14.—1846.] THE 
AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE, 22: 
` 
GRICULTURAL SE ED S.— 
Large White Belgian Carrot 1s, 6d, per Ib, 
Large Red Altringham. do. D 20: y 
Large Guernsey Parsnip .- $3 e cepted Oly 5 
Long Red Mangold Wurzel m c es kgs Ose as. 
ong Yellow do. oe m E esten) oe ges 
Globe Red do. pore ek ar aH us 
Globe Orange ^ do. E ORCI Ua cM dong He 
Sutton’s Large Red do. — .- sie og Qul du 93 
Spring Vetches, St. John's Day Rye, Clovers, Kohl Rabbi, 
Lucerne, Furze, Broom, True Italian Rye Grass, &c. &c., at 
lowest market prices, as see Messrs, Surron’s Priced Cata- 
logue just published. 
PERENNIAL GRASSES, 
Selected from the best natural Pastures, and mixed in proper 
sorts and quantities to suit the soil for which they are re- 
1 quired, 17. 12s, per acre.—See Descriptive TABLE OF GRASSES 
just published. 
JOHN SUTTON AND SONS 
Have much confidence in offering the above kinds of Agricul- 
tural Seeds, as being the best sorts in cultivation, and all o: 
the growth of 1845. 
Reading Seed Warehouse, Reading, Berks, April 4. 
Dey, 
CLARK’S 2) C HOTHOUSE 
METALLIC é WORKS. 
ecd DI 
55, LIONEL-STREET, BIRMINGHAM. 
Proprietor, Mr. THOMAS OLARK. 
Superintendent of the Works, Mr. JOHN JONES. 
N returning his grateful thanks to the Nobility, 
Gentry, and Public at large, for their liberal patronage of 
the above Establishment during a period of ncarly 30 years, 
wi K begs to state that the repeal of the duty on Glass, 
enables him to offer his METALLIC HO't and GREENHOUSES 
at a greatly reduced price. These Houses are glazed with 
British Sheet Glass, in panes of from 24 to 30 inches in length, 
and of such thickness as to preclude all danger of accidental 
reakage, whilst that which arises from the action of trost 
(frequently amounting to 25 per cent, per annum), is effectually 
'revented b: ie peculiar mode of glazing adopted, As a sam- 
le of his Metallic Hothouses, in which all the most recent im- 
provements are happily combined, Mr. CLARK refers with pride 
md satisfaction to the magnificent range erected by him in 
the new Royal Gardens at Frogmore, which is admitted by all 
competent judges to be the most complete and perfect of its 
kind in the world, 
The Agricultural Gazette. 
SATURDAY, APRIL, 4, 1846. 
MEETINGS FOR THE TWO FOLLOWING WEEKS. 
TnosspAv, ^ April 9—Agricultural Imp. Soe. of Ireland. 
TuunspA Agricultural Imp. of Ireland. 
FARMERS' CLUBS. 
April 6—St, Columb — Newark — | April 9— Grove-ferry 
Great Oakley — Wenlock — | — 10—Northallerton —Chelmsford. 
W. Market — Cirencester — —Hadleigh — Lichfield — 
Exmi Salb, 
ox: 
— 7—Rochford Hundred—Fram- 
Jinghs 
m — Watford — Jed. ardiff  Northai 
burgh — Abergavennv—Wi-| —  78—W. 
veliscombs— Wooton Basset | — — 14— Dorking 
—  g—Harleston — Braintree and 
Bocking 
9—Richmondshire —Tavistock 
s 
oñeld and Walsham 
adebridge 
Bv an oversight we last week, while speaking of 
Guano, committed a great act of injustice to Messrs. 
Myers and Co., of Liverpool, for which we hasten 
to apologise. Instead of saying that Peruvian Guano 
should be obtained directly from the importers, 
Messrs. Grezs and Co., of London or Liverpool, it 
should have been “from the importers, Messrs, 
Gisss and Co. of London, or Messrs. Myers and 
0. of Liverpool.” We trust that this correction 
will prevent all mistake, for there is not the smallest 
difference in the respectability of these two great 
houses, who divide the privilege of importing Peru- 
vian and Bolivian Guano between them. 
Tur Marr Tax produces somewhere about 
5,000,0002. a year; that is to say, it forms more 
than one-third of the excise, and nearly one-tenth 
of the whole revenue of this country. This vast 
Source of supply has for many years been a bone 
of contention between successive Governments and 
the agricultural interest, many persons of eminence 
in which have been of opinion that the repeal of 
e Malt Tax would be a prodigious advantage to 
farmers, We now find that this question is revived ; 
it has already been raised incidentally in the House 
Commons, and the Anti-Malt-tax Association, 
Which had slept for some years, has been once more 
Toused into action, for the purpose of applying the 
Screw to the CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER. 
