220 Feeds and Feeding. 



It is seen that 3,538 Ibs. of shredded corn stover or fodder corn gave 

 as good returns as 4,667 Ibs. of long forage a saving of 24 per ct. by 

 shredding. At the Kansas Station 1 Shelton, conducting experiments 

 covering 3 seasons, fed stover cut into lengths varying from 0.25 to 2 

 inches to cows, and found an average waste of 31 per ct. of the cut 

 stover, with no greater milk returns than from the uncut stover. It 

 was observed that the finer the stover was cut the larger was the 

 waste, and the conclusion was that the only advantage from cutting 

 stover lay in the greater convenience in handling it in the stable. 

 The findings of Shelton for Kansas conditions are confirmed by those 

 of Waters at the Missouri Station. 2 In accounting for the difference 

 between these results and those from Wisconsin it may be said that 

 the stalks of corn grown in the middle and lower portions of the corn 

 belt are larger, coarser, more woody, and doubtless less nutritious 

 than the smaller, softer stalks of the northern states. It is also pos- 

 sible that in the Kansas trial the sharp edges of the cut stalks made 

 the mouths of the cattle sore. This can be avoided by changing the 

 length of the cut or by shredding. Cutting or shredding corn forage 

 makes it easier to handle. The only other possible advantage comes 

 in getting the animals to eat more, or to eat those parts that would 

 otherwise be wasted, rather than that the finer material is more 

 digestible. (500) 



342. General conclusions. It has generally been assumed that by 

 cutting, grinding, and cooking feed much labor was saved the animal, 

 to the advantage of the feeder. This idea is based on the general 

 theory that the less work the animal does in mastication and diges- 

 tion the larger the net production of work, flesh, or milk. On the 

 contrary, we know that the muscles of the body do not grow strong 

 thru idleness, and that work and activity are conducive to bodily 

 health, growth, and strength. We must therefore conclude that the 

 organs of mastication and digestion would best be kept at work to 

 their reasonable capacity. Feeding liberally and in an orderly man- 

 ner, with ample variety and in wise combination, is more important 

 and helpful than making feeds fine and soft so that they can be 

 quickly swallowed with little chewing. 



When cutting, grinding, cooking, or pulping brings more satisfac- 

 tion to fattening animals soon to be slaughtered, and causes them to 

 consume heavier rations, such preparation may pay, (275) as it may 

 also with exceptionally hard-worked animals that have but limited 



1 Ept. 1889. 2 Bui. 75. 



