Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-05-17
Green Versus Dry Fodder.


-Rate Seymour Mclean.
Green Versus Dry Fodder.
The glib DR.. Nichols, of the Boston Jour
nal Of Chemistry, having proved, to the sat-
isfaction of himself and few farmers and
editors who have never tried it fairly, that
muck is not manure, has now taken the
contract to demonstrate that green fodder
loses nothing of its nutritive value by dry
ing. The doctor has the supersbundant
courage and scanty discretion that charac-
terized the famous bull that undertook to
| fight locomotive. His thesis is, in his own
words, as follows -" If he (the Vermont
f.rmer) could not dry his fresh mown grass
in the field by the aid of the warm winds
and sunshine, without the loss of the sugar,
starch, gum, etc., he would cease to be
else" And he extends the same doctrine to
cover corn-fodder and fruits, and in fact all
green vegetable food for brutes and men. In
this he is rather at issue Gas usuaD with our
greatest agricultural chemist, ProfessorJohn-
son, who does not hesitate to say" This
keeping cattle all winter long on dried grass
alone is simply brutal piece Of business"
We suppose that even DR.. Nichols would
green grass alone.
The fact of the matter is, that in drying
any green forage crop there is great loss
of nutritive substance and this loss is usu-
ally proportioned to the length of time taken
in drying. All farmers recognize the loss,
and also that the quicker the drying is done
the better. They may not know the rea-
sons why this is so, but they know both
facts from experience in their business.
The best of butter can be made on green
grass alone. "Winter butter" on the con-
trary, made from COWS fed upon any kind
of dry fodder, even with an allowance of
grain, is not marketable article at any
price in its natural state; and when colored
in imitation of June butter it deceives no
expert.
The first fact in the business which DR..
Nichols ignores is that green grass never
was (and it is difficult to conceive how it
ever can be) analysed by the chemist. The
first process of the analysis is to make hay
of it by drying. 1t is more carefully and
quickly dried than in the bayfield,, but the
difference between this scientifically made
hay and common hay is published as the
difference between green grass and hay
Naturally the difference is small. We know
nothing about the changes that take place
in the grass during the process Of drying, OF
how the constituents of the plant are affected
as regards their nutritive quality. Blu
nothing is better known than the fact of {
change having been made. In grass it il
more or less as it is cut early or late, O
dried slowly or quickly, but always there i
a change. The cattle perceive it even be
fore taking it into their mouths. 1t is show
as regards their growth, and their yield o
milk and butter, so plainly that there neve
was farmer so stupid as not to observe it
All this is true of common grasses. Blu
it is still more conspicuously so in the cas-
of the great grass we call corn. Cornstalk
dried in the field, in the ordinary way, ar
probably worth less than half as much TO
feeding purposes as green stalks. If W
, chop and steam the dried stalks, and add
liberal amount of shorts and meal to ther
we cannot even then make anything bu
pale and poor butter from cows fed wit
: them. In drying ordinary grasses the swee
ness is greatly diminished, but in corn foe
der it entirely disappears. Aud yet corn
one of the sweetest Of grasses. The chang
is conspicuous but while we know less c
changes in the other constituents of th
dried forage plants, yet it is reasonable
suppose that such changes take place to th
- injury of the crop. Why, for instance, doe
this dried grass or corn-fodder produce whit
\ butter, while the same, fed green, produce
! yellow butter ? Something in the feed ths
gave this coloring has been destroyed. TIL
chemist cannot tell what it is, but tt
farmer knows it is gone. So in regard
the aroma, which DR.. Nichols says "has L
value whatever" The farmer knows be
/, ter. He knows that the fine flavor Of Jur
butter comes from the grass, and cannot |
got from any kind of dried feed. The fin
4 color and nice flavor of butter have 30 larl
pecuniary value as to double or eve
treble its market price. And yet our LEARNT
u doctor assures us that the elements in Il
food upon which their presence in the bu
ter depends are worthless" Verify, Il
contemners of book-farming have fiji
if! text here for long oration.
Now let us take brief look at anoth
: man, who is really an agricultural chemis
and knows as we'll the limitations as
knows immense usefulness of chemist
when applied TO farming. We refer to Pr
; fessor johnson, director of the Connectic
> agricultural experiment station. In rece
discussion upon ensilage, given in the Ia
Report of the Connecticut Board of Ag
Z culture Qor a copy Of which we are great
| indebted to Secretary Gold, Mr.. W.
. Hurd, who addressed the meeting upon
. subject, stated (and neighbors confirmed
- fact) that his cows were kept In as good
der, and made more and better butter
sixty pounds of corn ensilage than on o
~ hundred and twenty-five pounds Of gre
IS. corn-fodder, the grain feed being the sal
s, in both cases. There seems to be no dou
- that Mr.. Hurd is an intelligent, truth
man, and more than ordinarily care
NO dairyman, as he weighs all his milk at ca
|l0 milking, and keeps careful account of
~ butter. Professor johnson was present, a
%. was called upon for an opinion upon
Hurds statement. In the first place
professor said that green corn-fodder
much better than dry corn-fodder. Well,