80.0 
 
 68.6 
 
 
 93.8 
 
 
 99.4 
 
 47.7 
 
 88.2 
 
 a Maryland Station Bui. 51. 
 
 b Coefficients of digestibility of corn fodder as fed to ruminants. 
 
 c Coefficients of digestibility as fed to ruminants. 
 
 fiber. 
 
 Per cent. 
 46.8 
 39.0 
 - 40.3 
 62.1 
 37.4 
 48.2 
 39.0 
 37.6 
 39.7 
 42. 6 
 73. 8 
 64.6 
 17.7 
 30.0 
 
 9.1 
 
42 
 
 Table 2. — Summary of coefficients of digestibility obtained in experiments with 
 
 horses — Continued. 
 
 Com meal 
 
 Oats 
 
 Ground oats 
 
 Wheuta 
 
 Rye 
 
 Cotton-seed nival <•... 
 
 Field beans 
 
 Lupine seeds 
 
 Peas 
 
 Wheat branc 
 
 Wheat shorts*/ 
 
 Dried brewers' grains 
 
 Gluten meal c 
 
 Linseed meal <■ 
 
 Molasses 
 
 Coefficients of digestibility. 
 
 Protein. 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Nitrogen- 
 free 
 extract. 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 76.0 
 
 67.1 
 
 93.9 
 
 20.2 
 
 79.6 
 
 72.1 
 
 75.8 
 
 29.7 
 
 82.4 
 
 79.9 
 
 86.1 
 
 14.4 
 
 79.6 
 
 72.1 
 
 75.8 
 
 29.7 
 
 80.3 
 
 42.4 
 
 87.3 
 
 b 100.0 
 
 88.4 
 
 93.3 
 
 60.6 
 
 55.5 
 
 85.9 
 
 13.2 
 
 '.'3. 6 
 
 65.4 
 
 94.2 
 
 27.3 
 
 50.8 
 
 60. 8 
 
 83.0 
 
 6.9 
 
 89. 
 
 8.0 
 
 77.8 
 
 68.0 
 
 69.4 
 
 28.6 
 
 77.8 
 
 68.0 
 
 69.4 
 
 28.6 
 
 79.3 
 
 91.1 
 
 57.8 
 
 62. 6 
 
 88.2 
 
 91 1 
 96.6 
 
 89. 8 
 86.1 
 
 
 85.2 
 
 80.4 
 
 100.0 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 "As oats, no coefficients of digestibility of wheat having been found. 
 
 t'This value is without doubt much too high. 
 
 c Coefficients of digestibility as fed to ruminants. 
 
 rtAs bran, no coefficients of digestibility of shorts having been found. 
 
 In addition to the experiments reported above, a number have been 
 found on record which show the digestibility of a mixed ration, but, 
 generally speaking, the total number of digestion experiments with 
 horses is small and, as will be seen, the tests are limited to a compara- 
 tively small number of feeding stuffs. Some 36 experiments were 
 found on the digestibility of oats and 30 on the digestibility of meadow 
 hay. The total number reported with alfalfa hay was 12, and in all 
 other cases the number was very small. It is evident that more diges- 
 tion experiments are needed with some of the common feeding stuffs, 
 and that the digestibility of many additional materials should be 
 studied. 
 
 As will be seen in the majority of feeding stuffs, the percentage of 
 protein digested is fairly high, greater in grains and seeds than in ha} T 
 and grasses, and least in the case of timothy hay and spelt straw. 
 The high values reported in the table for protein of carrots and 
 molasses need some explanation. The percentage of protein in the 
 former is comparatively small, and it is doubtful if the figures reported 
 show the actual digestibility, as it is difficult to determine in the case 
 of a nutrient present in small quantities. In the case of molasses, the 
 greater part of the nitrogenous material consists of amids or other 
 nonalbuminoid bodies. It should be remembered that neither carrots 
 nor molasses is fed for protein, but rather for the carbohydrates which 
 they contain. 
 
 Generally speaking, the values obtained for the digestibility of fat 
 are rather low, the fat of oats being most digestible and that of peas 
 least digestible. In general it has been found that the determination 
 of the coefficients of the digestibility of fat presents more difficulty 
 than that of other nutrients. 
 
43 
 
 It will be seen that nitrogen-free extract is quite thoroughly assim- 
 ilated, the values ranging from LOO per cent in tin- case of molasses to 
 
 1V.'.» per cent in the case of spelt straw. The high value obtained for 
 the digestibility of this nutrient in molasses is doubtless due to the 
 fact that carbohydrates exist in it in soluble forms and hence in a con- 
 dition very favorable for assimilation. Possibly the comparatively 
 small amount of crude fiber present in carrots and potatoes accounts 
 for the high digestibility of the starch which makes up the greater 
 part of the nitrogen -free extract of the e feeds. The principal sources 
 of nitrogen-free extract in the ration are the cereal grains and their 
 by-products, and it is interesting to note that the coefficients of digest- 
 ibilitv of nitrogen-free extract of these materials i> high. In the 
 majority of feeding stuffs the crude fiber is not very thoroughly 
 digested, the coefficients of digestibility being on an average less than 
 50 per cent. The high value given in the above table for the crude 
 fiber of rye is unusual, and should be confirmed by further experiments 
 before it can be accepted. 
 
 The digestibility of the different materials wdiich make up the car- 
 bohydrate group has been recently studied by Weiser and Zalischek" 
 with horses and other farm animals. The following table shows the 
 results obtained with a horse fed different combinations of meadow 
 hay. broom-corn seed, and oats. 
 
 Table 3. — Digestibility of (liferent carbohydrates by <i horse. 
 
 Rations. 
 
 Cellulose 
 
 or crude 
 
 fiber. 
 
 Starch. 
 
 Pento- 
 
 Undeter- 
 mined 
 constitu- 
 ents. 
 
 Per cent. 
 53.2 
 
 33.8 
 49.7 
 
 l'i r cent. 
 35.8 
 
 34.0 
 57.0 
 
 Total ni- 
 trogen- 
 free 
 
 extract. 
 
 8.1 pounds meadow hay and 10.8 pounds broom- Percent. 
 
 corn seed 45. 6 
 
 7 pounds meadow hay, 6.6 pounds broom-corn | 
 
 seed, and 6.6 pounds oats 30.5 
 
 S. 3 pounds meadow hay and 7.7 pounds oats 48.7 
 
 Per cent. 
 84.9 
 
 97.7 
 96.7 
 
 Per cent. 
 70.3 
 
 70.9 
 72.0 
 
 As will be observed, the starch is much more thoroughly digested 
 than the other carbohydrates. In all the experiments the values 
 obtained for digestibility of the group, " nitrogen -free extract," were 
 comparatively low. The authors attribute this to the presence of the 
 material called " undetermined constituents," and advance the opinion 
 that this material does not consist of carbohydrates though included 
 in this group by the ordinary analytical methods. The thoroughness 
 with which the different members of the carbohydrate group were 
 digested by the horse and other farm animals is discussed in the fol- 
 lowing section. 
 
 "Arch. Physiol. [Pfliiger], 93 (1902), p. 98. 
 
44 
 
 COMPARATIVE DIGESTIBILITY BY HORSES AND RUMINANTS. 
 
 In computing the digestible nutrients furnished by different feeding 
 stuff's, it has been a common custom to use available data obtained from 
 digestion experiments with farm animals without distinguishing 
 between ruminants and nonruminants, although differences had been 
 pointed out by a number of observers. The extended investigations 
 of Wolff a and his associates on the comparative digestive power of 
 horses and sheep furnished much information on the subject. Dietrich 
 and Konig^ summarized the available data regarding the question and 
 discussed it. The matter was also considered in the summary pre- 
 pared by fiord an and Hall/ 
 
 The following table compares the coefficients of digestibility obtained 
 with ruminants (chiefly sheep) and horses, the values given being the 
 average of a large number of European and American experiments. 
 
 Table 4. — Comparison of digestibility of a number of different feeding stuffs by ruminants 
 
 and horses. 
 
 Feeding stuffs. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 experi- 
 ments. 
 
 Protein. 
 
 Fat. 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen- 
 free ex- 
 tract. 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Meadow hay: 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 178 
 30 
 
 Per ct. 
 58.6 
 57.1 
 
 Per ct. 
 53.6 
 20.7 
 
 Perct. 
 63.5 
 56.7 
 
 P( r d. 
 GO. 9 
 
 
 39.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.5 
 
 32.9 
 
 6.8 
 
 21.2 
 
 
 
 
 Timothy hay: 
 
 Ruminants . 
 
 Horses 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 48.1 
 21.2 
 
 47! 3 
 
 64.0 
 47.3 
 
 46.6 
 42.6 
 
 Difference 
 
 
 26.9 
 
 5.4 
 
 16.7 
 
 4.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 Red-clover hay: 
 
 56 
 5 
 
 58.6 
 55.7 
 
 57.2 
 28.7 
 
 65.7 
 63.5 
 
 50.0 
 
 Horses 
 
 37.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.9 
 
 28.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 12.6 
 
 
 
 
 Alfalfa hay; 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 32 
 12 
 
 72.7 
 74.6 
 
 48.8 
 19.1 
 
 -66.6 
 
 70. 2 
 
 43. 7 
 
 Horses 
 
 39.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1.9 
 
 29.7 
 
 -3.0 
 
 4.7 
 
 
 
 
 Wheat straw: 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 3 
 6 
 
 23.4 
 27.7 
 
 35.6 
 65.7 
 
 38.7 
 28.1 
 
 55.5 
 
 
 17.7 
 
 
 
 Difference 
 
 
 -4.3 
 
 -30.1 
 
 10.6 
 
 37.8 
 
 
 
 
 Ground corn shives: 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 9 
 2 
 
 46.7 
 67.5 
 
 78.2 
 59.8 
 
 00.4 
 47.0 
 
 57.0 
 
 Horses 
 
 54.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 -20. 8 
 
 18.4 
 
 13.4 
 
 2.4 
 
 
 
 
 Oats: 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 19 
 36 
 
 79.0 
 79.6 
 
 84.9 
 72.1 
 
 76.3 
 
 75.8 
 
 30.2 
 
 Horses 
 
 29.7 
 
 
 
 Difference 
 
 
 -0.6 
 
 12.8 
 
 0.5 
 
 0.5 
 
 
 
 
 «Loc. cit., p. 60. 
 
 kZusammensetzung und Verdaulichkeit der Futtermittel, 2. ed., vol. 2, pp. 1070,1128. 
 
 "US. Dept. Agr., Office of Experimental Stations Bui. 77. 
 
45 
 
 Table 4. — Comparison of digestibility of a number of different feeding stuff* by ruminants 
 
 and horses— Continued. 
 
 Feeding Btuffc. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 experi- 
 ments. 
 
 Protein. 
 
 F;<U. 
 
 N i I r. .- 
 
 gen- 
 tract 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Corn meal: 
 
 13 
 4 
 
 PercL 
 
 71.1 
 76.0 
 
 92. 1 
 67. 1 
 
 Per el. 
 
 '.'I.:; 
 
 Per el. 
 
 
 20.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -4.9 
 
 25. 8 
 
 0.4 
 
 33.6 
 
 
 
 
 Field beans: 
 
 18 
 
 88.1 
 85.9 
 
 IS. 2 
 
 91.6 
 93. 6 
 
 71.9 
 
 
 65.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.2 73.5 
 
 -2.0 
 
 6.5 
 
 Potatoes: 
 
 Ruminants 
 
 Horses 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 56.] 2.4 
 88.0 
 
 90.3 
 99.4 
 
 "'9.1 
 
 
 
 —31.9 ■> 4 -9 1 
 
 -9.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 As it will he seen in nearly every case the ruminants digested a larger 
 percentage of fat, carbohydrates, and crude fiber than horses, the differ- 
 ences being most marked in the case of the crude fiber. These results. 
 are, it seems fair to say, in accord with what might be expected from 
 differences in the digestive organs of the different classes of animals. 
 The ruminants have an opportunity to chew T their food more thoroughly 
 than horses and retain it longer in the digestive tract. It is said that 
 on an average horses retain their food 4 days or less; cattle, 3 or 4 to 
 7 or 8 days; sheep or goats from 3 or 4 days with ordinary rations to 
 7 or 8 days when straw is eaten. That the food is actually more finely 
 divided by ruminants in chewing and digesting is indicated by the 
 mechanical condition of the feces; those from horses containing an 
 abundance of fairly large fragments of hay and other coarse fodders, 
 etc.. while the feces of cattle commonly contain undigested residue in 
 a finer state of division. In the case of sheep the feces contain the 
 undigested residue in still smaller fragments. It is well known that 
 fineness of division is an important factor in considering the thorough- 
 ness of digestion. The length of time an}' given food material remains 
 in the digestive tract is also important. It is perhaps generally believed 
 that crude fiber is chiefly digested by the action of bacteria in the 
 intestine and it is obvious that the longer materials remain in the intes- 
 tine the greater the opportunity for the action of such micro-organisms. 
 
 Weiser and Zalischek/' in their investigation of the digestibility of 
 the different constituents of the carbohydrate group, report results 
 obtained with a horse and other farm animals. In nearly every case 
 the rations were made up of different combinations of meadow hay. 
 broom-corn seed, and oats. It is interesting to compare the average 
 digestibility by different farm animals of the constituents into which 
 
 «Loc. cit. 
 
46 
 
 the carbohydrate group was divided. In the, case, of pentosans a steer 
 
 digested on an average 63.4, sheep 53.6, horse 45.5, and swine 47.9 
 per cent. In the ease of crude fiber the values were, steer 50, sheep 
 55.1, horse 40.6, and swine 22.8 per cent. The values for starch were, 
 for a steer 96.6, sheep 89.4, horse 93.1, and swine 98.3. The values 
 for the undetermined constituents were, for a steer 44.8, sheep 3jJ.9, 
 horse 42.3, and swine 28 per cent, and for total nitrogen-free extract, 
 steer 74.7, sheep 68.5, horse 71.1, and swine 85.6 per cent. As will 
 be observed the horse, generally speaking, digested different carbo- 
 hydrates less thoroughly than the ruminants but more thoroughly than 
 the swine. 
 
 The faet that, other things being equal, horses digest their feed less 
 thoroughly than cattle, i. e., retain less nutritive material from any 
 given ration when it passes through the digestive tract, has been long 
 recognized. For this reason horse manure is richer than manure from 
 cattle. In other words, the horse manure contains a larger proportion 
 of the ration than cow manure, and hence, more of the nitrogen and 
 mineral matter, especially phosphoric acid and potash, originally pres- 
 ent in the ration. Investigations carried on by I. P. Roberts, G. C. 
 Watson, and others at the New York Cornell Station have to do with 
 this subject. 
 
