Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1882-06-17
THE ANIMALS TO FEED.
To Secure the Best Returns of Meat
and Manure-The Poor Economy
of Feeding Poor Stock.

Prof. J. w. Sanborn, of Hanover, N.
H., in the Springfield Republican says:
Cheap beef, cheap manure; cheap
manure, cheap crops. Extensive Gull
ture in New Finland involves the gener-
GUS use of plant food. As at the best
this plant food will be costly we wish to
work the cheaper sources to their full
extent within the limits of practicable
ness. While l would use chemical
manures heavily as an adjunct of yard
manure, l would rely upon the latter as
the main source, except under specially
favorable conditions, because the
cheaper source of plant-food when made
under skillful conditions. Otherwise it
may not be. Passing by skillful dairy
ing and sheep husbandry as certain
sources of cheap plant-food, l will attack
the problem of cheap and enlarged
manure heaps from its hardest stand
point on New England farm, namely,
the production of manure from meat
producing animals, the steer and pig.
The conditions l deem essential to
success In producing cheap meat pro-
ducts, along with cheap but much en-
larged manure heaps, are the purchase
and feeding of rich manure-making
foods, to good animals, early matured
and in skillful combinations with home
grown crops. The discussion in detail
of my subject naturally divides itself
into four distinct departments of inquiry,
obvious enough, without repetition, the
strong prevailing belief that the foods
of the farm are fed at loss and the
general distaste for purchasing foods be-
I toll -
last that which I deem of first impor-
lance, hoping to show in the meanwhile
and in conjunction with the discussion
of purchasing of rich, manure making
foods, that the business of stock feeding
in New England is not necessarily SCUM
profitable as it has been for decade or
more. shall not attempt to show that
feeding of pigs or steers is directly pro-
titable in flesh product, but simply
claim that the pig and steer will pay
market rates for food eaten, leaving the
manure to pay costs of feeding, which is
good pay. There is no good reason why
we should expect domestic stock to pay
more than the market rates of foods
given, for they are necessary part of
the machinery of a system of mixed
husbandry whose profits come from the
direct products of the soil. Gilt-edged
butter makers and others may take ex-
ception to this, but I cannot stop in
these papers to hedge out exceptions
that may be taken to be fair PROPOSE
ton in general practice.
have already published the results
of experimental inquiry that showed
that the well-bred or good animal makes
| Of ske
Twill not repeat those figures. think
that the fact is of general acceptance,
and were it not better accepted than
practiced would not refer to it. There
is one phase of the question that I
Judge is not generally well unprecedented
by the mass of farmers-that Is, that
the good animal is of far more import
ance to the good feeder than to the poor
feeder, or if to an ordinary ration addi-
tional food is gwen to poor steer and
to good steer the poor steer will make
less favorable returns for this food.
This | frequently notice. 1t is seen
quickly in COWS. In adding to or chang
ing the kind of grain ration the better
cow will give a fuller response to a
favorable change in ration. Indeed,
high feeding upon animals of low diges-
tive and assimilative capacities is not
judicious. Such animals do not belong
to high farming. Joseph Harris in one
of the Massachusetts board of agricul-
ture reports, quotes from Prof. Miless
experiments showing that food was far
less efficacious with ordinary pigs than
with we'll bred pigs of quiet disposition.
Aside from seeing in practical feeding
trials these differences, have noticed
them In very marked way where the
causes were traceable in buying cattle
for a large farm for several years in
Canada, New York, Vermont and New
Hampshire. l can readily point to
communities where the cattle are very
much larger and better made than in
others where the cause was clearly
traceable to special efforts in breeding,
the value of the animals of some sec
tons being nearly double that of
others.
would not be understood as advo-
eating the farmers to have pure-breds
by any means. 1t is urged that these
animals are fed more and better, prin-
cipally the more, and therein constitutes
the value of good beast, that when
available to him he can and will eat
more and digest and assimilate more of
that which he does eat. 1 find approx
mately that 1000-pound steer needs Is
pounds of hay daily for mere support,
six pounds more suffice for one pound
of growth. Now as the great proper
ton of food given is food of maintenance
1T follows that the steer which eats but
little more than needful for sustenance
is not an economical one to feed. Such
beasts l have weighed rations for and
do not want them. But have weighed
rations to a worse class, which eat well
but make poor use of it. This class are
not so general, however. I am inclined
to think, from some trials that do not
amount to proof, that the large breeds
make better usesof food than small
ones. Strong theoretical reasons would
support the few facts have taken, and
also the very general belief that good
grades are quite the equals of pure
breds. Against either class the not I'M
common opinion that they have to be
encouraged with the more dainty foods
of the farm l find to be wholly erro-
neous in my practice. Possessing Wig
orous appetites, they eat the coarser
foods with more relish and better than
the so-called runts, which are runts be-
cause of lack of appetite, in part, or
whose appetites have been dwarfed by