THE GENESEE FARMER. 



203 



horse-dung, it appears to be absolutely necessary 

 to give it a much larger quantity of moisture than 

 it can ever receive from tbe urine of the animal ; 

 if it be not well watered it necessarily heats, dries, 

 and loses both in weight and quality ; w.hile, by 

 being kept properly moist, it produces a manure, 

 which half-rotted, is of quality superior, or at all 

 events equal, to the same weiglit of cow-dung." 



Oow-manure, then, instead of needing more 

 *' care in composting to preserve its value," is, ac- 

 cording to BoussiNGAULT, morc easily preserved 

 than horSe-dung. The increased bulk of the 

 cow-dung, caused by its greater humidity^ when 

 mixed with other manures, is no detriment. Its 

 increased bulk, caused by the alleged imperfect di- 

 gestion, must be so small as not to materially aft'ect 

 its value — even granting, what we are by no means 

 prepared to do, that cows cannot extract as much 

 nutritious matter from food as horses, hogs or sheep. 

 It must be borne in mind, that we are supposing 

 that the same kind of food is consumed. Adiait- 

 ting, for the sake of argument, tliat sheep extract 

 from 100 lbs. of hay one or two pound*s more of 

 carbonaceous matter than cows or horses, and that 

 consequently the sheep-dung obtained would be 

 one or two pounds lighter than from the cows or 

 horses, we can not think that such a slight differ- 

 ence in bulk would materially affect the value of 

 the manure. The argument of the Homestead is 

 that the 100 lbs. of cow-dung contains no more 

 fertilizing matter than the 98 lbs. of sheep-dung, 

 and that, therefore, the 98 lbs. is more valuable 

 than the 100 lbs. because it is less bulky. To this 

 extent the Homestead may be right, if the digestion 

 of the cow is less perfect than that of the sheep. 



When we said that "the manure derived from a 

 given quantity of the same food consumed by a 

 horse, tt cow, a sheep, or a hog, varies very little, 

 if at all, in composition or real value," we took it 

 for granted that the condition of the animals was 

 the same in all cases. A young animal, or one giv- 

 ing milk, whether a horse, a cow, a sheep, or a pig, 

 doubtless extracts more phosphate and nitrogen 

 (Ffrom the food than an adult animal, or one not giv- 

 ing milk. But this is foreign to the question. 



The Homestead says "Milch cows yield a very 

 poor manure, so do young animals ; oxen at hard 

 labor little better; but full grown animals not at 

 hard labor, though fed on precisely the same food, 

 yield a much richer manure." 



The manure from young animals and milch cows 

 is somewhat inferior ; but why it should be so in 

 :he case of working animals we can not understand. 

 Will our friend of the Homestead explain ? If you 

 say that the working animals will digest their food 



better and abstract more of the carbonnceous mat- 

 ter, then the manure obtained will be less bulky, 

 and, according to your previous argument, more 

 valuable in consequence. Working animals may 

 abstract more nitrogen from the food in order to 

 sustain the wear and tear of their muscles; but, 

 unless they increase in flesh, this would not lessen 

 the quantity of nitrogen in the excrements, inas- 

 much as the muscles which are used up furnish just 

 as much nitrogen as the hew muscles abstract from 

 the food. 



DO ANIMALS CONSUME FCOD m PRGPORTIGN TO 

 THEIE LIVE WEIGHT? 



Eds. Gexesee Farmer: — I notice your remarks 

 on my statement about feeding sheep. I will en- 

 deavor to make you understand what I do mean. 



I mean that the same amount of grain — one lb. 

 per day to each — of any kind that is raised in this 

 part of tlie country (wheat excepted — 1 never feed 

 much of it), will fat slieep weighing 140 lbs. as 

 quickly, and make them gain more weight, than 

 those weighing 85 to 100 lbs. The larger may eat 

 more straw, as that I do not weigh out to them ; 

 and I can not see why Mr. Lawes, of Rothamsted, 

 with all his chemistry and science, should know 

 any more about feeding stock than the practical 

 man that has read of Mr. Lawes' experhnents, and 

 tried many of them by the most scrutinizing prac- 

 tice. True, I have not had turnips like Mr. Lawes 

 to practice witli; but 1 liave many, many times, 

 experimented with the dilterent kinds of grain, oil- 

 cake, meal, and peas, and with the different kinds 

 of cattle and sheep, feeding tiiem with my own 

 liands for longer than the average life of man ; and 

 if I don't know as much about feeding sheep as 

 Mr. Lawes of Rothamsted, I must be a greater 

 dunce! 27iat is all; but there need be no dispute 

 about it between you and me. It can be very soon 

 decided by any i»ractical feeder ; let it be one who 

 does the feeding, and not by one wIk^ sends Pat- 

 rick, Jemmy, or even Sawney, joiin joiinston. 



Near Geneva, N. Y., May 30, 1S60. 



P. S. — The sheep must be about equal condition 

 when put up. J. J. 



Remarks. — It would appear from the above, that 

 whatever may be his opinion, Mr. Johnston's ex- 

 periments do not show whether sheep do or do not 

 consume food in proportion to their live weight. 

 They show simply that large sheep fatten more 

 easily than smaller ones. The same fact was brought 

 out in Mr. Lawes' experiments, as we stated in the 

 June number of the Farmer. So far Mr. Johnston 

 and Mr. Lawks agree. Mr. Lawe*' experiments, 

 however, showed also that the large sheep eat more 

 total food (not grain simply,) than the smaller 

 sheep; Mr. Johnston did not determine this point. 

 He says " the larger may eat more straw, as that I 

 do not weigh out to them." 



We do not know that Mr. Johnston has ever 

 stated that sheep do not consume food in proportiou 



