184 INDIAN CORN. 



pounds each, out of every thirteen pounds received. 

 He also finds that in both the other divisions each 

 animal has left the same proportion (three pounds 

 in thirteen) unconsumed. 



From these results he infers, without a moment's 

 reflection, that there is no advantage in cutting his 

 stalks. 



Now let us see whether this is a fair inference. 

 His cattle have each received thirteen pounds at a 

 feed, out of which they have eaten ten pounds, reject- 

 ing three. The primary question here is this : What 

 is the amount of benefit derived by each animal from 

 the ten pounds eaten ? That which he has not eaten, 

 whether it were three pounds or thirty, has nothing 

 to do with this comparison. The rejected food is a 

 secondary matter, which, when separately considered 

 and correctly explained, will be found to sustain 

 rather than invalidate the theory here advocated. 



According to the general principle above eluci- 

 dated, that cutting or crushing the food of animals to 

 a greater degree of fineness increases the nutritive 

 value, it will be seen that, in the case above stated, 

 the cattle in the second division derived more benefit 

 from each ten pounds consumed than those in the 

 first division ; while those in the third class, which had 

 their stover finely chaffed and steamed, received much 

 greater benefit from it than any of the others. In 

 other words, the ten pounds of stover cut to half an 

 inch were equal to thirteen pounds of the uncut, and 

 the ten pounds chaffed and steamed were equivalent 

 to sixteen pounds of the whole stalks. 