"Two principal reasons are given why the Malt- 
tax Operates prejudicially on the farming interest : 
the one is, that labourers would be better off if they 
Could make their own malt and brew their own 
er, or, in the absence of that, could buy it cheaper ; 
e other is, that farmers themselves would. be 
CAREY benefited if they could use Malt for fat- 
ening cattle: 
: To the first of these statements no possible ob- 
Jection can be made ; there is no doubt that labour- 
we men are very heavily taxed in beer, and that it 
i ould be a great social as well as personal advan- 
age to them if it were otherwise. 
minds second opinion is one upon which men’s 
really are not so generally made up. If malt is 
bette, a material Ee which animals fatten much 
er than on Barley, it would of course be highly 
important to find some means of enabling farmers 
to use it ; onthe contrary, if it is no better, or worse, 
then the only ground for throwing away a vast 
source of revenue would be the gain of cheap beer. 
The present Ministers appear to have felt the im- 
portance of the question, and have most judiciously 
decided upon,trying it by the test of direct experi- 
ment; in which they certainly have shown no disin- 
clination to assist the agricultural interest. We learn, 
from an official paper just laid before both Houses 
of Parliament, that a very extensive and most 
important inquiry has been instituted by order of 
Government, with a view to the decision of this 
great question ; and we trust that future Ministers 
will, in all such cases hereafter, follow the example 
thus set by Sir Roperr PEEL 
When a man says that malt is a better food than 
Barley, it is equivalent to saying that four pecks of 
corn will fatten an animal sooner than five; for in 
the process of malting Barley loses on an average 
one-fifth of its nutritive contents. This is evident 
to any one who knows that the process of malt- 
ing consists in making Barley germinate, and in 
afterwards breaking off the sprout. Whatever that 
sprout may be it is formed out of the materials in 
the Barley ; when the sprout is removed, the grain 
is so far impoverished ; and what is of great im- 
portance it loses in this operation a portion of its 
nitrogen ; as much, indeed, as a third on an average. 
A man would, therefore, say à priori that malt is a 
worse kind of food than Barley. But it might, 
nevertheless, be proved in practice that much more 
is gained by the change of starch into sugar than is 
lost by the abstraction of a fifth of the organisable 
materials of Barley ; and the prevailing opinion in 
favour of malt, founded upon its occasional use in 
bringing horses into condition, and upon the action 
of “grains,” might be correct. It was for the 
purpose of determining this point that the experi- 
ments to which we have just alluded were instituted. 
We find that in the spring of last year Dr. 
Tuomson, Professor of Chemistry at Glasgow, one 
of the most sagacious, learned, and honest of Euro- 
pean chemists, and his nephew Dr. R. Tomson, were 
authorised to purchase cattle, and commence experi- 
ments. These were carried.on till the 20th of last 
February, and are now before the country in the form 
of a most elaborate report of 112 folio pages. Itis 
impossible for us to go much into the details of 
these experiments ; we can only say that we have 
read them attentively, and that in our judgment 
they have been conducted with all possible pre- 
cautions against accidental error. The results are 
aa follows :— 
The first subject of inquiry was into the relative 
effect of Barley and Malt on the milk of cows. 
“We procured two young cows, from Ayrshire, of 
the best breed of milk eows in Scotland. They were 
selected by Mr. Tennant, a large farmer at Shields, 
near Ayr. They had calved about six weeks before we 
got them, and they were supposed to be in calf again." 
—“ Our object in getting two cows was to feed the one 
with Barley and the other with Malt, and observe what 
effect the food would have upon the milk and butter of 
each. But it became soon evident that the constitution 
of the two cows was so different that no fair conclusion 
could be come to by that mode of proceeding. 
were obliged, in consequence, to give the same food to 
each, and to draw our consequences from the effects 
produced upon both. At first we gave the cows the 
Barley and the Malt entire, after they had been steeped 
for some time in hot water; but we soon found that it 
was better to grind them into meal, and to digest the 
meal in hot water.” 
“The result of the experiments is placed under the 
form of the following Table :— 
o 
Brown Cow. Warre Cow, 
Milk. Butter. Milk. Butter. 
Tbs. lbs. Ibs. 
I. Grass.. ..| 26:604 0:135 0:516 
II. Barley 20:420 07075. 0:555 
III. Malt 9:341 0:6332 
IV. Barley 22:610 m 
V. Barle; | 28'187 0-791 
VI. Molasses ..| 20:558 0:730 
VIL Malt.. ..| 19710 0:682 
VIII. Barley 19-896 0-675 
IX. Linseed 20-280 0-734 
X. Linse .| 20814 0-687 
XI. Bean Meal. .| 19-590 0:755 
* These experiments leave no doubt that Barley is 
more nourishing to cows than Malt ; at least, as far as 
the produetion of milk and butter is concerned." 
