REPORT OF THE CHEMIST 187 



SESSIONAL PAPER No. 16 



Although corn is a grain poor in protein and mineral matter, and, therefore, not 

 suitable for use as the sole grain, it is seen that many of its by-products are very rich 

 in these constituents, besides containing large amounts of fat. These products may, 

 iherefore be considered as valuable adjuncts to our list of concentrated feeds, whole- 

 some and nutritious, and eminently adapted to forming a part of the grain ration, both 

 both for milch and fattening stock. 



CATTLE FEED. 



At the request of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, analysis has 

 Veen made of two samples termed ' Cattle Feed,' to ascertain their feeding value. 

 The object of the investigation was to learn which would be the more nutritious as 

 food for cattle in transport to England. 



These ' feeds ' consist chiefly of crushed or partially ground oats and Indian corn, 

 the proportion of the former to the latter being apparently somewhat greater in No. 1 

 than in No. 2. A few weed seeds and small grain (cereals) are to be observed in both 

 samples, though there are no indications of ' mill sweepings ' having been used in their 

 preparation. A general examination of the samples showed a strong similarity in 

 composition, but that of No. 1 is probably somewhat the better of the two. This con- 

 jecture is borne out by the chemical data, which are as follows : — ■ 



No. 1. No. 2. 



Moisture 9-18 9-30 



Protein 12-81 10'75 



Fat 3-90 4-63 



Carbo-hydrates 61-09 61 :28 



Fibre 10-00 11-37 



Ash 3-02 2-67 



100 -00 100 -00 



The chief points of difference are, (1) that No. 1 is somewhat the richer (2 per 

 cent) in albuminoids and that No. 2 contains a little more fat, approximately, *75 per 

 cent. 



The albuminoids (protein) and fat constitute the most valuable nutrients of a 

 fodder, and are usually assumed to be worth, weight for weight, 2£ times the carbo- 

 hydrates (starch, sugar, &c). On this basis we find by calculation that one ton of No. 

 1 feed is equal in feeding value to 1 ton 63 pounds of No. 2. If No. 1 is worth $15 

 per ton, then the value of one ton of No. 2 would be $14.54. 



In arriving at these conclusions, we have been obliged to assume the feeds to be of 

 equal digestibility, and the probability is that in actual feeding the difference in favour 

 of No. 1 will be a little greater than shown by the foregoing computations. 



RICE FEED. 



This material, a by-product in the preparation of rice, is of considerable feeding 

 value. Rice hulls are very fibrous and woody, but the bran coats of the seed, the germ 

 and the rice ' polish ' are all more or less rich in protein, fat and mineral matter. 



The sample examined was forwarded by Mr. Peter Reid, Chateauguay Basin, Que., 

 who states that it was obtained from the Mount Royal Milling Company's mill at Cote 

 St. Paul. He gives the price (Nov. 20, 1901) at $18 per ton, and says : ' The meal is 

 made from the husk of the grain, corresponding to the bran of wheat, I presume, 

 together with particles of the grain broken off when running through the busker and 

 polisher.' 