 The value of the manure produced by horses was studied by Armsby b 
 at the Pennsylvania Station. Observations made with a number of 
 horses indicate that a horse produces annually about 12,700 pounds of 
 fresh manure, not including the amount dropped while at work. This 
 quantity, which would be worth about $13.50 as fertilizer, would 
 require the use of about 2, 500 pounds of straw for bedding. According 
 to the author's calculations a ton of wheat straw economically used for 
 bedding horses may result in 6 tons of fresh manure, although in gen- 
 eral practice the amount is not likely to exceed 5 tons and may be 
 much less if few animals are kept or the manure is infrequently 
 removed. 
 
 RATIONS ACTUALLY FED AND FEEDING STANDARDS. 
 
 The amount of the different feeding stuffs required and hence the 
 quantity of nutrients supplied to horses may be learned by observa- 
 tion or experiment or a combination of the two methods. Doubtless 
 all practical horse feeders supply rations which they believe are suited 
 to their horses' needs, and in stables where horses are fed in any con- 
 siderable number economy demands that the amount fed shall be fixed 
 and not vary according to the wishes of the feeder. When the feed- 
 ing stuffs used are weighed and the condition of the horses is noted, a 
 
 « See especially New York Cornell Station Bui. 56, p. 169. 
 b Pennsylvania Station Rpt. 1892, p. 79. 
 
47 
 
 feeding experiment results. Using average values obtained from 
 many more or less complicated feeding experiments and other investi- 
 gations, so-called feeding standards have been devised which are 
 designed to show the amount of the different nutrients required per 
 
 day for various conditions of work and rest. For the sake of uni- 
 formity, the standards are usually calculated on the uniform basis of 
 1,000 pounds live weight. The feeding standards show the amount of 
 protein, fat. and carbohydrates required daily, and often the nutritive 
 ratio also; that is, the ratio of protein to the sum of the carbohydrates 
 and 2.25 times the fat. It is also possible to express the feeding standards 
 in terms of protein and energy, since the functions of food, as pre- 
 viously stated, are to build and repair tissue and supply energy, 
 protein alone serving for the former purpose, while all the nutrients 
 yield energy. The best known feeding standards for horses and other 
 farm animals are those computed by Wolif and revised by Lehmann. 
 
 Very frequently so-called standards for horses have been proposed 
 which have shown the quantities of feeding stuffs required; for instance, 
 the pounds of oats and hay needed per day per 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. Such standards, or more properly standard rations, have 
 been adopted in many countries for army horses, and in other cases 
 where large numbers of horses are fed under uniform conditions. The 
 digestible nutrients furnished by such standard rations can be calcu- 
 lated by the aid of figures showing the average composition and diges- 
 tibility of the feeding stuffs. Such calculations have been often made, 
 especially by earlier investigators, on the basis of data secured by 
 digestion experiments with ruminants. However, this method can not 
 give the most satisfactor} T results. If possible, coefficients of digesti- 
 bility obtained in experiments with horses should be used. 
 
 Standard rations and feeding standards have been proposed b\ T 
 Grandeau and Leclerc, Lavalard, and others. These French investi- 
 gators based their recommendations chiefly on investigations with the 
 horses of the Paris cab companies and the French army. The work 
 extended over a number of } T ears and thousands of horses were 
 included. In connection with the work the digestibility of the ration 
 was determined. 
 
 In compiling this bulletin letters were addressed to express com- 
 panies, cab companies, fire companies, and other organizations in dif- 
 ferent cities of the United States using large numbers of horses, 
 requesting information regarding the rations fed. Information was 
 also secured regarding the average weight of the horses. Similar 
 values regarding horses fed by a number of cab companies, etc., in 
 foreign countries were compiled from available published data. The 
 rations fed army horses in the United States and other countries were 
 also learned by correspondence and by compilation from various 
 
48 
 
 sources and included for purposes of comparison as were also data 
 regarding tlie rations fed in a large number of experiments carried on 
 at the experiment stations in this country, only those tests being 
 selected in which the horses maintained their weight. 
 
 No attempt has been made to gather statistics regarding race horses, 
 hunters, fancy coach and driving horses, and similar animals, as the 
 main purpose of the table was to learn the value of the rations fed farm 
 and other work horses in this country. The table below shows the 
 nutrients furnished per 1,000 pounds live weight by these rations and 
 also the calculated digestible nutrients and the total energy supplied by 
 them. In most cases the values for digestible nutrients were calcu- 
 lated by the aid of coefficients of digestibility obtained in experiments 
 with horses and referred to on a preceding page (41). From the* data 
 thus collected the average quantities of nutrients furnished by the 
 rations of horses performing like amounts of work were calculated. 
 For purposes of comparison the Wolff-Lehmann feeding standards are 
 also included in the table as well as standards or averages proposed by 
 Lavalard and a number of other investigators. 
 
 Table 5. — Rations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrients and energy in rations 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight. 
 
 Nutrients in ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 ARMY HORSES. 
 
 United States: 
 
 Cavalrv 
 
 Artiller- 
 
 ies. 
 
 C2 
 
 Digestible nutrients in i: 
 ration per 1.000 £ 
 pounds live weight. ~ 
 
 Mules 1.025 
 
 Great Britain: 
 
 In quarters 1,125 
 
 In camp . 
 Cabs 
 
 With extra issue... 
 
 Mules (heavy 
 work). 
 
 Mules in camp 
 
 Small mules 
 
 Small mules in | BKn 
 camp. / ^ 
 
 Registered horses. . 1, 125 
 
 Pound*. Lbs. 
 
 JOats, 12 1 „ 
 
 {Hay, 14 / 2 ' 14 
 
 [Oats, 12 1 
 
 \Hay, 14 J - W 
 
 /Oats. 9 I j 
 
 \Hay. 14 \f 1>8a 
 
 lOats, 10 1 
 
 ^Hav. 12 } 2.16 
 
 [Straw, 8 J 
 
 I Oats, 12 1 „ n 
 
 \Hav. 12 / 2 - n 
 
 Oat's, 10 \ t Q .-, 
 
 Hav, 12 / 1 - J - 
 
 Oats, 12 1 
 
 Hay, 12 } 2.35 
 
 Straw, 8 J 
 
 Oats, 10 1 
 
 Hav. 12 } 2.37 
 
 Straw, 8 J 
 
 JOats. 12 1 31 
 
 \Hay, 12 f I61 
 
 fOats, 5 1 
 
 may, 10 } 2.22 
 
 [Straw. 13 I 
 
 tek::::::}^ 
 te::::d}^ 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 0.90 
 
 .84 
 
 It 
 
 .78 
 
 12. 82 
 11.96 
 11.39 
 
 .84 12.42 
 
 10.76 
 9.72 
 
 4.95 
 4.62 
 4.80 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. \ Lbs. Calo- 
 ries. 
 
 1.25 0.57 8.00 1.97 23,300 
 1.16 .53 7.4S 1.84 21,7.50 
 1.00 .48| 6.88 1.94 20.2-50 
 
 I 
 23 1. 
 
 44 7.32 1.79 21,400 
 
 1.47 .43 7.35 1.38 20,750 
 1.32 .36 6.57 1.32,18,650 
 
 .92 13.46 6.42 1.53 .51 8.11 1.84 23,500 
 
 • ! 
 
 .92 13.63 6.84 1.51 .49 8.04 1.96 23,450 
 
 I 
 
 ,S8 11.81 4.17 1.61 .47 8.27 1.5122,750 
 
 .86 14.24 9.21 1.26 .44 7.14 2.33 21,800 
 
 10.12 4.28 1.34 .32 6. 6o' 1.6019,050 
 
 13.12 3.92| 1.83, . 6l' 9.28J 1.37 25,800 
 
 .71 
 1.02 
 
49 
 
 Table 5. Rations actually fed to horses and </i</<»h/>/< 1 nutrients and energy in rationi 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight — Continued. 
 
 
 
 
 Nutrients In ration per 
 
 tible nutrients In 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 1,000 pounds 
 
 live 
 
 rati n 
 
 per 
 
 1,000 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 we 
 
 gbt. 
 
 
 pounds li 
 
 ,'iit. 
 
 7 
 
 
 i 
 
 e 
 
 Rations 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 -r 8 
 
 Z 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 actually fed. 
 
 
 
 -I 
 
 2 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 93 C 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tcZ 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 >.~ 
 
 
 St 
 
 
 "a 
 
 
 U 0> 
 
 Qj 
 
 '- 
 
 
 - - 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 y 
 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 y. 
 
 a 
 
 
 ak.my horses — cont'd. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 France: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Peace footing, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 maintenance ra- 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 U)s. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Calo- 
 
 tion- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ries. 
 
 Reserve 
 
 1,050 
 
 fOats, 13.01 
 
 1 Hay, 8.82 
 
 \ 2.09 
 
 0.83 
 
 10.81 
 
 3.4! 
 
 1.50 
 
 0.49 
 
 
 1.21 
 
 21, 1.50 
 
 Line 
 
 1,050 
 850 
 
 (Oats, 11.46 .... 
 
 | 1.84 
 
 .73 
 
 9.50 
 
 2.99 
 
 1.31 
 
 . 13 
 
 6.65 
 
 1.06 
 
 18,550 
 20, 400 
 
 Light cavalry . 
 
 \Hav, 7.72 
 
 (Oats, 10.36 .... 
 \Hav, 6.61 
 
 1 2. 01 
 
 .80 
 
 10. 42 
 
 3.24 
 
 1.45 
 
 .47 
 
 7. 32 
 
 1.14 
 
 Artillery and 
 train. 
 
 1,075 
 
 (Oat's, 12.35 .... 
 \Hav, 8.49 
 
 } 1.94 
 
 . 77 
 
 10.07 
 
 3.19 
 
 1.39 
 
 .45 
 
 7.03 
 
 1.13 
 
 19, 650 
 
 Mules 
 
 950 
 
 (Oats, 10.8 
 
 \Hay. 7.5 
 
 1 1.94 
 
 .77 
 
 9.99 
 
 3.18 
 
 1.38 
 
 .44 
 
 6.98 
 
 1.13 
 
 19,500 
 
 War footing, main- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tenance ration — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Reserve 
 
 1,050 
 
 fOats, 14.7 
 
 \Hay, 8.82 
 
 )■ 2.27 
 
 .90 
 
 11.75 
 
 3.58 
 
 1.63 
 
 .54 
 
 8.28 
 
 1.26 
 
 23,050 
 
 Line 
 
 1,050 
 
 JOats, 13.54 
 
 \Hay, 7.72 
 
 (Oats, 11.76.... 
 (Hay, 6.61 
 
 [■ 2.05 
 
 .83 
 
 10.65 
 
 3. 20 
 
 1.48 
 
 .50 
 
 7. 52 
 
 1.12 
 
 20,900 
 
 Light cavalry . 
 
 850 
 
 )■ 2.19 
 
 .88 
 
 11.39 
 
 3.41 
 
 1.59 
 
 ■« 
 
 8.05 
 
 1.19 
 
 22,400 
 
 Artillery and 
 train. 
 
 }l,075 
 
 (Oats, 14.2 
 
 \Hay, 8.49 
 
 [• 2. 13 
 
 .86 
 
 11.07 
 
 3.38 
 
 1.53 
 
 „ 
 
 7.80 
 
 1.18 
 
 21,700 
 
 Germany: 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Heavy ration— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Oats, 11.16.... 
 
 ] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Garrison 
 
 1,050 
 
 { Hay, 5.58 
 
 (Straw, 7.81.... 
 [Oats,12.27.... 
 
 [ 1.88 
 
 .80 
 
 11.29 
 
 5.19 
 
 1. 25 
 
 ..50 
 
 6.81 
 
 1.33 
 
 19,550 
 
 March 
 
 1,050 
 
 { Ha v, 3.34 
 
 [Straw. 3.9 
 
 [Oats, 12.61.... 
 
 1.66 
 
 1 
 
 .72 
 
 9.59 
 
 3.41 
 
 1.19 
 
 .48 
 
 6.36 
 
 .93 
 
 17,800 
 
 Field 
 
 1,050 
 
 { Ha v, 3.34 
 
 [Straw, 3.9 
 
 V 1.70 
 
 .74 
 
 9.77 
 
 3.45 
 
 1.22 
 
 .49 
 
 6.50 
 
 . 94 18, 150 
 
 Light cavalry 
 in garrison. 
 
 }l,050 
 
 [Oats, 10.6 
 
 Hav, 5.58 
 
 [Straw, 7.81....' 
 
 I 1.83 
 
 . 77 
 
 10.97 
 
 5.13 
 
 1.21 
 
 .4S 
 
 6.57 
 
 1.31 
 
 18,950 
 
 Light cavalry 
 on march. 
 
 }l,050 
 
 [Oats, 11.5 ' 
 
 { Ha v. 3.34 
 
 [Straw, 3.9 
 
 I 1.58 
 
 .70 
 
 9.15 
 
 3.33 
 
 1.13 
 
 .46 
 
 6.04 
 
 .90 
 
 16, 950 
 
 Light cavalry 
 in field. 
 
 }l,050 
 
 [Oats, 12.61.... 
 
 Hav, 3.34 
 
 [Straw, 3.39.... 
 
 I 1.69 
 
 .73 
 
 9.58 
 
 3.27 
 
 1.21 
 
 .49 
 
 6.45 
 
 .90 
 
 17,950 
 
 Light ration- 
 
 
 [Oats, 9.48 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Garrison 
 
 1,050 
 
 {Hav, 5.58 
 
 lStraw,7.81.... 
 [Oats, 10.6 : 
 
 I 1.70 
 
 1 
 
 .71 
 
 10.35 
 
 5.03 
 
 1.10 
 
 .44 
 
 6.11 
 
 1.29 
 
 17,6"»0 
 
 March 
 
 1,050 
 
 {Hay, 3.34 ' 
 
 [Straw. 3.9 
 
 |Oats, 11.16.... 
 
 I 1.50 
 
 1 
 
 .65 
 
 8.66 
 
 3.24 
 
 1.07 
 
 .42 
 
 5.66 
 
 .88 
 
 15,900 
 
 Held 
 
 1,050 
 
 {Hav, 3.34 
 
 [Straw, 3.9 
 
 I 1.54 
 
 .68 
 
 8.97 
 
 3.30 
 
 1.10 
 
 .44 
 
 5.90 
 
 .89 
 
 16,550 
 
 OMNIBUS HOKSES. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 France: 
 
 
 [Beans, 1.4 
 
 Corn, 6.9 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paris, 1879 
 
 1,240 
 
 {Oats, 10.1 
 
 I 2.61 
 
 .81 
 
 16.44 
 
 5.19 
 
 1.73 
 
 .44 
 
 10.55 
 
 1.43 
 
 27,350 
 
 
 
 Hav, 9.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Straw, 10.5... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Beans, 1.4 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corn, 8.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paris, 1880 
 
 1,240 
 
 {Oats, 8.8 
 
 Hay, 7.8 
 
 [Straw, 11.1.... 1 
 
 V 2.52 
 
 .76 
 
 16.41 
 
 4.97 
 
 1.65 
 
 .42 
 
 10.60 
 
 1.31 
 
 27,000 
 
 173WJ— No. 125—03 
 
Table 5. — Rations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrients and energy in rations 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight — Continued. 
 
