19 



at a time. The mules were then given oats on alternate months. This 

 grain was eaten with relish, and gains in weight were made. Although 

 the trial lasted nine months, the mules persistently refused barley. 



Of the horses mentioned above, two were work horses. Thej^ were 

 fed alternately barley and oats with timothy hay for nine periods of 

 twenty-eight days each. They ate the barley without regard to the 

 amount of work required of them. On the oat ration there was an 

 average dail}" gain of 0.38 pound per horse. On the barley ration 

 there was an average daily gain per horse of 0.15 pound. In both 

 cases the horses averaged 5.50 hours' work per da3^ 



This trial indicates that horses, when taxed to the limit b}- hard work, 

 can not be supported upon barley quite so well as upon oats, and that 

 it is worth slightl}^ less per pound than oats with stock which is given 

 a medium amount of work. It indicates further that mules take less 

 kindly to barley than do horses, and that horses which are inclined to 

 be "dainty" will not eat barley so readily as oats. 



Malted barley was compared with oats in a trial made with four 

 work horses. The two grains were alternated in different periods. Oat 

 hav was supplied as coarse fodder. The malted barle}^ was prepared 

 as follows: After soaking in water for twentj'-four hours the grain 

 was spread on the floor in a layer 6 inches or less in depth and allowed 

 to remain until the sprouts were 0.5 to 0.75 inch long; it was then fed. 

 On the oat ration there was a dail}^ gain of 0.49 pound, and on the 

 malted barle}^ there was an average daily loss of 0.76 pound per horse. 

 When fed malted barle}' the horses ate 0.1 pound more grain than 

 when fed oats. In this test the horses worked between five and six 

 hours per day on an average. 



A mixture of malted barley and bran was also compared with oats, 

 the two rations being alternated as above. The grains were mixed in 

 the proportion of two parts of barle}^ (before malting) to one part of 

 bran. As in the above test, oat ha}^ was fed with the grain. The 

 horses worked some seven hours per day. When fed a barley and bran 

 ration they ate an amount equivalent to about 17.1 pounds of drv grain 

 per day. There was an average dail}^ loss of 0.8 pound per horse. 

 When fed the oat ration an average of 16.2 pounds was consumed 

 per da}^ and there was an average daily gain per horse of 0.22 pound. 

 In other words, the horses did not maintain their weight on the bran 

 and malted barley, although they ate a larger quantity than when the 

 oat ration was fed. 



These trials indicate that malted barley is not an economical feed 

 for work horses, and that the addition of 1 part bran to 2 parts of 

 malt, as measured by the dry barley, from which it was produced, is 

 neither a cheap nor satisfactory^ feed for hard-worked horses. 



Few experiments have been reported on the feeding value of Kafir 

 corn for horses. At the Oklahoma Station, according to Morrow and 



