Relative Value and Manurial Properties of Purchased Food. 657 



liad never been sufficiently considered by tlic Society. Tliere had 

 been a great many discussions upon the value of different kinds of 

 food for mere feeding purposes, and tliere bad been frequent analyses 

 of such food ; but sufficient prominence bad never been given to tbe 

 value of tbe residuum. Tbey all knew tbat one man could feed 

 animals at a profit, wbile anotber, under tbe same circumstance, ex- 

 perienced quite a different result. Ke remembered a discussion tbat 

 took place at tbe Central Farmers' Club on tbe cost of feeding 

 animals ; and tbere was a difference of at least 50 per cent, in tbe 

 extreme costs brougbt forward. Various articles differed so mucb 

 in cost tbat it bad always been considered a great point to economise 

 as mucb as possible, in order to prevent tbe value of tbe food going 

 into tbe manure. Tbe value of manure was 5s. to 7s. per ton, tbe 

 value of food would be about 12Z. per ton, and tbe value of beef about 

 8s. per stone, or G4/. per ton. It was clear tbat, if one could turn an 

 additional portion of tbe food, by good management, into beef, it was 

 very desirable. Tbe lecturer bad sbown tbat in certain kinds of food 

 tbere were many important elements, very good as beef and mutton- 

 producers, tbat were combined witb otber elements wbicli, tbougb of 

 no great value as food, were valuable for tbeir manurial properties. 

 Perbaj)s it migbt not be more costly, in tbe end, to buy food wbich 

 bad great manurial value, combined witb an equal quantity of flesb- 

 producing elements. Tbis was a very important jDoint for considera- 

 tion. Tbey were all, probably, alive to tbe importance of not using 

 a too bigbly concentrated food. Some agriculturists made great mis- 

 takes on tbis point, and bad failed egregiously in cattle-feeding, by 

 not mixing bigbly-nitrogenised comjiounds witb sufficient quantities 

 of food of tbe woody-fibre quality. It was a significant fact tbat tbe 

 instincts of an animal invariably led it not to take more tban was 

 sufficient of bigbly-concentrated food, wbile it would afterwards turn 

 to stubble, straw, &c. On bebalf of tbose present, be begged to 

 tbank Professor Voelcker for bis valuable lectui-e. 



Mr. Eandell said it was always very gratifying to find tbe results 

 of science corrobating tbose of practical experience, and tbe general 

 effect of tbe lecture bad been to effect tbis in a remarkable degree. 

 Witb reference, bowever, to tbe comparative value of linseed oil-cake 

 and otber foods enumerated, bis experience did not rim paralled witb 

 tbe lectui'er's scientific examinations. All farmers knew tbat tbere 

 was a marked difference between a portion of land wbere sbeep fed 

 upon oil-cake bad been depastured, and anotber portion of tbe same 

 ground occupied by sbeep tbat bad been fed upon roots or similar 

 food, Tbis matter bad been put to tbe test for generations, and 

 nothing equalled good linseed-cake in manurial value. As to straw 

 being adapted for young stock, bis own impression was tbat it was 

 only suitable when given in conjunction with cake, a practice which 

 tbe Lincolnshire farmers find to answer very well, imparting vigour 

 to tbe constitution. Indeed, it was now absolutely essential to keep 

 young stock upon straw, as tbey had not sufficient bay to give them. 

 As to cotton-cake, whether decorticated or not, it was not a safe food 