 OMNIBUS Hoksks- 
 
 continued. 
 
 Prance— Continued. 
 Paris, 1884 
 
 Paris, 1885 
 
 Paris, 1886 
 
 ' Paris, 1887 . 
 
 Average 
 
 STREET-CAR HORSES. 
 
 Great Britain: 
 
 London 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 Glasgow 
 
 Dublin 
 
 Various European 
 cities: 
 
 Bremen 
 
 Brussels 
 
 Bordeaux, winter . 
 Bordeaux, summer 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 Nutrients in ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1,240 
 
 1,210 J 
 
 1.240 
 
 1,240^ 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Beans, 1.4 
 Bran, 0.9. . 
 Corn, 8.5.. 
 
 Oats, 8.7 . . 
 Hav, 8.5 . . 
 Straw, 8.7. 
 Beans, 0.9 
 Bran, 0.8 . 
 Corn, 11.3. 
 Oats, 6.2 . . 
 Hay, 8.5 . . 
 Straw, 8.4. 
 Beans, 0.1 
 Bran, 0.5 . 
 Corn, 13 . . 
 Oats, 5.5 . . 
 Hav, 8.0 . . 
 Straw, 7.3. 
 (Corn, 10.8. 
 Oats, 8.1.., 
 Hav. 8.7 . . 
 Straw, 8.2. 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 [Corn, 7 . . 
 Oats, 3... 
 Peas, 3 .. 
 Hay, 12.. 
 [Straw, 1 . 
 [Beans, 4 . 
 Corn, 12 . 
 Bran.l .. 
 Hay, 14.. 
 [Corn, 11 . 
 Oats, 6... 
 Bran, 0.5. 
 Hav, 8.5 . 
 Straw, 1 . 
 Corn, 14 . 
 Oats, 3 . . . 
 Bran, 0.5. 
 Hay, 12.. 
 
 {Corn, 14.3. 
 Oats, 2.2 . . 
 Peas, 1.1 . . 
 Hay, 8.8 . . 
 Straw, 2.2. 
 {Corn, 7.7.. 
 Oats, 11... 
 Hay, 4.4 . . 
 Straw, 3.3. 
 I Corn, 15.4. 
 Hav, 13.2 . 
 IStraw, 1.1. 
 
 I Corn, 11 .. 
 Oats, 4.4 . . 
 Hav, 13.2 . 
 Straw, 1.1. 
 !Corn, 17.6. 
 Oats, 1.7 . . 
 Hay, 7.7 . . 
 Straw, 4.4. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 2. 65 
 
 2. 19 
 
 2. 32 
 
 2.55 
 
 1.73 
 
 1.91 
 
 1.81 
 
 1.86 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.78 
 
 a" 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 16.18 
 
 .68 16.06 
 
 .73 16.16 
 
 42 
 
 i. 52 
 
 .45 11.52 
 
 .43 
 
 .57 
 
 12 
 
 11.46 
 
 10.44 
 
 11.23 
 
 12. 84 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 4.64 
 
 4.38 
 
 4.04 
 
 4.41 
 
 Digestible nutrients 
 in ration per 1,000 
 pounds live weight. 
 
 IJbs. Lbs. 
 
 0.43 
 
 o * 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1.58 
 
 1.43 
 
 .34 
 
 11.09 
 
 11.22 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 c< < lo- 
 ries. 
 
 1 2M 27,550 
 
 .40 10. 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.22 
 
 27, 3.50 
 
 27, 050 
 
 1.00 .40 10. SS 1. -20 27.220 
 
 1.94 
 
 2.74 
 
 2.24 
 
 2. 26 
 
 2. 90 
 
 2.48 
 
 1.23 
 
 1.72 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.13 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 
 . 35 
 
 .13 
 
 .22 
 
 1.03 .19 
 
 7.01 
 
 .90 
 
 17,650 
 
 8.95 
 
 1.04 
 
 22,380 
 
 8.13 
 
 .73 
 
 19,590 
 
 9.01 
 
 .87 
 
 21,360 
 
 8.80 
 
 .71 
 
 20, 480 
 
 7.64 
 
 .64 
 
 18,930 
 
 8.87 
 
 .91 
 
 20,700 
 
 8.33 
 
 1.01 20,430 
 
 9.70 
 
 .69 
 
 22, 030 
 
51 
 
 Table 5. — Rations actually fed to hone* and digestibk nutrients <tn<l energy in rations 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight -< lontinued. 
 
 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 Nutrients In ration per 
 
 l.ooo pounds live 
 weight 
 
 litiit- nutrients 
 in ration per 1,000 
 pounds live weight. 
 
 3 
 
 
 : 
 - 
 
 « 
 
 8 
 
 5? 
 
 9 
 
 u 
 
 at 
 
 - e 
 
 - x 
 
 H 
 
 y. 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 - 
 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 at 
 
 9 E 
 
 <-> 
 
 %i 
 
 2 
 
 ■=. 
 
 a 
 -0 
 
 H 
 
 Q 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 w 
 
 BTRKKT CAB horses— 
 
 continued. 
 
 Various European 
 cities— Continued. 
 
 Munich 
 
 Vienna 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,150 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 fCorn, 6.6 
 
 Oats, ll 
 
 IHav. 5.5 
 
 [Straw, i.i 
 
 [Oats, 15.4 
 
 •Hav, 11 
 
 (Straw, 2.2 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 \ 1.61 
 \ 1.84 
 
 Lbs. 
 0.58 
 .73 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 10.59 
 
 10.02 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 2.64 
 3.39 
 
 Lbs. 
 1.11 
 1.29 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.35 
 
 .•13 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 7. 1« 
 6.55 
 
 Lbs. 
 0.74 
 1.13 
 
 18, 490 
 
 
 1.86 
 
 .54 
 
 11.05 2.54 
 
 1.18 
 
 .23 8.88 
 
 .85 
 
 20,075 
 
 
 }l,200 
 1,050 
 
 /Alfalfa, 21.25 . 
 \Straw, 3.2 
 
 /Oats, 10 
 
 [Hay, 12 
 
 HORSES WITH LIGHT 
 
 WORK. 
 
 Driving horse, Wyo- 
 ming station. 
 
 Carriage horse 
 
 } 2.38 
 } 2.06 
 
 .18 
 .76 
 
 5.87 
 10.42 
 
 2.34 
 3.87 
 
 1.76 
 1.40 
 
 .05 
 .40 
 
 3.58 
 6.97 
 
 .92 
 
 1.41 
 
 11,8.55 
 19,935 
 
 
 2.22 
 
 .47 
 
 8.15 
 
 3.10 
 
 1.58 
 
 .88 
 
 5.27 
 
 1.18 
 
 15,895 
 
 
 1,400 
 
 1,350 
 1,350 
 
 1,350 
 
 1,350 
 
 1,350 
 
 fGroundgrain, 
 \ 9.38. 
 
 [Hay,18 
 
 /Oats, 4 
 
 \Hav, 15 
 
 /Oats, 6 
 
 \Hav, 10 
 
 [Oats, 12 
 
 {Hay, 12 
 
 [Straw, 10 
 
 fOats, 10 
 
 < Bran, 2.5 
 
 [Hay, 7 
 
 /Oats, 12 
 
 \Hay,9 
 
 
 Fire company horses: 
 Boston, Mass 
 
 Chicago, HI 
 
 Portland. Me 
 
 Albany, X. Y 
 
 St. Lous, Mo 
 
 New York, N. Y... 
 
 I 1.65 
 
 1 1.00 
 1 .96 
 
 ■ 1.58 
 
 • 1.46 
 | 1.44 
 
 .68 
 
 .43 
 .41 
 
 .67 
 
 .58 
 .62 
 
 9.57 
 
 6.77 
 5.99 
 
 9.30 
 
 7.76 
 8.30 
 
 4.57 
 
 3.50 
 2.57 
 
 3.42 
 
 2.38 
 2.78 
 
 .87 
 
 .42 
 .52 
 
 .95 
 .99 
 
 .- 
 
 .41 
 .24 
 
 . 12 
 
 .39 
 .4 
 
 6.14 
 
 3.70 
 3.59 
 
 5.91 
 
 5.16 
 5.4 
 
 1.73 
 
 1. 15 
 1.04 
 
 1.35 
 
 .90 
 5 1.0 
 
 18,000 
 
 11,365 
 10,650 
 
 17,050 
 
 14,700 
 715,550 
 
 
 1.35 
 
 .50 
 
 7 . 95 
 
 3.-20 1 .78 
 
 .35 4.!M> 
 
 1 . •>« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 General averaare 
 
 1.57 
 
 .54 
 
 8.00 
 
 3.18 .99 
 
 .32 
 
 5.06 1.24 
 
 14,890 
 
 for light work. 
 
 }l,400 
 
 }l,400 
 
 1.325 
 1,325 
 
 [Corn, 4.67 
 
 Oats, 5.33 
 
 Corn meal, 4.16 
 
 [Hav. 15 
 
 fCorn, 4.38 
 
 Oats, 7.5 
 
 {Bran, 0.83 
 
 Corn meal,. 164 
 
 [Hay, 16 
 
 fCorn, 2 
 
 Oats, 19 
 
 [Bran, 1.5 
 
 [Hav, 9.5 
 
 [Corn, 12 
 
 {Oats, 5.25 
 
 [Hay, 20 
 
 
 
 
 HORSES WITH MOD- 
 ERATE WORK. 
 
 Express horses: 
 
 Richmond, Va., 
 summer. 
 
 Richmond, Va., 
 winter. 
 
 Jersey City 
 
 Boston 
 
 ' 1.79 
 
 2.00 
 
 2. 45 
 
 • 2.38 
 
 .78 
 
 . n; 
 
 1.03 
 1.04 
 
 11.78 
 
 12.88 
 
 13. 45 
 14.96 
 
 3.64 
 
 3.99 
 
 3. 57 
 5.32 
 
 .'.'7 
 
 1.12 
 
 1.66 
 1.28 
 
 .45 
 
 .50 
 
 .67 
 .60 
 
 8.19 
 
 8.93 
 
 - 
 9. 75 
 
 1.46 
 
 1.59 
 
 1.32 
 2.12 
 
 21, 650 
 
 23,750 
 
 25,800 
 27,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 2.15 .93 
 
 13.27 4.13 1.2fi .55 
 
 9.06 !-«« 
 
 24.550 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
52 
 
 Table 5. — Iiations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrients and energy in rations 
 calculated to oasis of 1 ,000 pounds live weight — Continued. 
 
 HORSES WITH MODER- 
 ATE work— cont'd. 
 
 Cab horses, United 
 States. 
 
 New York, X. Y .. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa . 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Do 
 
 San Francisco, Cal 
 
 Arerage 
 
 Farm horses: 
 
 Wyoming Station . 
 
 New Hampshire 
 Station. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 Lbs 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,350 
 1,350 
 
 1,000 
 1,235 
 
 1,220 
 
 1,230 
 1,220 
 
 1,250 
 
 1,170 
 1,280 
 
 1,290 
 
 1,230 
 1,300 
 1,175 
 1,280 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Oats, 14 
 
 Hay, 10 
 
 Corn, 17 
 
 Oats, 9.28 .... 
 Groundgrain. 
 
 4.40.a 
 Hay, 13.50 . . . 
 Straw, 7.10... 
 
 Oats, 10 
 
 Corn, 5 
 
 Hay, 23 
 
 Oats, 12 
 
 Hay, 12 
 
 Oats, 8 
 
 Hay, 16 
 
 Nutrients in ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 • 1.8' 
 
 2.01 
 
 2.56 
 
 1.58 
 
 1 
 
 1.88 
 
 /Alfalfa, 13.75 
 \Straw, 2.25... 
 
 {Bran, 2 
 Corn, 6 
 Gluten meal, 
 Hay, 10 
 
 {Bran, 2 
 Corn, 6 
 Oats, 8 
 Hay, 10 
 
 Hay, 10 
 
 Bran, 7 
 
 Corn, 8 
 
 Corn, 8 
 
 Linseedmeal,4 
 
 Hay,10 
 
 Bran, 2 
 
 ICorn, 8 
 Cotton -seed 
 meal, 1. 
 Hay, 10 
 
 I Bran, 2 
 Corn, 6 
 Oats, 8 
 Hav, 10 
 
 (Bran, 7 
 
 {Corn, 8 
 
 (Hay, 10 
 
 iCorn stover, 6. 
 Hav, 6 
 Corn, 7 
 Oats, 4 
 Bran, 3 
 
 fHay, 12 
 
 {Oats, 7 
 
 lCorn,7 
 
 {Corn stover, 12 
 Oats, 7 
 Corn, 7 
 
 {Corn stover, 12 
 Bran, 7 
 Corn, 7 
 
 [Hay, 12.... 
 {Bran, 7 .... 
 [Corn, 7 
 
 1.85 
 2. 
 
 2.03 
 
 2 
 2.35 
 
 1.73 
 
 2.11 
 1.96 
 
 1.74 
 
 1.85 
 1.56 
 1.94 
 1.98 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.79 
 
 82 
 
 .80 
 
 .78 
 
 90 
 
 o 
 
 Lbs 
 
 10. 72 
 
 Lbs. 
 3.53 
 
 12.13 4.13 
 
 9.30 
 
 8.87 
 
 11.51 
 
 10.49 
 
 11.92 
 
 10.80 
 
 10.44 
 
 11.75 
 
 9.87 
 
 10.57 
 
 10.97 
 
 Digestible nutrients 
 in ration per 1,000 
 pounds live weight. 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C g 
 
 c 
 
 
 u K 
 
 ?, 
 
 
 2* 
 
 8 
 
 "S 
 
 ~ 
 
 Ph 
 
 fc 
 
 £ 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1.20 0.53 7.06 1.37 
 
 1.19 .50 8.05 1 
 
 6.43 
 
 3.42 
 4.00 
 
 1.28 .63 
 
 . 95 . 42 
 . 70 . 36 
 
 4.30 
 
 1.06 .49 
 
 10.42 
 
 5.91 1.35 
 5.21 1.64 
 
 3* 
 
 Calo- 
 ries. 
 
