726 Agricultural Gazette of N.S.W, [Oct. 2. 1920. 



to l)e very misleaHinj-. A most important modification in assessing these 

 values is introduced by the question of digestibility, and in estimating this 

 quality actual experience is of the greatest value although much good work 

 ha-s been done by direct experimentation. 



The difference in the requirements of the various classes of animals 

 introduces a further modification, since the power of digesting many kinds of 

 food varies greatly, as would be expected if the anatomical structure of the 

 animals and the physiological processes of digestion were considered. Thus, 

 rough, coarse material which can be well utilised by cattle will simply pass 

 through horses in an undigested condition ; and again, the amount of con- 

 centrated food which they can utilise is greater than that assimilable by 

 horses. From the point of view of health, the composition of the food is, in 

 practice, of more importance than its quality ; and while improper niethod.s 

 (either avoidable or otherwise) are responsible for very heavy losses yearly, 

 bad food — that is, food affected with rusts, moulds, ifec. — or of such very poor 

 quality as to be directly harmful, is only occasionally responsible for ill-health 

 and death. This fact emphasises the responsibility of the stockowner himself ; 

 in not a few cases, however, the improper methods are almost unavoidable, 

 eitht-r because suitable feeding stuff is not available or financial conditions 

 prevent its purchase. 



THE HORSE. 



To attain the maximum of efficiency a horse requires food in which the 

 concentrates (grain, &c.) and the roughage (chaff, hay, straw, (fee.) are more 

 or less correctly proportioned. For resting horses, or those doing little and 

 slow work, all concentrates may be cut out, but the harder or faster the work 

 to be performed, the greater the proportion of concentrated food required. 

 This principle must not, however, be pushed too far, since on a diet of con- 

 centrates alone the horse fails properly to utilise the food given him, and a 

 ceHain quantity of roughage is essential to digestion and comfort. 



If the ration of the army horse, which was called upon to do regular and 

 hard work, is taken as a basis, it will be seen that one of equal parts 

 (roughly) of grain and hay or chaff', varying from 10 to 15 lb. of each for 

 light and heavy horses respectively, the medium coming in between on 12 lb., 

 was found to be the most satisfactory. The undoubted success which 

 attended the use of this ration would incline us to accept it as a standard. 

 Whenever a reduction has to be made it is always preferable to make it in 

 the chaff' or hay. With horses in this country it is often difficult to estimate 

 just what they are getting, owing to the custom of cutting oats and wheat 

 in the unripened state for chaff ; some of the best samples of chaff are very 

 nearly ecjual to a half grain ration, while other samples are hardly above 

 straw value. This must be taken into consideration in estimating the 

 amount of grain to be added to produce a good ration. 



Btoadly .speaking, there is a decided tendency to over-estimate the value 

 of the average chaff ration and to undervalue the use of grain in conjunction 

 with it. Instances have occurred during the recent dry period when it was 

 cheaper to buy oats than chdff, taking into consideration their respective 



