The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-27
farm aud Garden.
conducted by DR.. THOMAS POLLARD, State
Commissioner of Agriculture
Armsby's Manual of Cattle Feeding
John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hearing of the value of the above trea-
tise from afriend, by my request, the Sec
etary of State and Librarian, Gen. Faunt-
leroy, readily purchased it for the State
Library. | have not had time to exam
inc it as thoroughly as desirable, but am
convinced it is too technical and scientific
for the farmers, unless some benevolent
chemist of practical turn, will write an
explanation of the various hard terms,
and simplify and adapt it to the use Of
the farmers. Pectin and Pectose, Poetic
and Pectosic acid, Mucedin and Gliadin,
Peptones, Amines, Amides. and Amido
acids, Nitrates and Nitrites, Gluten casein,
Conglutin, Granulose, and Starch Cellu-
lose, to say nothing of Protein, Album
noids, Carbohydrates, Nitrogen-non ex-
tractive, ETC., etc., are entirely incompre-
hensible by the ordinary farmer The
truth is such books are not written for
farmers, but for scientific men. who can
admire his knowledge. The interpreta-
ton of such books should be put in the
hands of men who have worked their
way up by their own unassisted efforts
to comprehend chemistry as applied to
agriculture, or to some chemist who has
become practical farmer. Such man,
we think we might find in the person of
DR.. James R. Nichols, editor of the BoS-
ton Journal of Chemistry, and practical
and successful farmer on his farm at
Haverhill, Massachusetts,.
Another objection to the chemists who
write for the agriculturists, they are all
the time changing their terms The
farmer, for instance, is getting to under
stand what Albuminoids are, but now it
is Protein, not Albuminoids. Why was
not Chloride of Sodium good enough to
express the composition of common salt?
but now it is Sodium Chloride, Magne-
SUM Sulphate, instead of Sulphate of
Magnesia, Potassium Oxide, instead of
Oxide of Potassa, etc. There are some
valuable tables in this book on the Com
position of feeding stufs," Digestibility
Of feeding stufs, Feeding standards, etc.
but few farmers will undertake to study
them out, and utilize them. One of the
first things a writer on agricultural chem
istry should do, would be to explain to a
farmer the use of the terms employed in
these tables what the per centages mean
whether of the whole plant, or the ash of
the plant, etc., and generally how to make
practical use of them.
We understand this work is highly
spoken of by Prof S. w. Johnston, an
other evidence that chemists generally
cannot appreciate the wants of the farmer
considered as a scientific work on cat
tie feeding, no doubt Prot. Johnston S
opinion is correct.
The author calls every feeding material
fodder, including roots, grain, etc., in re-
ference, we suppose, to the derivation of
the word. But custom and photographers
do not authorize such use of the word,
and the farmers will never so use it.
They will always say "give the horses
corn and fodder" and not fodder and
fodder. The author considers the straw
of the cereals valuable fodder, and says
straw is in general, an entirely suitable
fodder both for horses and cattle, similar
In its dietetic action to hay" Very few
farmers think straw is of much value as
feed, or they would not convert so much
into manure, and spread so much on their
lands. When hard pushed for provender,
they sometimes feed straw to horses, but
it is very difficult to get them to eat it,
1t being evidently distasteful to them
When fed to COWS and sheep in farm
pens, they only pick it over, and eat the
blades and tenderer parts. The author
very naively says, "for swine, straw is
not well adapted; the farmers could
have told him that much Prof Armsby
gives the advantages and objections in
regard to ensilage, and remarks that it
does not appear from Grandeau's Ana
lyses, however, that there is any marked
difference in this respect between fresh
maize and ensilage. If this is generally
the case, then fermented corn fodder has
all the advantages of the fresh fodder,
and no others, except perhaps as regards
palatability, and ensilage is to be looked
upon simply as a method of preserving
corn fodder, and the question of its adop-
ton is purely an economical one" The
analyses he gives proves that it contains
somewhat more of protein (Albuminoids)
and more of fat producing than fresh
maize, viz: 6.52protein in fresh maize, and
662 in ensilage, and 1.30 fat in the fresh,
and l.92 in ensilage The former con-
tanned 1920 of water and the latter
8l.28. The economical question is evil
IDENTIFY in favor of ensilage The mode
of storing need not cost any more than
sheds for dry corn fodder, and the loss in
handling and feeding is greatly more in
the dry state. A very intelligent farmer
who hoe 4r;od botL - 81 IL ..Ss-e..l IL 49, 1. 1