 20,100 
 
 22,350 
 
 29,250 
 
 17,050 
 15,5.50 
 
 7.33 1.72 20,860 
 
 2.90 
 
 3.00 
 2.80 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.89 
 
 3.50 
 2.45 
 2.67 
 3.33 
 
 1.37 .03 4.03 
 
 1. 59 . 64 
 
 1.21 .50 
 
 1.18 .41 
 1. 52 . 36 
 
 .39 
 
 8.18 
 
 7.65 
 
 18 
 
 1.27 .44 8.58 
 
 1.14 .40 7.36 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.01 
 1.04 
 1.30 
 1.11 
 
 40 
 
 7.59 
 
 46 8. 14 
 40 7. 72 
 8. 07 
 .40 
 
 1.03 
 
 1.24 
 
 1.14 
 1.24 
 
 1.05 
 
 8,240 
 21,465 
 
 21,880 
 
 20, 275 
 19,000 
 
 16,915 
 
 1.29 22,485 
 
 1.10 19, .545 
 
 1.40 20,360 
 
 1.37 21,510 
 
 1.49 21,005 
 1.63 22,105 
 1.30 19,900 
 
 a Corn meal and bran, 3.07: 1.33. 
 
53 
 
 Table 5. — Rations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrients and energy in rations 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight — Continued. 
 
 HORSES WITH MODER- 
 ATE work— cont'd. 
 
 Farm horses— cont'd. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 station. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Do. 
 
 :■• 
 
 275 
 
 1.340 
 
 New Jersey station 1 , 000 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 1,000 
 
 1.150 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.180 
 
 MassachusettsSta- 1,100 
 tion. 
 
 Do 1,100 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Utah Station 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 1,125 
 
 1,200 
 
 1.125 
 
 Do 1,200 
 
 Do 1,400 
 
 Rations 
 aetuallv fed. 
 
 Nutrient- in ration per 
 
 l.ooo pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Itible nutrient- in 
 ration per 1,000 
 pounds live weight. 
 
 Poll ltd.-'. 
 
 Hay. 12 
 
 Corn. 7 
 
 Oats, 4 
 
 Bran, 3 
 
 Hay. 12 
 
 Corn, 7 
 
 Oats, 7 
 
 Bay, 6 
 
 Bran, 21 
 
 Corn, 4? 
 
 Dried brewers' 
 
 grain, 8f 
 
 Hav, 6 
 
 Bran, 2} 
 
 Corn, 44 
 
 Oats, 8$ 
 
 Hay, 8 
 
 Corn meal, 6.25 
 Dried brewers' 
 
 grain, 6.15. 
 
 fHay, 8 
 
 Corn meal, 6. 55 
 Linseed meal, 
 
 5.40. 
 
 Hay, 18 
 
 Wheat bran, 2. 
 Provender, 6= 
 
 crushed 
 
 corn, 2.73; 
 
 oats, 3.27. 
 
 Hay, 20 
 
 Wheat bran, 2. 
 Provender, 6= 
 
 crushed 
 
 corn, 2.73; 
 
 oats, 3.27. 
 
 Hay, 15 
 
 Wheat bran, 2. 
 Provender, 4= 
 
 crushed 
 
 corn, 1.73; 
 
 oats, 2.27. 
 
 Hay, 15 
 
 Wheat bran, 3. 
 Provender, 6= 
 
 crushed 
 
 corn, 2.73 
 
 oats, 3.27. 
 Timothv hav 
 
 25.8. 
 Corn, 23.7. 
 Clover hay 
 
 26.1. 
 Oats, 11.8.. 
 Wheat, 11.8 
 Clover hav 
 
 22.4. 
 Oats, 9.7 ... 
 Wheat, 9.7. 
 Timothv hav 
 
 22.4. 
 Corn, 19.4. 
 Alfalfa hav 
 
 24.5. 
 Bran and 
 
 shorts (1:1), 
 
 10. 
 
 IM. 
 
 1.87 
 
 1.70 
 
 2.23 
 
 2.24 
 
 2.61 
 
 1.96 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 O v 
 
 76 
 
 ,81 
 
 1.85 
 
 3.12 
 
 4.% 
 
 2.44 
 
 3.59 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 11.20 
 
 10.81 
 
 9.55 
 
 11.85 
 
 12.66 
 
 1.30 26.06 
 
 1.10 21.67 
 
 98 19.33 
 
 1.01 20.50 
 
 11.43 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 3.36 1.03 0.42 7.66 
 
 ,21 .93 .42 7.47 
 
 2.22 .65 6. 
 
 2.68 1.45 .56 8.65 
 
 1.49 .48 6.53 
 
 2.45 
 
 5. 25 
 
 5.77 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.58 
 
 7. 05 
 
 7.03 
 
 6. 39 
 
 5.70 
 
 1.88 .35 6.1 
 
 .>.". 
 
 .87 
 
 To 
 
 .94 
 
 1.43 
 
 3. 35 
 
 3.00 
 
 .41 
 
 . II 
 
 7.04 
 
 7.43 
 
 5.58 
 
 6.85 
 
 .61 18. 
 
 60 15.36 
 
 .53 13.67 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1.31 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.38 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.24 
 
 1.17 
 
 2.14 
 
 2.37 
 
 I. si 
 
 1.85 
 
 2.53 
 
 2.30 
 
 ,48 14.51 2.18 
 
 28 7.99 1.88 
 
 Calo- 
 ries. 
 
 20, 370 
 19, 620 
 
 22, 440 
 
 23,010 
 19,250 
 19,425 
 
 20,385 
 
 21,705 
 16,200 
 
 44,815 
 42,040 
 
 36, 520 
 35, 115 
 
 24,580 
 
54 
 
 Table 5. — Rations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrient.* and energy in rations 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds Km weight — Continued. 
 
 2 Kai. 
 
 — actually fed. 
 
 HORSES WITH MODER- 
 ATE work — cont'd. 
 
 Lbs. Pounds. 
 
 Farm horses— cont'd. 
 
 {Alfalfa hay, 
 25. 
 Bran and 
 shorts (1:1), 
 10. 
 (Timothy hav. 
 22.8. 
 
 Do 1,325 •{Bran and 
 
 shorts (1:1), 
 I 10. 
 
 fimothvhav, 
 23.5. 
 ran and 
 shorts (1:1), 
 12.2. 
 1 Alfalfa hav, 
 24.5. 
 Bran and 
 shorts (1:1), 
 12.2. 
 (Alfalfa hav, 
 25. 
 Bran and 
 shorts (1:1), 
 14.6. 
 (Alfalfa hav, 
 
 . 16 - 
 Do 1, 120 ^B ran and 
 
 shorts (1:1), 
 
 1 12.6. 
 
 (Timothy hav, 
 
 Do 1,230-^ 13.7. 
 
 [Oats. 12 
 
 (Alfalfa hay, 
 
 { 14.7. 
 
 [Oats, 11.5 
 
 Do 1,385 Alfalfa hay, 
 
 19.7. 
 
 Do 1,385 Alfalfa hav, 
 
 19.9. 
 
 Do 1,420 Alfalfa hay, 
 
 32.6. 
 
 jfHav, 19.3 
 
 Virginia station... 1,460 g™< *%££ 
 
 [ 23.1. 
 
 (Hay, 16 
 
 I Com, 14.1 
 
 Nutrients in ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Digestible nutrients « 
 in ration per 1,000 £ 
 pounds live weight. V. 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 - - 
 
 - ■- 
 
 z X 
 
 - :. 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 B - 
 set: 
 
 S M 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. IJ.s 
 
 
 Do 1.420 
 
 Do 1,400 
 
 Do 1.400 
 
 Do 1.235 
 
 0.71 11.83 5.16 
 
 2.81 0.29 8.27 L 
 
 2.17 
 2.28 
 3.82 
 4.14 
 
 3.75 
 
 1.81 
 
 2.80 
 2.04 
 2.06 
 
 3.2S 
 
 Do. 
 
 1,155 
 
 Average 
 
 Oeueral average 
 for moderate 
 work. 
 
 Y 1.95 
 } 2.10 
 
 2.46 
 2.38 
 
 75 11.93 
 
 7 s 
 
 75 12.29 
 
 ,83 
 
 7^ 
 
 1.00 
 
 12. 20 
 
 13.39 
 
 10.84 
 
 10.65 
 6.07 
 6.14 
 9.80 
 
 13.70 
 14.73 
 
 .75 11.92 
 .77 11.99 
 
 6.61 1.11 
 
 5.51 1.23 
 
 5. 09 2. 
 
 5. 32 3. 14 
 
 3. % 2. ! 
 
 4. 66 
 
 3.56 
 3.59 
 5.74 
 
 4.92 
 4.28 
 
 2.15 
 1.52 
 1.54 
 2.45 
 
 .81 
 .92 
 
 4.05 
 4. OS 
 
 1.57 
 1.49 
 
 .42 
 
 44 
 
 6.56 
 
 6.82 
 
 31 v. ",v 
 
 .38 9. 
 
 4- 6.79 
 
 . 06 
 . 06 
 .10 
 
 4.26 
 4.31 
 
 . 49 9. IS 
 .48 10.44 
 
 .40 
 .42 
 
 8.09 
 8.09 
 
 2.31 
 
 1.91 
 1.99 
 
 1.45 
 
 1.6-5 
 
 1.42 
 1.39 
 
 1.40 
 2. 24 
 
 2. 25 
 
 1.71 
 
 Calo- 
 26, 48t 
 
 20, 346 
 
 21.015 
 26, 615 
 28, 555 
 
 25, 615 
 
 19,700 
 
 22, 715 
 16,435 
 13. 740 
 21,940 
 
 24, 815 
 26,335 
 
 1.62 22.760 
 
 1.63 22.710 
 
 Farm mules. Virginia \. oin 
 Station. f 1 * 610 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.190 
 
 Do 1 020 
 
 Hav, 15.2 
 
 Corn, 10.5 
 
 Corn silage, 
 
 10.5. 
 
 Hav, 14.5 
 
 Corn, 9 2 
 
 Hav, 9.8 
 
 Corn, 6.1 
 
 Corn silage, 
 
 12.2. 
 
 1.70 
 
 .82 
 
 12.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 .72 
 
 .42 
 
 8. 22 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.54 
 
 .72 
 
 10.86 
 
 3.70 
 
 .62 
 
 .34 
 
 7.34 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.46 
 
 .69 
 
 10.29 
 
 3.61 
 
 .61 
 
 .36 
 
 6.96 
 
 1.65 
 
 21,655 
 19,030 
 18,670 
 
55 
 
 Table 5. Ration* actually fed to hones <nt<i digestible nutrients and energy in rationt 
 calculated to basis of 1,000 pounds live weight -Continued. 
 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 A 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 Nutrients In ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 
 ireight. 
 
 Digestible nutrients 
 
 in ration per 1,000 
 pounds live weight 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 PM 
 
 £ 
 
 4) 
 
 tx - 
 
 £* 
 z ■ 
 
 E 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 a 
 
 "5 
 
 1 
 
 ■z 
 
 0> 
 
 J 
 
 . - 
 
 p 
 '2 
 
 -_ 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 V 
 
 c B 
 
 '" S3 
 
 . a 
 
 a 
 w 
 
 HORSES WITH MODER- 
 
 ATK WORK — Cont'd. 
 
 Farm mules, Virginia 
 
 Station. 
 
 Do 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Jl,080 
 
 1,275 
 1,225 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 fHay, 13.4 
 
 \Corn, 11.8 
 
 fHay, 16.6 
 
 ICorn, 10.5 
 
 ICorn silage, 
 [ 14.6. 
 
 /Hav, 11.7 
 
 \Corn, 9.9 
 
 Lbs. 
 \ 1.88 
 
 • 1.84 
 
 \ 1.41 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.90 
 
 .88 
 
 .67 
 
 Lbi. 
 
 13.18 
 
 12. 96 
 9.93 
 
 Lbs. 
 3.83 
 
 4.38 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.82 
 
 .78 
 
 Lbs. 
 (1.41 
 
 .46 
 
 .32 
 
 Lbs. 
 9.34 
 
 8.84 
 
 7.00 
 
 Lbs. 
 1.54 
 
 1.96 
 
 Calo- 
 ries. 
 
 23, 510 
 23. 480 
 
 Do 
 
 2.94 
 
 .61 
 
 1.18 17,700 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 1.64 .78 
 
 11.54 
 
 3.74 
 
 .69 
 
 .39 
 
 7.95 
 
 1.60 20,675 
 
 
 |l,500 
 
 |l,500 
 
 1,500 
 1,600 
 j>l,600 
 
 }l,600 
 
 /Oats, 7.5 
 
 lHav,20 
 
 (Oats, 2 
 
 lBran,2.5 
 
 lOil meal, 0.2. . 
 
 [Hay, 20 
 
 /Oats, 15 
 
 \Hay,12 
 
 /Oats, 23 
 
 \Hay, 12 
 
 /Oats, 19 
 
 \Hay,13 
 
 (Oats, 12.5 
 
 Corn, 6.75 
 
 { Ground grain, 
 
 a4. 
 [Hay, 10 
 
 
 HORSES WITH SEVERE 
 WORK. 
 
 Truck and draft horses: 
 Chicago, 111., daily 
 ration. 
 
 Chicago, 111., holi- 
 day ration. 
 
 SouthOmaha.Xebr. 
 
 New York, N. Y 
 
 Washington, D. C, 
 summer. 
 
 Washington, D. C, 
 winter. 
 
 } 1.38 
 
 t 1.25 
 
 } 1.65 
 j- 2.14 
 } 1.88 
 
 1 1.93 
 
 .58 
 
 .47 
 
 .70 
 .91 
 .79 
 
 .81 
 
 8.99 
 
 7.74 
 
 9.57 
 11.96 
 10.74 
 
 11.19 
 
 4.34 
 
 4.16 
 
 3.27 
 3.54 
 3.49 
 
 2.83 
 
 .64 
 .53 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.44 
 1.21 
 
 1.25 
 
 .34 
 
 .26 
 
 .45 
 .61 
 .53 
 
 .51 
 
 5.11 
 
 4.11 
 
 6.23 
 8.10 
 7.11 
 
 8.16 
 
 1.79 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.27 
 1.33 
 1.34 
 
 1.03 
 
 15,450 
 
 13,000 
 
 17,800 
 22,800 
 20,200 
 
 21,550 
 
 Average (omit- 
 
 1.80 
 
 .76 
 
 10.49 
 
 3.49 
 
 1.12 
 
 .491 6.94 
 
 1.35 19,560 
 
 ting holiday 
 ration). 
 
