HOW TO FEED POULTRY FOR ANY PURPOSE WITH PROFIT 



as it is called, was for a long time regarded as having no 

 special significance in relation to feed values in nutrition. 

 After a time, however, it was noted in observations 

 and comparisons of rations that the results seemed to 

 follow potential energy values more closely than they did 

 nutritive ratios. Two articles or rations having the same 

 nutritive ratio might not give the same results in feeding, 



A TWO-WHEELED CART ESPECIALLY FOR WATER 

 This was used on the farm of P. R. Park when he was 

 popularizing- dry feeding. Only water had to be dis- 

 tributed daily. 



tout two articles or rations having the same potential 

 energy would usually appear to be much the same in feed- 

 ing value. The most important practical result of this ob- 

 seivation was to give a better appreciation of the value of 

 the carbonaceous elements in feeds, and to emphasize the 

 fact that while protein is the substantial structural element, 

 the efficient and economical use of it depends upon the 

 supply of carbonaceous material being so ample for every 

 requirement of heat and energy that the organism can 

 function perfectly without using protein for any other 

 than its special purpose. The reason that the nutritive 

 ratio is of no value as a measure of the value of a feed 

 or ration is plain when we consider that it is merely an 

 expression of the relative amounts of the two classes of 

 nutrients in the article, while the potential energy is the 

 -actual sum of the values of all the nutrients in a specific 

 -amount (one pound or one ounce) of the feed for the 

 purpose for which the carbonaceous elements are used, 

 .and for which the protein will be used should the special 

 heat and energy-producing elements be at any time in- 

 sufficient for their special service. 



Comparison of the potential energy values of feeds 

 is therefore a serviceable method of determining their re- 

 lative feeding values, though neither that or any other 

 single principle can be taken as an always reliable guide, 

 for it will be found again and again that things which by 

 a certain standard of comparison appear of nearly equal 

 value actually have very different values and effects in 

 feeding. This sometimes is plainly due to the presence 

 in the feed of unpalatable, non-nutritious elements, which 

 are not included in computations of values of the nutrients 

 in it though they appear in a statement of its analysis, 

 and their presence affects the palatability as well as the 

 nutritive value of an article. 



The relations of other elements in feeds, and espe- 

 cially of water and fiber, which are sometimes present in 

 large quantities, is best explained and illustrated by a few 

 compaiisons of articles mentioned in the table on pages 

 23 to 25. Buckwheat and tomatoes have the same nutritive 

 ratio 1:7, but buckwheat has a potential energy of 83 

 l.eat units per ounce, while tomatoes have a potential 



energy of only 9 heat units per ounce: that is, an ounce 

 of buckwheat will provide more than nine times the heat 

 and energy that an ounce of tomatoes will. The differ- 

 ence is due to the fact that tomatoes are more than nine- 

 tenths water, while buckwheat is only one-eighth water. 



Green grass clippings have the same nutritive ratio, 

 1:7, but there are 15 heat units in an ounce of green 

 grass, sixty per cent more than in tomatoes, because grass 

 contains less water and correspondingly more of solid 

 nutritive elements. Lettuce and buckwheat middlings 

 have the same nutritive ratio, 1:2.1, but lettuce with a 

 potential energy of 4 provides only one-twenty-fifth as 

 much heat and energy as buckwheat middlings with a 

 potential energy of 101. Lettuce is 95.9% water, buck- 

 wheat middlings, 13.2%. Lettuce and cucumbers are the 

 lightest and most cooling of all vegetable feeds, hence 

 their popularity with' both people and poultry to offset 

 the effects of heavy grain and meat diets. 



Corn meal and timothy hay have nearly the same 

 nutritive ratio; corn meal 1:8.5, and timothy 1:8.7. The 

 relation of their nutrients is practically the same, but 

 corn meal has a potential energy of 100, while timothy 

 has a potential energy of only 66, and corn meal is a palat- 

 able feed, capable of sustaining life, growth, and pro- 

 duction for considerable periods, while timothy hay is 

 practically worthless for poultry. Here the conspicuous 

 difference is in the structure of the articles and in the 

 relative amounts of indigestible fiber. Corn meal has only 

 1.9 per cent of fiber, timothy hay has 29 per cent. We can 

 see at a glance also, in comparing potential energies of 

 these articles, that even if the fiber could be removed 

 from timothy hay and the digestible nutrients fed to poul- 

 try, they would have to consume relatively large quanti- 

 ties of it to give the results obtained by concentrated 

 feeds, and their digestive organs generally have not the 

 capacity for doing this. 



Poultry will eat fibrous feeds freely only in the green 

 state, or, as in case of alfalfa and clover especially cured 

 for poultry, when cured in the green state. The grains 

 which are most palatable to them are those which contain 

 from about 2 to 3 per cent of fiber. Knowing this, and 

 usually having had opportunity to observe the indiffer- 

 ence of poultry to a grain with as much fiber as even the 

 best oats, when they have a choice between that and a 

 smooth grain, the poultry feeder can tell at a glance at 



TWO WHEELED CART FOR BOTH FEED AND WATER 

 USED ON A RHODE ISLAND FARM 



