Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1896-01-07
WHICH MEAL SHALL he USE,

~s'>~,<%
OF corn meal IS per cent Of the dry
matter is digestible, Of cottonseed meal
81 per cent is digestible and OF bran 80
per cent Is digestible. According TO this
method Of arriving at the relative value
of the three foods, the corn meal Is the
most valuable. There Is little doubt In
our mind, both from the scientific and
practical side. that corn meal is the
cheaper of the three foods for feeding.
The many experiments made In feeding
corn meal against other foods confirm
this view. While IL often, pound against
pound, shows as good results as cotton
seed, il generally does better than brar.
At the disparity OF price mentioned,
choice cannot be delayed or In doubt.
A trial at the New Hampshire station
gave for corn meal los lbs. OF milk and
for cottouseed meal ll0.7 lbs. slightly
f,yoring the cottouseed meal, but within
the limits OF experimental error. Yet.
as four times out of five favored cotton
seed meal, and one-third Of pound less
was fed daily, the trial leans 10 cotton
seed meal against corn meal. The same
station tried bran against corn meal,
slightly less digestible matter OF the
former being given. The result was
rs. .2S lbs. milk for the former and l2a.t
for the latter.
A trial in four periods at the wiscon-
sin station showed little discernibie
difference between cottonseed meal and
corn meal in milk yield, but in the ration
In which the corn meal was In part re-
placed bv cottonseed meal there was q
falling of In the butter yield, ss In the
former il required aa.6 lbs. OF milk for
pound OF butter, and in the latter 26 lbs
The Mississippi station fed corn meal
against co,tonseed meal and secured the
| following results as the sum OF two
periods From cottonseed meal 1901 gal
/ Ions OF milk and 69S 5 lbs. OF butter;
/ from the corn meal 1850 gallons OF milk
and $3.50 lbs. of butter, or more milk for
the corn meal and less butter than from
the eottonseed meal. Here IL will be
observed that the milk as in trial just
quoted gave per pound more butter
I from coitonseed meal than from corn
meal. IL we accept the statement that
the composition OF milk cannot be chang
ed bv the character OF the food, the ex-
plsnStion of the increased amount OF
butter from the cottonseed meal must be
on the score of greater churnability.
The Pennsylvania station tried bran
versus cot,onseed meal and found that
the cottonseed meal gave oue-iifth more
of milk than the bran and that the milk
from the bran did not raise It's cream as
well as the cottopseed meal. Merchants
buying the butter made from the two
foods preferred thst made from the
bran.
The Wisconsin station fed bran against
corn meal, lbs. of one and . lbs of the
other. The reason Of this VAS TO equsl-
ize the digestible amounts fed. When
the bran was fed II required i.93 lbs. OF
,iiyestihle matter To make pound Of
milk, and when the corn meal WAS fed IL
REQUIRED lbs. Prof. Lindsey OF the
Massachusetts, station, In giving the con-
cluslons he had formed from u trial,
states that the variations of concentrated
feed did not affect the yield much, but
that IL did when coarse foods varied.
This is quite near the truth for the more
iigestible foods. Trials at Vermont ap-
pear To show that when bran Is part OF
= ratio II isas valuable as corn meal.
one for pigs AZ the Wisconsin station
gave similar results. Other trials might
be quoted, but the upshot OF them will
DC that cottonsecd shows rather fsvora-
bly by the side OF corn meal, and de-
cideilv so when the churnability of the
milk OF the two are compared. Bran
falls behind both Of the meals mentioned
in quantity of butter made and slightly
so in quantity of milk, although stand
ing close BY the side OF corn meal In
quantity OF milk produced. This the
writer showed more than decade and
half ago In 4 series OF trials made at the
New Hampshire agricultural college.
While corn meal Is adjudged the
cheaper food OF the three and cottonseed
meal next, so far as their butter products
alone are considered, yet on the basis Of
milk yield and OF the manure products,
another conclusion is possible. For
milk sales bran will prove slightly
cheaper than cottonseed meal At the prices
given, while for manure on the following
figures of manure values, for corn meal
So -, for bran Sl2 ~, and for cottonseed
meal SIS -, cottonseed meal will be the
cheaper food and bran next in order Of
cheapness. The corn cost Sl6 ton and
the bran sis. As the bran contains
nearly So greater manurisl value 1t
would theoretically have the greater
value, provided the bran has the same
milk producing value. As there is not,
so far ss experiments 60, evidence that
corn is worth 81 more per ton for milk
production than bran, although il may
have and probably does have for butter
production, the milkmaker may find, and
probably will find. bran for milk sales
as cheap at sis a ton as corn meal at SIC.
Again, We would not pay 50 more for
the manure from ton Of bran than We
would from ton of corn meal; for rea-
sons given In other issues Of this paper,
our own practice would be TO feed
ration made of half bran and half corn |
meal. II only these two foods were given,
for the reason that bran In q mixture |
has been found practically as valuable
for milk production as corn.
The cottonseed meal sells for s23 q
ton and rates for manure S22 more than |
corn and $40 more than bran. costing |
but s. more than corn and S. more |
than bran. As il surpasses the other |
foods for milk and for butter both, and |
leads them heavily for manure, il would |
be our policy to include some cottonseed |
meal in the mixture. We would give all |
three Of the foods at prices named.
The conclusions drawn are that for
the nutritive effect Of the foods when fed
alone, corn is the cheapest, both for |
butter and milk; that for amount OF
butter cottonseed meal probably stands
next, but that for milk bran IL the
cheapest; that for manure, milk and
butter, theoretically considered, cotton |
seed meal is the cheapest and bran next,
but as one cannot afford to pay the
theoretical values Of the plant nutrients
in foods, and as bran In a mixture OF
heavy foods has special value and as
the manurial value Of foods should re-
ceiye some consideration, all things con-
sidered, including quality Of butter, 1t
would at rates given be best to feed
mixture Of all three, none Of them alone
containing all of the qualities desired for
a dairy f0Od.-Mirror and Farmer.
LIFE IN CALIFORNIA.
The fertile foothills may be purchased
for a song, the level valleys may be rent
ed for "A small uer cent on the value of