 Draft horses, heavy, 
 hard work. Sid- 
 
 FARM HORSES, SETTE- 
 GAST'S ESTIMATE. 
 
 Light work 
 
 I2.OOO 
 
 1,250 
 1,250 
 1,250 
 
 fBeans, 6 
 
 J Oats, 13 
 
 ] Corn, 3 
 
 [Clover, 15 
 
 fOats, 8 
 
 ^Hay, 7.5 
 
 [Straw, 3 
 
 Oats, 10 
 
 Hav, 10 
 
 [Straw, 3 
 
 lOats, 13 
 
 ^Hay, 12 
 
 [Straw, 3 
 
 
 
 I 3.87 
 
 { 1.29 
 1 1.64 
 1 2.04 
 
 .75 
 
 .50 
 .63 
 .79 
 
 11.72 
 
 7.45 
 
 9.23 
 
 11.31 
 
 3.11 
 
 2.83 
 3.50 
 4.16 
 
 1.94 
 
 .87 
 1.11 
 
 1.40 
 
 .28 
 
 .29 
 .35 
 .45 
 
 5.86 
 
 4.61 
 5.80 
 7.24 
 
 1.56 18,590 
 .91 13, 10 J 
 
 Moderate work 
 
 Heavy work 
 
 1.17 16,500 
 1.40 20,650 
 
 FEEDING STANDARDS 
 AND AVERAGE RA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 Light work, Wolff- 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.5 
 2.0 
 
 2.5 
 
 .40 
 .60 
 .80 
 
 9 
 
 
 22, 150 
 
 Lehmann. 
 Medium work, Wolff- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11.0 
 
 13.3 
 
 26, 700 
 
 Lehmann. 
 Heavy work, Wolff- 
 Lehmann. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 32, 750 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <«Bran. cornmeal, and cut hay 2 : 1.6 : 4. 
 
56 
 
 Table 5. — Rations actually fed to horses and digestible nutrients and energy in rations 
 calculated /<> basis of 1,000 pounds live weight — Continued. 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 A 
 
 — 
 '~ 
 
 Rations 
 actually fed. 
 
 Nutrients in ration per 
 1,000 pounds live 
 weight. 
 
 Digestible nutrients in £ 
 ration per 1.000 £ 
 pounds live weight. 7 
 
 
 a 
 to 
 
 s 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 u 
 
 -T ~ 
 
 II 
 
 — 
 
 Z 
 
 - 
 - 
 
 "Z 
 
 Q 
 ft 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 - - 
 
 81 
 
 z M 
 
 - - 
 — 
 
 Crude fiber. 
 
 Energy In di| 
 nutrients. 
 
 FEEDING STANDARDS 
 AND AVERAGE RA- 
 TIONS — continued. 
 
 Maintenance, moder- 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 2. 14 . SS 
 
 1.95 .44 
 
 1. 60 .40 
 
 1.10 
 1.30 
 
 Lbs. Calo- 
 ries. 
 11. 15 26, 900 
 
 ate work, original, 
 Grandeau. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9. 93 23, 950 
 
 ate work, modified, 
 Grandeau. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12.14 r >7.'>00 
 
 Lawes & Gilbert's 
 computation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 nll.O 
 oll.O 
 
 5. 27 
 
 5.06 
 
 7.33 
 
 8.09 
 8.09 
 7. 96 
 
 6.94 
 
 22, 510 
 
 lard. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 22,880 
 
 AMERICAN EXPERI- 
 MENTS. 
 
 Horses with light 
 work: 
 Driving horses 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.58 
 
 .22 
 
 1. 18 15, 895 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .99 .32 
 
 1. 06 .49 
 
 1. 57 . 40 
 
 1.49 .42 
 
 .69 .39 
 
 1. 12 - 49 
 
 1. 24 14, 890 
 
 Horses with moderate 
 work: 
 Express and cab 
 horses. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L. 72(20, 860 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.62 22,760 
 
 General average.. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. 63 22. 710 
 
 Mules with moderate 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.60 20,675 
 
 work: Farm mules. 
 Horses with severe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.3519,560 
 
 work: Truck and 
 draft horses. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <i This value represents total carbohydrates plus 2.25 times the fat. 
 
 The figures in the above table, showing the amounts eaten by army 
 horses in the United States and other countries and by horses belong- 
 ing to cab companies, etc., in foreign countries, were compiled from 
 various sources, though in many cases the data have been recalculated, 
 using, as previously noted, the values for composition and digestibility 
 included in Tables 1 and 2. These figures are included chiefly for pur- 
 poses of comparison with those showing the nutrients and energy in 
 the ration of American work horses, especially those used by cab com- 
 panies, express companies, and other private firms, and by farmers in 
 different regions of the United States. 
 
 It will be noticed that the number of feeding stuffs used in making 
 up the rations fed is not large, oats and corn being the common grains, 
 and hay, usually timothy, the common coarse fodder. The amounts 
 of nutrients and energy in the different rations of the horses making 
 up the different groups varied within rather wide limits, which is not 
 surprising when it is remembered that the horses wore fed under many 
 
57 
 
 different condition- and by a large Dumber of feeders whose opinions 
 regarding what constituted a proper ration naturally differed. Takes 
 
 a^ a whole it docs not seem unfair to assume that the figures arc rea- 
 sonably trustworthy, since it is highly probable that the private linns 
 fed their horses rat ions which experience had shown were satisfactory 
 
 and in the case of the farm horses, which were without exception fed 
 at the experiment stations under controlled conditions, the rations 
 were undoubtedly adequate, since the only results included are those of 
 feeding tests in which the horses maintained their weight. As will be 
 seen, the average values for the protein and energy in the rations of 
 the horses performing light work are considerably less than similar 
 values for horses performing moderate work. The data for the for- 
 mer group is much more limited than for the latter, but the relation is 
 in accord with the commonly accepted theories. The farm mules con- 
 sumed a ration furnishing less protein and practically the same amount 
 of energy as horses performing similar work, though the tests with 
 mules are too few for general deductions. The rations of the truck 
 and draft horses performing severe muscular work furnished less pro- 
 tein and energy on an average than the rations of the horses with mod- 
 erate work. This is not in accord with commonly accepted theories 
 and may be explained in part perhaps by the fact that the data for the 
 group performing severe work is much less extended than that for 
 the group performing moderate work. There is every reason to sup- 
 pose that the truck and draft horses received rations sufficient for 
 their needs, as the firms owning them are known to make the effort to 
 maintain their horses in good condition. Such truck and draft animals 
 are often employed at work which is performed at a slow pace, and 
 undoubtedly this has a bearing on the fact that they were able to per- 
 form a large amount of work on a comparatively small ration, as the 
 speed at which work is performed has a marked effect upon the food 
 requirements. 
 
 It will be seen that the average values, representing the amounts 
 which were fed to American horses performing light, moderate, and 
 severe work, differ somewhat from the commonly accepted feeding 
 standards. The average values for horses at moderate work (express 
 horses, cab horses, and farm horses), namel}', 1.49 pounds digestible 
 protein and 22,710 calories per 1,000 pounds live weight per day are 
 considerably less than those called for by the Wolff- Lehmann standard 
 or by Grandeau's estimates. The agreement with Lavalard's figures 
 is much closer, the protein being a little larger and the energy very 
 nearly the same. The average values for horses at light work, namely, 
 0.99 pound digestible protein and 14,890 calories per 1,000 pounds 
 live weight, are also less than the values called for by the Wolff 
 standard. The greatest difference, however, is observed in the values 
 for horses with severe work, the American average being 1.12 pounds 
 
58 
 
 digestible protein and 19,560 calories. It would be going too far to 
 
 propose the adoption of these average values as standards in the place 
 of those which have been commonly accepted. It is undoubtedly true 
 that a feeding standard should be based on other data than the results 
 of feeding experiments; however, in so far as the results represent 
 the average practice of successful feeders they are worthy of con- 
 sideration, and certain]}" emphasize the importance of undertaking 
 investigations with a view to revising the standards. It should be 
 remembered that the amounts of digestible nutrients in the rations 
 actually fed were calculated with the aid of coefficients of digestibility 
 obtained with horses and are, therefore, considerably lower than would 
 be the case if average values obtained with ruminants had been used, 
 a method of calculation which has been often followed in the past, but 
 which does not seem desirable. 
 
 METHOD OF CALCULATING RATIONS. 
 
 The feeding value of any ration may be readily calculated and com- 
 pared with the standards. Suppose a horse at moderate work and 
 weighing 1,200 pounds is fed 11 pounds of oats and 10 pounds of tim- 
 othy hay daily. The Wolff-Lehniann feeding standard for horses at 
 moderate work calls for 1.8 pounds of protein and 26,700 calories per 
 thousand pounds live weight. A horse weighing 1,200 pounds would 
 therefore require 1.2 times as much, or 2.2 pounds protein and 32,000 
 calories. Oats contain 9.39 pounds of digestible protein and 122,100 
 calories per hundred pounds. Eleven pounds would therefore furnish 
 1 . 03 pounds of protein (9. 39 X 0. 11 = 1. 03), and 13,430 calories (122, 100 X 
 0.11 = 13,430). Timothy hay furnishes 1.25 pounds protein and 69,850 
 calories per hundred pounds. Ten pounds would therefore furnish 
 0.13 pounds protein (1.25X0.10=0.13) and 6,985 calories (69,850x 
 0.10=6,985). The sum of the nutrients furnished by 11 pounds of 
 oats and 10 pounds of hay would therefore be 1.16 pounds protein and 
 20,415 calories, or 1.04 pounds protein and 11,585 calories less than 
 the standard calls for. This may be made up by adding more oats, 
 hay, or other feeding stuff. The amount of oats required to furnish 
 the necessary protein may be learned from the proportion 100 : 9.39 : : 
 a?: 1.04; or, in other words, by dividing 1.04 by .0939, which gives 
 11.07. This quantity of oats would also furnish 13,517 calories, mak- 
 ing the total protein of the ration 2.2 pounds and the total fuel value 
 33,932 calories. The fuel value of the ration is in excess of the stand- 
 ard, though the agreement is close enough for all practical purposes. 
 
 As previously stated, it is not necessary that the amounts furnished 
 in a ration shall exactly equal those called for by the standard, but 
 rather that they approximate them, being greater rather than less 
 through a long period. Rations which will furnish the amounts called 
 
59 
 
 for by-other feeding standards, or by the average values deduced from 
 American rations, can, of course, be calculated in the same way. A- 
 will be noted, the amount of feeding stuffs necessary to provide nutri- 
 ents equal to the amount called for by the Wolff standard for a horse 
 at moderate work is large compared with the amounts ordinarily used 
 in this country. (See discussion on pages 57, 58.) 
 
 MUSCULAR WORK AND ITS EFFECT ON FOOD REQUIREMENTS. 
 
 It is commonly said that the amount of food required by horses is 
 proportionate to their weight; it being self-evident that a large horse 
 would require more material than a small horse to build and repair 
 the 1 body and to carry on all the vital processes which constitute 
 internal muscular work. Investigations have shown that the require- 
 ments are more nearly proportional to the surface areas than to 
 the body weight. Individual peculiarity is, of course, a factor which 
 must be reckoned with, but the general statement is justified. The 
 factor which has the greatest influence on the ration required is the 
 amount of work performed, the ration increasing with the work. 
 When horses which have been consuming a large ration and perform- 
 ing work are compelled to rest, even for a few days, the ration should 
 be diminished. Girard rt found that the horses at the Meaux farm, 
 doing hard work, were well nourished with a maximum ration of 16-20 
 litems (15-19 quarts) oats, 6.5 kilograms (14 pounds) hay, and straw 
 ad libitum. If the work stopped for three da} T s and the ration was 
 not diminished the horses were subject to paralysis, resulting in death. 
 It was therefore recommended that on Sundays and holidays the ration 
 consist of 6 liters (5.7 quarts) oats at noon, and 6 liters (5.7 (marts) of 
 bran mash night and morning, with the same amount of hay and straw 
 as before. The disease practically ceased after this practice was fol- 
 lowed. The facts brought out above are quite generally recognized 
 by large feeders and it is a common custom to diminish the rations on 
 Sundays and holidays. 
 
 In order to study the effects of work upon the amount of food 
 required it is necessary to have some means of measuring and com- 
 paring the different kinds of work done. 
 
 MEASURING MUSCULAR WORK. 
 
 It has been said already that the total work performed by a horse con- 
 sists of internal and external muscular exertion. The former includes 
 the force expended in the digesting of food, the beating of the heart, 
 etc.; the latter that expended in moving the body, i. e., in the motion 
 of forward progression, and in drawing or cariying a load. The latter 
 factor is the one of most importance in considering the horse as a 
 
 "Quoted by Lavalard, loc. cit. 
 
60 
 
 beast of burden. The amount of such muscular work has been calcu- 
 lated or measured in various ways. The methods of calculation are 
 often complex and need not be discussed in detail. The amount of 
 muscular work performed has usually been measured with some form 
 of dynamometer. An extended series of experiments in which such an 
 instrument was employed was conducted by Wolff/' The dynamometer 
 which he used consisted of a revolving arm, turning on a base, which 
 could be weighted so as to increase the friction and hence the amount 
 of work required to turn it. There were special devices for recording 
 the number of revolutions made. 
 
 According to the classic experiments of James Watts, a horse can 
 exert a power equal to 33,000 foot-pounds per minute, i. e., in 1 minute 
 can exert a force sufficient to raise 33,000 pounds 1 foot. This value 
 has been termed 1 -horse power and has been accepted as a common 
 unit for the measurement of force. In countries where the metric 
 system is employed the more common unit is the kilogrammeter. 
 This unit is equal to 7.2 foot-pounds. According to Watts's values, a 
 horse working eight hours per day would perform work represented 
 by 33,000 X 60 X 8 = 15,8^0,000 foot-pounds. Later estimates give 
 lower values. It has been calculated that an average horse will pro- 
 duce only about 22,000 foot-pounds per minute, which would be 
 equivalent to 10,560,000 foot-pounds in a working day of eight hours. 
 
 According to Wolff's experiments," the day's work of a horse haul- 
 ing a load eight hours on a level road amounted to 7,999,800 foot- 
 pounds. Working the same length of time with a dynamometer the 
 work amounted to 12,996,000 foot-pounds. As will be seen by the 
 figures given below (p. 61), Lavalard obtained larger values in his 
 calculations representing the amount of work performed daily by 
 army horses. 
 
 Mention should be made in this connection of some comparatively 
 recent investigations carried on at the American experiment stations 
 and other institutions. At the Utah, New York (Cornell), Michigan, 
 and Missouri stations and at the University of Tennessee, Sanborn, 
 Roberts, Fulton, Waters, and Carson have studied the draft of differ- 
 ent kinds of wagons under different road conditions and related topics, 
 thus securing data for estimating the work done by horses under the 
 conditions studied although the experiments were not made from this 
 standpoint. A number of the experiment stations have also devoted 
 considerable attention to testing the draft of plows and other agricul- 
 tural implements. 
 
 « For full accounts of the extended experiments of Wolff and his associates con- 
 cerning the digestibility of different feeds, the production of muscular work, etc., 
 see Landw. Vers. Stat.," 20 (1876-77), p. 125; 21 (1877-78), p. 19. Landw. Jahrb., 
 8 (1879), Sup. I; 13 (1884), p. 257; 16 (1887), Sup. Ill; 24 (1895), p. 125; also 
 Grundlagen fur die rationelle Fattening des Pferdes, Berlin, 1885. 
 
61 
 
 When a horse, docs road work it is evident thai a large animal must 
 expend more energy than a small one for the motion of forward pro- 
 gression. Lavalard " made weighings in experiments with some 30,000 
 horses belonging to the Paris cab companies and to the French army. 
 lie gives the average weight of horses of different kinds and of mules 
 as follows: 
 
 Table 6. — Average weight of horses. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Kilograms. Pounds. 
 
 Heavy draft horses 
 
 Light draft horses 
 
 Fancy horses, reserve cavalry horses, and horses of the line 
 
 Carriage horses and 1 Igh t ca valry horses 
 
 Artillery and train horses 
 
 Mules .'. 
 
 700-800 
 600-600 
 450-510 
 380-400 
 480-495 
 430 
 
 1, 540-1, 760 
 
 1,100-1,320 
 
 990-1,120 
 
 835-880 
 
 1,055-1,090 
 
 945 
 
 Taking into account the average amount of muscular work expressed 
 in foot-pounds, the speed at which work is performed, the duration of 
 the w T ork, and the amount of w T ork done at a walk and trotting, the 
 total work done per day by army horses carrying a rider weighing 80 
 kilograms (175 pounds) without a pack, and 120 kilograms (265 pounds) 
 with a pack, and 90 kilograms (200 pounds) with accouterment for 
 maneuvers, was calculated to be as follows: 
 
 Table 7. — Work performed by army horses per day. 
 
 Work per day. 
 
 ORDINARY WORK (RIDER WITHOUT PACK). 
 
 Walking. 
 Trotting . 
 
 Weight 
 carried. 
 
 Pounds. 
 176 
 176 
 
 Total 
 
 ROAD WORK (RIDER WITH PACK) 
 
 Walking. 
 Trotting. 
 
 265 
 
 265 
 
 Total 
 
 MILITARY MANEUVERS (RJ*DER WITH LIGHT 
 PACK). 
 
 Walking 
 
 Trotting 
 
 198 
 
 Total 
 
 Velocity Workper 
 second. second - 
 
 Feet. 
 5. 446 
 9.022 
 
 Foot-lbs. 
 
 958.5 
 
 1,587.9 
 
 5.446 1,443.2 
 
 9.022 2,390.8 
 
 5.446 
 9.022 
 
 1,078.3 
 1,786.4 
 
 Duration 
 
 of daily 
 
 work.* 
 
 Hrs. Min. 
 2 30 
 1 30 
 
 30 
 
 2 00 
 
 3 00 
 
 Amount 
 
 of work at 
 
 different 
 
 gaits. 
 
 Foot-lbs. 
 8, 626, 500 
 8,574,660 
 
 17,201,160 
 
 7,793,280 
 12, 910, 320 
 
 20, 703, 600 
 
 7, 762. 760 
 19,293,120 
 
 27, 055. 880 
 
 According to the calculation of an English army officer, Maj. F. 
 Smith, 6 the mean ratio of carrying power to body weight is 1 : 5.757; 
 that is to say, it takes, roughly speaking, 5.75 pounds of body weight 
 to carry 1 pound on the back during severe exertion (racing excepted). 
 The rule he gives for ascertaining the carrying power of a horse is to 
 
 « Loc. cit, 
 
 ^Queensland Agr. Jour., 4 (1899), p. 493. 
 
62 
 
 divide his body weight by 5.757, and if intended for only moderate 
 work to add to the product 28 pounds. It has to be noted that the 
 observations were made upon military horses. It is doubtful if it 
 would work out so accurately if applied to all horses used for the 
 saddle. 
 
 According to Lavalard a the general opinion of cavalry officers who 
 have studied the question is that measuring the distance covered and 
 the rate of speed is practically the only method for determining the 
 work done by a saddle horse. He states that Marcy computes that 
 the work accomplished in a given time is proportional to the square of 
 the velocity, his coefficients being 3.42 for walking or pacing,. 16 for 
 trotting, 28.62 for cantering, and 68.39 for a full gallop. In other 
 words, 4.5 times as much work is performed when trotting as when 
 walking, 1.75 times as much when galloping as trotting, and 2.5 times 
 as much at a full gallop as on an ordinary trot or canter. These val- 
 ues are calculations rather than results obtained by experiments. 
 
 According to Poncelet 6 a horse carrying a weight of 120 kilograms 
 (265 pounds) and traveling at a speed of 1.1 meters (3.6 feet) per second 
 for 10 hours per day performs 4,752,000 kilogrammeters (34,214,400 
 foot-pounds) of work. If the weight carried equals 80 kilograms (363 
 pounds) and the speed is 2.2 meters (7.3 feet) per second, 4,435,000 
 kilogrammeters (31,932,000 foot-pounds) of work will be performed 
 in 7 hours. 
 
 The Prussian cavalry horses, according to Ellenberger\s 6 estimation, 
 perform 1,500,000 kilogrammeters (10,800,000 foot-pounds) of useful 
 work daily during the winter months. In the spring and summer 
 months extra military duties increase this amount by 200,000 kilo- 
 grammeters (1,440,000 foot-pounds) daily. Different values have been 
 proposed by other investigators for saddle horses of various kinds. 
 
 The speed at which the horse travels, the way in which the load is 
 distributed, the external temperature, and other conditions evidently 
 have an effect upon the work performed. 
 
 According to Colin's 6 figures a horse walking 1 kilometer (0.63 
 mile) in 10 minutes travels at a speed of 1.66 meters (5.4 feet) per 
 second. Trotting the same distance in 4.25 minutes the distance cov- 
 ered is 3.92 meters (12.9 feet) per second. The average speed of a 
 trotting horse was calculated to be 2.72 meters (8.9 feet) per second. 
 These values refer especially to army horses. 
 
 MUSCULAR WORK IN ITS RELATION TO THE RATION. 
 
 Many experiments have been made, chiefly in Europe, to determine 
 the exact relation between the amount of muscular work performed 
 and the amount of the different nutrients required per day. It is the 
 opinion of Wolff and Muntz, and others who have been especially 
 
 "Experiment Station Record, 12 (1900-1901), p. 4. 
 & Quoted by Lavalard, loc. cit. 
 
68 
 
 active in the study of these problems, that provided a sufficient amount 
 of protein is supplied for physiological maintenance, i. e., to replace 
 the wear and tear of body tissue, it is immaterial which of the three 
 classes of nutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrates) furnishes the 
 
 energy necessary for external muscular work performed by horses. 
 The opinion of these investigators, which is quite generally accepted, 
 has been summarized as follows by Warington: a 
 
 The doctrine Laid down by Wolff and his fellow workers at Hohenheim is a very 
 simple one. He distinguishes between the food necessary to maintain the horse at 
 rest without loss of weight and the extra food which must he given when work is 
 performed, if the horse is again to he maintained, without its weight suffering loss. 
 Between the weight of digestible matter in this extra food and the quantity of work 
 accomplished there is a tolerahly uniform relation. Wolff reckons that digested 
 nutritive matter equivalent to 100 grams of starch is capable of producing 85,400 kilo- 
 grammeters of work, or, expressed in English terms, 1 pound of starch digested by a 
 horse will accomplish 1,232 foot-tons of work. This is 48 per cent of the full work 
 which the starch could accomplish if burned outside the body. The result is the 
 average of many experiments with different diets. 
 
 The horse requires for its maintenance in weight while at rest a certain daily sup- 
 ply of albuminoid substance [protein], which must never fall below r a certain quan- 
 tity ; but the extra food given when work is to be performed may consist indifferently 
 of any digestible combustible substance, whether albuminoids or not. The horse 
 keeper is thus at liberty to select from a w r ide range of foods, and is not obliged to 
 give a preference to those which are specially nitrogenous. It should, however, be 
 borne in mind that what has just been said applies strictly only to horses which are 
 already in good working condition. Horses which are low in condition, and must 
 gain in weight of muscle before they are fit for hard work, must, of course, receive 
 a more nitrogenous diet. 
 
 A view very commonly held to-day is much the same and in accord 
 with the above, viz, that provided an adequate quantity of protein 
 and energy are available for maintenance, it is theoretically immaterial 
 which class of nutrients furnish the energy for muscular work, 
 although carbohydrates and f it are practically better suited for this 
 purpose than protein, since any great excess of the latter is costly and 
 may prove injurious to the health. In this case the term maintenance 
 is not used in its strict physiological sense, but refers to a condition 
 in which no appreciable amount of external muscular work is per- 
 formed, and in w T hich the internal muscular work is fairly uniform 
 from day to day and the body weight practically constant. Most of 
 the experiments reported on the effect of muscular work on the 
 amount of nutrients required have had to do with external muscular 
 work. A number of these investigations are referred to below. The 
 effect of internal muscular w r ork on food requirements has also been 
 studied, especially in recent years. The experiments of this sort are 
 referred to on page 68. 
 
 « Jour. Bath and West of England Soc., 4. ser., 4 (1893-4), p. 188. 
 
64 
 
 The experiments which have hud to do with the rations best suited 
 for horses employed at different kinds of work are obviously attempts 
 to suit the food to the amount of work performed. 
 
 Lavalard" calculated the amount of food required by army horses 
 and mules to maintain weight on a peace and war footing as follows. 
 the amount of work in the latter case being more than in the former. 
 
 Table 8. — Oalculaied ration of French army hones and mu 
 
 
 Peace footing. 
 
 War footing. 
 
 
 Oats. 
 
 Hay. 
 
 Oats. Hay. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 13 
 11.5 
 10.4 
 12.3 
 10.8 
 
 Pounds. 
 8.8 
 
 6.6 
 
 8.5 
 7.5 
 
 Pounds. 
 14.7 
 13.5 
 11.8 
 
 14.2 
 
 Pounds. 
 8.8 
 
 Cavalry horses, line 
 
 7.7 
 
 Light cavalry horses 
 
 6.6 
 
 - i >i artillerv and train 
 
 8.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 Similar calculations, which have been made by others, have been 
 summarized in Table 5. page 49. 
 
 Grandeau's experiments* have shown the marked effect of pace on 
 the amount of labor performed and food required. He showed that a 
 horse walking 7.8 kilometers (5.8 miles) per day neither gained nor 
 lost in weight on a daily ration of 8.800 grams (40 pounds) of hay, 
 while a ration of 1<».8S6 grams (49.5 pounds) was not sufficient, pro- 
 vided the horse trotted the same distance. When the horse walked 
 tiie above distance and drew a load, the additional work being equiva- 
 lent to 60.449 kilogrammeters (437. < )80 foot-pounds), a ration of 11,975 
 grams (26.4 pounds) of hay was sufficient for maintenance. A ration 
 of 14.787 grams (32.6 pounds), all a horse would consume, was not 
 sufficient for maintenance when the same work was done trotting. 
 
 According to Grandeau 6 a horse of 500 kilograms (1.100 pounds) 
 weight by the motion of forward progression through a horizontal 
 distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) at a speed of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) 
 per second loses 2.4 kilograms (5.3 pounds) in weight. A horse of the 
 same weight covering a distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) at a speed 
 of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) per second and producing 190,000 kilograms 
 of work loses about 3.8 kilograms (8.4 pounds) in weight. Some of 
 the reasons given for the fact that rapid work is less economical than 
 slow work are the increased action of the heart when the horse is trot- 
 ting or galloping: the lifting of his own weight at each step only to 
 allow it to fall again, thus developing heat; and the increase of body 
 temperature with exertion and the loss of heat by the evaporation of water 
 through the skin and lungs. Grandeau determined the average amount 
 of water thus evaporated under different conditions of work and rest 
 with four different rations, the distance covered in everv case beinsr the 
 
 «Loc. cit. 
 
 '' See note. p. 66. 
 
65 
 
 same, and found that it varied from 6.4 pounds with a horse at rest to 
 20.6 pounds with a horse trotting and drawings load. (See also p. 
 
 The heat required for the evaporation of this amount of water is 
 quite large and necessitates the combustion of a considerable amount 
 of nutritive material in the body, thus diminishing the quantity of 
 materia] available for the production of work. 
 
 EFFECT OF MUSCULAR WORK ON DIGESTIBILITY. 
 
 Grandeau's and Leclerc's experiments also indicate that the kind of 
 work performed has some effect on digestibility. If the total amount 
 of organic matter digested while at rest he represented by the number 
 1,000, the proportion digested during different kinds of work is shown. 
 they consider, by the following table: 
 
 Rdativi proportion of total organic matter digested by horses at different conditions ofresti 
 
 and work. 
 
 At rest 1,000 
 
 Walking 1 , 032 
 
 At work walking 1 , 007 
 
 Trotting 976- 
 
 A t work tr< >tting 973 
 
 Drawing a cab 959 
 
 We see here that the moderate exercise ia accompanied by a small but distinct' 
 improvement in the digestive functions, but that as soon as trotting commences 
 digestion becomes less efficient than when at rest, while hard work while trotting 
 still further diminishes the proportion of food digested. When we look into the 
 details we find that the starch and sugar in the food are perfectly digested under all 
 conditions of labor. The digestibility of the fat increases with exercise and does not 
 diminish by labor below the point reached in repose. The digestibility of the 
 albuminoids increases rather considerably with exercise and diminishes sharply 
 when trotting commences. The principal matters usually grouped as soluble car- 
 bohydrates, but which in this case are merely the more digestible constituents of 
 the fiber, undergo the greatest amount of variation, their digestibility rising consid- 
 erably with exercise and falling still more considerably with hard labor. In the* 
 case of the more soluble portion of the fiber there is no rise in digestibility by exer- 
 cise; the maximum rate of digestion is here obtained in repose, and diminishes con. 
 siderably with increased bodily exertion. On the whole it appears that the constitu- 
 ents of the food which are most affected by rapid exertion are those whose digestion 
 takes place to a large extent in the lower part of the intestines; the motion of the 
 horse probably determines their more rapid progress through the system. 
 
 From the results of earlier experiments with German farm horses, 
 Wolff, Kellner. and associates" concluded that muscular work dimin- 
 ished digestibility little, if at all. The coefficients of digestibility of 
 the ration when work was performed were slightly lower, but the dif- 
 ferences were so small that they arc regarded as of no importance. 
 Grandeau's and Leclerc's values are within 3 per cent of those found 
 by Wolff, and it seems fair to say that from a practical standpoint the 
 diminished digestibility due to muscular work is not very important. 
 
 a Land w. Jahrb., 8 (1879), sup. I., p. 73. 
 17399— No. 125-r-OS 5 
 
66 
 
 METABOLISM EXPERIMENTS AND THE DEDUCTIONS DRAWN 
 
 FROM THEM. 
 
 There are many other complicated questions in horse feeding which 
 have received much attention from investigators. As in experiments 
 with man, the factors which serve as indices of changes going on in 
 the body have been studied in this connection, the principal ones 
 being (1) the balance of income and outgo of nitrogen, or nitrogen and 
 carbon (as in metabolism experiments and respiration experiments), 
 which is quickly modified by variations in food, work, and other con- 
 ditions; (2) the amount of carbon dioxid produced per second as 
 compared with the amount of oxygen consumed from the air, i. e., 
 the respiratory quotient, which changes very quickly when any change 
 takes place in the vital processes or in other forms of internal muscular 
 work or when the amount of external muscular work varies. In deter- 
 mining the income and outgo of nitrogen the food, urine, and feces 
 must be measured, and the amount of nitrogen in each determined. 
 No very complicated apparatus is required, and such experiments are 
 comparatively numerous. Where the income and outgo of carbon is 
 determined, as well as that of nitrogen, the experiments necessitate the 
 use of a respiration apparatus. In such experiments it is possible to 
 calculate the balance of income and outgo of matter. If at the same 
 time devices are used which permit the measurement of heat, the bal- 
 ance of income and outgo of energ} r may be studied also. The experi- 
 ments of Boussingault, Wolff, Kellner, Hofmeister, Henneberg, and 
 others, in which the balance of income and outgo of nitrogen were 
 determined, have led to a number of interesting conclusions, some of 
 which have already been referred to. Others follow. 
 
 Boussingault, who was one of the first to study these problems, 
 showed that no nitrogen was assimilated from the air, but that all 
 which was used in the body came from nitrogen compounds con- 
 sumed in the food — a very important deduction, since it showed 
 that no nitrogen could be taken from the air, and, that nitrogenous food 
 was essential. The investigations of Grandeau, Leclerc, and their 
 associates form one of the most extended studies ever undertaken 
 with farm animals. The work was carried on with a very large num- 
 ber of horses belonging to one of the Paris cab companies, and extended 
 over many years. There were seven series of experiments/' In the 
 first, a mixed ration consisting of " maize cake," horse beans, maize, 
 oats, hay, and straw was fed. The maize cake was made from starch 
 factory and distillery waste, and contained a considerable portion of 
 potato and barley as well as corn refuse. In the second series the 
 
 « ■Ann. Sci. Agron., 1884, II, p. 325; 1885, I, p. 326; 1886, II, p. 351; 1888, II, p. 211; 
 1892, I, p. 1; 1893, I, p. 1; 1896, II, p. 113. 
 
67 
 
 ration consisted of hay; In the third series, of oats and straw; in the 
 fourth series, of hay and straw; in the fifth series, of maize and straw; 
 in the sixth series, of horse beans and oat straw, and in the seventh 
 series, of maize cake and oal straw. Analyses were made of the food, 
 urine, and feces. 
 
 The effect of the rations and their digestibility was studied while the 
 horses were at rest, walking, trotting, at work while walking, and at 
 work while trotting. The work consisted in turning the arm of a 
 dynamometer a definite number of times. Experiments were also 
 made in which the horses drew a vehicle. The effects of the rations 
 under different conditions of rest and work on temperature and weight 
 of the animals were studied. Man} 7 of Grandeau's and Leclerc's 
 deductions have already been referred to, one of the most interesting 
 being a demonstration of the high value of maize as a food for horses. 
 
 MEASURING THE RESPIRATORY QUOTIENT AND THE DEDUCTIONS 
 
 DRAWN FROM IT. 
 
 Experiments in which the respiratory quotient was determined are 
 perhaps less numerous than those mentioned above. A determination 
 of the respiratoiy quotient necessitates the measurement and analysis 
 of the air taken into the lungs and excreted from them. The experi- 
 ments which have been made in Germany are ordinarily carried on 
 with the aid of a mask which covers the head, or by the insertion of a 
 silver tube in the trachea. In both cases the air is breathed in and 
 out through tubes provided with suitable valves, so that the air enters 
 through one tube and leaves through the other. The air is measured 
 and the samples anatyzed. The ratio of oxygen consumed to carbon 
 dioxid expired in a unit of time is called the respiratory quotient. 
 
 Zuntz" and Hagemann and their associates have carried on a very 
 extended series of investigations with horses. In most of these cases 
 the respiratory quotient was determined. In many other cases other 
 determinations, including the balance of income and outgo of nitrogen 
 and carbon, were also made. Work was performed with a sort of 
 treadmill and the amount could be measured. The deductions drawn 
 from these experiments are of great interest, and some of the principal 
 ones follow. 
 
 A horse weighing from 400 to 500 kilograms (880 to 1,100 pounds) 
 excretes 26 to 40 liters (27 to 42 quarts) per minute from the lungs 
 when no work is performed. If a horse takes exercise by walking 
 the amount is increased to 80 to 90 liters (84 to 95 quarts) per minute. 
 If 75 kilograms (542 foot-pounds) of work is done per second the 
 respired air increases to 300 liters (317 quarts) per minute. If the 
 
 «Landw. Jahrb., 27 (1898), Sup. Ill; see also Deut. Landw. Presse, 23 (1896), 
 pp. 561, 571, 579. 
 
68 
 
 work is still further increased the respired air amounts to 450 to 500 
 liters (475 to 528 quarts) per minute — in other words. 14 to 15 times what 
 it was when no work was performed. However, in these different 
 cases the ratio of carbon dioxid to oxygen has been found to vary 
 very little. 
 
 PROPORTION OF ENERGY OF FOOD EXPENDED FOR INTERNAL 
 AND EXTERNAL MUSCULAR WORK. 
 
 A horse converts 38.3 per cent of the energy of food into mechanical 
 work. On account of the energy required for respiration, the beating 
 of the heart, etc., only about 34 per cent of the energy of the food is 
 actually available for external muscular work. The best record for a 
 steam engine is said to be an efficiency per indicated horsepower of 
 22.7 per cent on the basis of total heat supply. Per delivered horse- 
 power the amount is probabh' 10 per cent less. The animal is there- 
 fore seen to be a much more efficient machine than the engine. 
 
 Tests were made with a horse walking on a level, walking up an 
 incline, and hauling a load on a level, and it was found that in the last 
 •case the energy of the food was not quite so , economically used as in 
 the first case. On the basis of his experiments, Zuntz computes that a 
 borse weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) and performing no work 
 requires 3,201 grams (7.1 pounds) of total nutrients containing 1,382 
 grams (3 pounds) of crude fiber. By total nutrients is meant the sum 
 of the protein, carbohydrates, and fat multiplied by 2.4/' Of this quan- 
 tity of total nutrients not less than 2,100 grams (4.6 pounds) is required 
 for the internal muscular work expended in digesting and assimilating 
 the food, and 1,100 grams (2.4 pounds) for other purposes (largely 
 .some form of internal muscular work). Zuntz found that the amount 
 of food required was affected by anything that disturbed the horse. 
 In one experiment a horse confined in a stable was much disturbed by 
 flies and consequently restless. The increased work in fighting the 
 flies caused an increase of 10 per cent of the carbon dioxid excreted. 
 This means that more food material was burned in the body than was 
 .the case when the horse was quiet, for the combustion of food in the 
 .body, it will be remembered, furnishes the carbon dioxid excreted in 
 the breath. 
 
 In addition to other matters, Zuntz noted that the effect of body 
 vconformation had a marked effect on the economical production of 
 work. He found that defects in external conformation and move- 
 ments necessitate an increased amount of muscular exertion. This 
 has an important bearing upon the market value of the horses. Too 
 
 "Zuntz uses this factor instead of 2.25, the factor commonly used by American 
 investigators. 
 
69 
 
 low a stall temperature also increases the amount of material required 
 for maintenance. In many cases observed, this increase was hardly 
 
 covered by 2 pounds <>t* oats daily. 
 
 ENERGY REQUIRED TO CHEW AND DIGEST FOOD. 
 
 One of the most interesting of the lines of investigations followed 
 by Zuntz was the determination of the energy required to chew and 
 digest different foods. The experiments were complicated and too 
 extended to describe here except in very general terms. As has been 
 said, the respiratory quotient is a very delicate index of the changes 
 which take place in the body, and it was found that the internal 
 muscular work expended in chewing, swallowing, and digesting food 
 could be determined by the variations in the respiratory quotient and 
 the amount of carbon dioxid excreted when this kind of work was per- 
 formed, as compared with the amount when the animal rested. Different 
 feeding stuffs modified the respiratory quotient in different wa} T s, and 
 it was evident that some required more labor for digestion and assimi- 
 lation than others. This is a matter of considerable importance, and it 
 is evident that if two feeding stuffs of practically the same composition 
 are digested with equal thoroughness but one requires for digestion 
 and assimilation the expenditure of more internal muscular work than 
 the other, it is realty less valuable; in other words, the two ma} T con- 
 tain the same amount of digestible nutrients, but one causes the 
 body more labor to assimilate than the other. On the basis of his 
 average figures of composition and digestibility, 2.2 pounds of hay (1 
 kilogram) furnishes 0.862 pound of total nutrients, and 2.2 pounds 
 (1 kilogram) of oats 1.353 pounds of nutrients. As regards nutri- 
 tive value, hay and oats are therefore commonly said to be to each 
 other as 400 : 600. As shown by Zuntz's experiments, 0.265 pound (115 
 grams), or 20 per cent of the total nutritive material present in 2.2 
 pounds (1 kilogram), of oats is expended in the labor of chewing and 
 digesting them. In the case of 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of hay, 0.448 
 pound (205 grams), or 49 per cent of the total nutritive material, is 
 required for the same purpose. Therefore hay and oats stand really in 
 the proportion of 203 :480. In other words, oats surpass hay in feed- 
 ing value two and one-half times instead of one-half times, as they are 
 ordinarily assumed to do. 
 
 "TRUE NUTRITIVE VALUE' 1 OF FEEDING STUFFS. 
 
 Taking into account the internal muscular work required to chew 
 and digest foods and deducting this from the digestible nutrients pres- 
 ent in the foods, Zuntz calculated what we may call the "true nutri- 
 tive value" of a number of feeding stuffs with special reference to 
 horses. The results are shown in the following: table: 
 
70 
 
 Table 9. — Calculated "true nutritive valve* 1 of 1 pound of different feeding stuffs. 
 
 Folding stuffs. 
 
 
 
 Total di- 
 
 Dry mat- 
 
 Crude 
 
 gestible 
 
 ter. 
 
 fiber. 
 
 nutri- 
 ents.a 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Pound. 
 
 Pnu mi. 
 
 85 
 
 0.260 
 
 0.391 
 
 84 
 
 .266 
 
 f .453 
 
 84 
 
 .302 
 
 .407 
 
 86 
 
 .420 
 
 .181 
 
 87 
 
 .103 
 
 .615 
 
 87 
 
 .017 
 
 .785 
 
 86 
 
 .069 
 
 .720 
 
 86 
 
 .059 
 
 .687 
 
 86 
 
 .157 
 
 .645 
 
 88 
 
 .094 
 
 .690 
 
 25 
 
 .010 
 
 .226 
 
 15 
 
 .016 
 
 .113 
 
 Labor expended in ... „, ^ . ... „ 
 chewing and di- lru ." , trUlve 
 gestion. XHluc - 
 
 In 
 terms of 
 energy. 
 
 In terms 
 of nutri- 
 ents.'; 
 
 In 
 terms of 
 energy. 
 
 In terms 
 of nutri- 
 ent.-. ' 
 
 Meadow hav (average qual- 
 ity) 
 
 Alfalfa hay cut at begin- 
 ning of bloom 
 
 Red clover hay 
 
 Winter wheat straw 
 
 Oats (medium quality) 
 
 Maize 
 
 Field beans 
 
 Teas 
 
 Air-dry disembittered lu- 
 pine's 
 
 Linseed cake 
 
 Potatoes 
 
 Carrots 
 
 Calorie*. Pound, 
 
 376 
 
 429 
 535 
 224 
 148 
 200 
 183 
 
 294 
 
 225 
 
 49 
 
 37 
 
 0.209 
 
 .219 
 .239 
 .297 
 .124 
 .082 
 .111 
 .102 
 
 .163 
 .125 
 .027 
 .021 
 
 ( alorie*. 
 
 422 
 303 
 -209 
 883 
 1,265 
 1,096 
 1,054 
 
 867 
 
 1,018 
 
 358 
 
 166 
 
 Pound. 
 
 0.182 
 
 .234 
 .168 
 -.116 
 .491 
 .703 
 .609 
 .586 
 
 .482 
 .565 
 .199 
 .092 
 
 a Protein, plus carbohydrates, plus crude fiber, plus fat multiplied by 2.4. 
 
 As will be seen, the nutritive vakie of straw is negative in the above 
 table. The authors call attention to the investigations which showed 
 that so long as heat alone is considered, the digestible nutrients in 
 straw should be given their full value as shown by the heat of combus- 
 tion. Provided the labor of digesting a mixed ration does not exceed 
 2.100 grams (4.63 pounds, or 8,316 calories), the digestible nutrients in 
 straw have a positive value. Provided the labor of digestion is greater 
 than this an excess of straw would only increase the internal muscular 
 work, so that approximately 116 grams (0.256 pound) of nutrients per 
 kilogram is of no value for the body. 
 
 From the table the amount of any food or combination of foods 
 required for maintenance ma}' be calculated, according to the authors, 
 as follows: When a horse weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) is fed 
 ha}* alone, 8.2 kilograms (18.0-1 pounds) would be necessary, since, as 
 previously stated, 3,200 grams (7.05 pounds) of nutrients are required 
 for maintenance. As shown by the table, a kilogram of hay contains 
 391 grams (0.86 pound) total nutrients. 
 
 If the ration consists of 3 kilograms (6.Q pounds) of hay and 1 kilo- 
 gram (2.2 pounds) of straw and it is desired to make up the balance 
 with potatoes, the amount necessary may be calculated as follows: 
 
 
 Grams. Pounds. 
 
 Three kilograms <6.6 pounds) of hay furnish total nutrients amounting to 
 
 One kilogram (2.2 pounds] of straw furnishes total nutrients amounting to 
 
 1,178 
 
 181 
 
 2.586 
 • .399 
 
 Total 
 
 1,354 
 
 2.984 
 
 
 
 Since the horse requires for maintenance 3,200 grains (7.053 pounds) 
 nutrients, there remain 1,846 grams (4.07 pounds) total nutrients to be 
 supplied by potatoes. This, divided by 226, the total nutrients in a 
 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of potatoes, gives 8.2 kilograms (18.04 pounds) 
 as the amount which must be added to the ration. 
 
71 
 
 FIXING RATIONS ON THE BASIS OF INTERNAL, AND EXTERNAL 
 
 MUSCULAR WORK. 
 
 Zuntz believed that a ration suited to the performance of any kind 
 of work can be calculated on tin 4 basis of the nutritive material and 
 energy required for maintenance 4 plus that needed for the work per- 
 formed. The calculations are simplified by using the figures for ''true 
 nutritive value " given in the table above. On the basis of his experi- 
 ments and observations he has calculated that a horse weighing 500 
 kilograms (1,100 pounds) requires for maintenance 3,201 grams (7.050 
 pounds) of true available nutrients. The amounts of true available 
 nutrients and the energy required for the performance of work of dif- 
 ferent kinds and under different conditions bv a horse weighing 500 
 kilograms (1,100 pounds), with a harness weighing 20 kilograms (44: 
 pounds) are shown in Table 10. The value of total nutrients repre- 
 sents the protein -f- the carbohydrates -j- the fat X 2.4. Fat is multi- 
 plied by 2.4, since, as stated on another page (68), it yields, according 
 to Zuntz, that much more heat per gram than protein or carbohydrates 
 when burned in the body. 
 
 Table 10. — Available nutrients and energy needed for different kinds of work. 
 
 Energy 
 required. 
 
 Forward progression per kilometer (3,281 feet) on level at speed of 
 
 60.7 meters (218.8 feet) per minute 
 
 Forward progression per kilometer (3,281 feet) on level at speed of 90 
 
 meters (295.4 feet) per minute 
 
 Forward progression per kilometer (3,281 feet) on level at speed of 
 
 176-205 meters (577.4 feet-672.6 feet) per minute 
 
 (limbing a gentle incline, raising body 100 meters (3,281 feet) 
 
 Climbing a steep incline, raising body 100 meters (3,281 feet) 
 
 Descending an incline, lowering body 100 meters (3,281 feet) on road 
 
 with 5 per cent dip saves a 
 
 Drawing a load on level 268 (work equivalent to plowing one hour. 
 
 i.e., drawing a plow weighing 67 kilograms (147.4 pounds) a distance 
 
 of 4 kilometers (13,124 feet): 
 
 Not including forward progression 
 
 Including forward progression 
 
 Total nutrients 
 required. 
 
 Qra/ma, 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 37.6 
 
 0.083 
 
 47.7 
 
 .105 
 
 71.5 
 90.0 
 91.7 
 
 .158 
 .198 
 . 202 
 
 37.8 
 
 .083 
 
 508.9 
 659. 3 
 
 1.122 
 1.454 
 
 Calories. 
 
 149 
 
 189 
 
 283 
 356 
 363 
 
 150 
 
 2, 015 
 2,611 
 
 Raising a load weighing 75 kilograms (165 pounds) 0.2 kilometer 
 (656.2 feet) up incline of 10 per cent: 
 
 A. For the 0.2 kilometer (656.2 feet) of forward motion 
 
 B. For raising the body and harness 20 meters (656.2 feet) 
 
 C. For 1,500 kilogrammeters (10.800 foot-pounds) mechanical work. 
 
 Total 
 
 7.52 
 18.33 
 39.15 
 
 
 
 .017 
 .040 
 .086 
 
 29.8 
 72.6 
 155. 
 
 65.0 
 
 .143 
 
 257. 4 
 
 Trotting on level 1 kilometer (3,281 feet) with load of 75 kilograms 
 (165 pounds): 
 
 A. For forward motion, 1 kilometer (3.281 feet) 
 
 B. For 75.000 kilogrammeters (540,000 foot-pounds) calculated me- 
 chanical work 
 
 Total 
 
 Progression on level 1 kilometer (8,281 feet) with 100 kilograms 220 
 pounds) load: 
 
 A. At speed of 5.4 kilometers (17,717.4 feet) per hour 
 
 B. At speed of 10.5-12.6 kilometers ^34.451 feet-11.341 feet) trotting. 
 
 Climbing 1 kilometer (3,281 feet) on an incline of 10 per cent with 100 
 kilograms (220 pounds) load at speed of 5.4 kilometers 1 17,717 feet) 
 per hour: 
 
 A. For forward progression 
 
 B. For 60,000 kilogrammeters 432,000 foot-pounds) mechanical 
 work (climbing) 
 
 71.5 
 142. 4 
 
 ,158 
 
 .314 
 
 213.9 I 
 
 59.2 
 91.0 
 
 472 
 
 18] 
 
 Jin 
 
 283.0 
 563.9 
 
 234.5 
 
 360.4 
 
 Total 
 
 59.2 
 103.8 
 
 .130 
 .229 
 
 234.5 
 
 411.0 
 
 163.0 
 
 . 359 
 
 645. 5 
 
 a As compared with forward progression. 
 
72 
 
 As will be .seen, the amount of total nutrients required increases with 
 the increased speed; furthermore, a greater amount is required in 
 climbing an incline than for forward progression on a level. In 
 descending a gentle incline a much smaller amount of nutrients is 
 required than in climbing the same incline, and as compared with the 
 motion of forward progression there is also a saving in the amount of 
 nutrients needed. In general, it was found that the energy expended 
 was less than in traveling on a level, provided the incline was less than 
 5° 45'. At this point it was equal to the amount expended in travel- 
 ing on a level. If the incline was greater, energy was required to 
 keep the body from descending too rapidty and the expenditure was 
 greater than on a level. The different values given in the above table 
 for the nutrients required for the performance of different kinds of 
 work are obtained by taking the sum of the requirements for the dif- 
 ferent components into which the work can be resolved; thus, in trot- 
 ting 1 kilometer (3,281 feet) with a load of 75 kilograms (165 pounds) 
 the total work consists in that expended for forward progression and 
 for moving the load over the distance covered. 
 
 An example of the way in which the value of a ration was calculated 
 by Zuntz follows: 
 
 If a farm horse weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) walks eight 
 hours drawing a load at a speed of 1 kilometers (2.5 miles) per hour, 
 the work performed and the total available nutrients required would 
 be as follows: 
 
 Table 11. — Total nutrients required for work. 
 
 Total nutrients. 
 
 32 kilometers (20 miles) forward progression 
 
 2,144,000 kilogrammeters (15,436,800 foot-pounds) mechanical work 
 Maintenance (exclusive of labor of digestion) 
 
 Total 
 
 Grams. 
 
 1,203 
 4,071 
 1,100 
 
 6,374 
 
 Pound?. 
 2.654 
 8. 975 
 2. 425 
 
 14.054 
 
 The ration selected consisted of 3 kilograms (<o.Q pounds) hay, 1.5 
 kilograms (3.3 pounds) straw, 2 kilograms (4. 1 pounds) field beans, and 
 a sufficient amount of oats to bring the total nutrients of the ration up 
 to the required amount. The nutrients furnished by the hay, straw, 
 and field beans would be as follows: 
 
 Table 12. — Total nutrients furnished by tentative ration. 
 
 Total nutrients. 
 
 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of hay, requiring per kilogram (2.2 pounds) for diges 
 tion 627 grams (1.38 pounds) 
 
 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds of straw, requiring per kilogram (2.2 pounds) for diges 
 tion 445 grams (0.98 pound) 
 
 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of beans, requiring per kilogram (2.2 pounds) for diges 
 tion 222 grams (4.9 pounds) 
 
 Total, 1,294 grams (2.85 pounds) 
 
 Gram*. 
 +546 
 -174 
 
 +1, 218 
 
 +1,590 
 
 Pounds. 
 H.2M 
 - .384 
 +2.685 
 
 ■3.505 
 
 
78 
 
 Subtracting 1,590 grams (8.505 pounds) from 6,374 grams (14.054 
 pounds) gives 4,784 grams (10.549 pounds), the total available outri- 
 ents which must be supplied by the oats. Dividing this Bum by 491, 
 the total available nutrients in a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of oats, gives 
 J>.74 kilograms (21.43 pounds) as the amount required. This quantity 
 of oats would require the expenditure of 1,208 grams (2.660 pounds) 
 nutrients for the labor of digestion (9.74 kilograms X 0.124= 1.208 
 kilograms) (2.660 pounds). The total expenditure of nutrients which 
 the ration necessitates for the labor of digestion would therefore be 
 2,502 grams (5.514 pounds) (1,294 grams+1,208 grams =2, 502 grams) 
 (2.854 pounds+2.660 pounds = 5.514 pounds). This exceeds by some 
 400 grams (0.S82 pound), the value which is thought most desirable 
 for the normal maintenance ration, i. e., 2,100 grams (4.630 pounds). 
 The expenditure of this amount of nutrients for the work of digestion 
 is thought desirable, because it would liberate the amount of heat which 
 Zuntz calculates is required for maintaining the body temperature. 
 
 The ration may be adjusted on a more reasonable basis by diminish- 
 ing the straw to 0.3 kilogram (0.66 pound) and the oats to 9.46 kilo- 
 grams (20.812 pounds). The total quantity would be the same as 
 before, and the amount required for the labor of digestion would be 
 practically equal to that which is considered most desirable. The 
 ration as adjusted would be as follows: 
 
 Table 13. — Calculated ration for farm horse at work. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Requires for the 
 labor of digestion. 
 
 Yields total nutri- 
 ent. 
 
 
 Grams. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Grams. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) hav 
 
 627 
 
 222 
 
 89 
 
 1,173 
 
 1.382 
 .489 
 .196 
 
 2.586 
 
 646 
 
 1,218 
 
 -85 
 
 4. 645 
 
 1.204 
 
 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) beans 
 
 
 0.3 kilogram (0.66 pound ) straw 
 
 .(•77 
 
 9.46 kilograms (20.812 pounds) oats 
 
 10. 241 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,111 
 
 4.653 
 
 6. 374 
 
 14.207 
 
 
 
 This ration is, according to Zuntz, more satisfactory on economic 
 grounds, since it does not contain an excess of material which must be 
 wastefully assimilated. The fact is also pointed out that it might not 
 prove satisfactory otherwise, since it contains a small amount of 
 coarse fodder. The other examples given by Zuntz are more com- 
 plicated. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Some of the principal deductions noted in this bulletin follow: 
 Horses, like other animals, require a definite amount of nutrients 
 and energy per 1,000 pounds live weight for maintenance, and an 
 extra amount, chiefly energy-yielding nutrients, for muscular work, 
 the amount being proportional to the character and amount of work 
 performed. 
 
 17399— No. 125—03 6 
 
74 
 
 The amount of nutrients required increases with the amount of work 
 done and with increased speed. More energy is required for climb- 
 ing an incline than for traveling on a level. In descending an incline 
 of less than 5° 45' less energy is required than in traveling on a level. 
 If the incline is greater than 5° 45', more energy is expended (to pre- 
 vent too rapid descent) than in walking on a level. 
 
 The ration should consist of concentrated and coarse feeds. The ratio 
 by weight of coarse fodder or bulky feed to concentrated feed in the 
 ordinary ration has been found to be about 1:1. Crude fiber may 
 perhaps be fairly considered as the characteristic constituent of coarse 
 fodder. The ratio of crude fiber to protein in the average of a large 
 number of American rations has been found to be about 2:1. 
 
 Theoretically at least any sufficient and rational mixture of whole- 
 some grains, by-products, roots, and forage crops, green and cured, 
 may be used to make up a ration, though there is a very general prej- 
 udice in favor of oats and hay, corn and hay or corn fodder, and bar- 
 ley and hay (frequently that made from cereal grains), the first-named 
 ration being perhaps that most commonly regarded as satisfactory for 
 horses. A corn ration is very commonly fed in the middle West and 
 Southern United States — that is, in the corn-producing belt. The 
 barley ration is quite characteristic of the Pacific coast region. In 
 the semiarid regions of the United States Kafir corn and alfalfa have 
 proved to be of great value, owing to their drought- resisting qualities. 
 Both crops have been found useful for horse feeding. Of the two 
 alfalfa has been used much more commonly, and has given very satis- 
 factoiy results. 
 
 Investigations have shown that it is often best to modify a ration, for 
 instance, by substituting corn wholly or in part for oats, so that the 
 horses remain in good condition, while at the same time the cost of the 
 ration is diminished. Where large numbers of horses are fed this is 
 often a matter of considerable importance. 
 
 Horses require a considerable amount of water daily, the quantity 
 varying with different seasons of the year, the amount of work per- 
 formed, etc. The time of watering, whether before or after feeding, 
 is a matter of little importance, and, generally speaking, may be regu- 
 lated to suit the convenience of the feeder. Horses become used to 
 either method of watering, and irregularity should be avoided, as 
 sudden changes are apt to prove disturbing. 
 
 Judging b}^ the average results, representing the practice of a large 
 number of successful American feeders, and also the results of many 
 tests at the experiment stations in different parts of the United States, 
 horses with light work consume on an average a ration furnishing per 
 day 0.99 pound of digestible protein and 14,890 calories of energy 
 per 1,000 pounds live weight. Similar values for horses at moderate 
 work are 1.49 pounds digestible protein and 22,710 calories, and for 
 
75 
 
 horses at severe work L.12 pounds digestible protein and 19,560 calo- 
 ries. It is believed that these last values do not conic as near repre- 
 senting a genera] average as the others, since they arc based on a 
 comparatively limited amount of data, and possibly the pace at which 
 the work was performed may be responsible in a measure for the 
 comparatively small amounts of nutrients and energy. Generally 
 speaking, all these average values are less than those called for by the 
 commonly accepted German feeding standards for horses perform- 
 ing the same amounts of work, yet from what is known regarding the 
 American horses it seems fair to say- that they were well fed. 
 
 Additional experiments are much needed which will result in a series 
 of standards suited to American conditions. 
 
 Generally speaking, horses digest their feed, and especially the 
 nitrogen -free extract and crude fiber in it, less thoroughly than 
 ruminants. 
 
 The general deductions which have been drawn for horses apply 
 with equal force to other animals of the same group, such as asses 
 and mules. 
 
 O 
 

I«ff- to "»" 
 
 * <»2 08 9 ;5"j»;« 
 
 ■111