A second report upon a further series of experi- 
ments, devised to ascertain the relative value of 
various substances as food for cows, is closed by the 
following important st t of the lusions to 
which such experiments lead. 
* The views which we have been discussing of the 
difference in the chemical composition of Barley and 
malt are sufficient to render it obvious that malt is a 
much more expensive substance, irrespective of duty, than 
Barley for feeding, inasmuch as it is in reality Barley 
deprived of a certain portion of its nutritive matter and 
salts. The only advantage which it seems to hold out 
in cattle feeding, is the relish which it gives toa mash ; 
but as this depends entirely upon the sugar which it 
contains, and which has been produced from the starch 
of the Barley, it is obvious that the same flavour may 
be imparted by the addition of an equivalent amount of 
Molasses or sugar, should it be considered expedient. 
But we have always found steeped Barley to be highly 
relished by cattle. Malt, however, from the diastase it 
contains, has the power of speedily converting the starch 
of barley into sugar ; a handful of malt would be suffi- 
cient to saccharise several pounds of Barley in the 
steep. The quantity required in this case would be so 
small as to obviate any necessity for a change in the 
uty? 
a 
And again— 
“In the Miscellaneous Table No. 3. we have col- 
lected the amount of butter produced by five kinds of 
food during periods of five days each. But previous to 
these trials, thus arranged, the largest quantity given 
by the brown cow was under the Grass regimen. The 
first five days of the experiment yielded 4.93 Ibs. of 
butter, after which the quantity diminished to the last 
five days of the trial, when the quantity yielded 
amounted to 3.75 lbs., a proportion not superior to what 
was produced in some of the subsequent experiments. 
The same law does not appear to hold with reference to 
the diminution of the butter as pertains to that of the 
milk, when the food has been continued for some time. 
We find, on the contrary, frequently the amount in- 
creasing towards the close of the experiment, even when 
it is continued for 10 or 15 days. The largest amount 
of butter was afforded in the brown cow hy crushed 
Barley. During the third series of five days the amount 
was 3.935 lbs.; Bean meal gave the next greatest 
quantity, 3.69 lbs. in five days ; then comes Barley and 
Linseed, 3.689 lbs. during the first five days; Barley 
and Molasses, 3.63 lbs. ; and malt, 3.69 lbs. In the 
ease of the white cow the quantity was—Beans, 3.76 ; 
Barley and Linseed, 3.421; crushed Barley, 3.376 ; 
Barley and Molasses, 3.26; and Malt, 3.126. With 
both animals we observe that malt is lowest in the 
scale, a fact which seems in some measure to militate 
against the idea of the origin of the butter being in the 
sugar of the food.” 
The last subject of inquiry was the value of malt 
in fattening bullocks. 
«Two lean bullocks were procured, supposed pretty 
similar in their constitution; they were about three 
years of age each, the progeny of the same sire though 
by different mothers. We shall distinguish them by 
the letters A and B. The weight of bullock A, 9 ewt. 
7 lbs.; B, 10 cwt. 106 lbs. ; so that B was 211 lbs. 
heavier than A. They were both fed with the same 
food, both in kind and quantity ; the only difference was 
that a certain number of pounds of Barley were given 
to the one and the same weight of malt to the other. 
By some preliminary trials it was found that Barley and 
malt alone could not be given as food ; when it exceeded 
a certain quantity, they began to loathe it, and left it 
unconsumed. We found hay indispensable. At first 
they got it ad libitum, the amount being ascertained 
before it was given the bullocks, and the residue uneaten 
carefully weighed, and its weight deducted from the 
original weight. It was soon found that the weight con- 
sumed very seldom exceeded 15 Ibs. During a consi- 
derable part of the experiments that was the quantity 
actually given the bullocks. B ate more hay than bul- 
lock A, but bullock A ate a good deal of the straw em- 
ployed for bedding, while bullock B never touched the 
straw. How much straw bullock A ate could not be 
ascertained, but it probably compensated for the inferior 
quantity of hay consumed by that bullock. We began 
with 6 Ibs. of Barley to bullock A, and 6 lbs. of malt to 
bullock B, which was speedily raised to 9 lbs., and then 
to 12 Ibs., beyond which we could not with safety go. 
The hay consisted chiefly of the dried stalks and leaves 
of the Lolium perenne ; sometime there was a mixture 
of Clover. It was observed that the Clover was always 
left untouched, while the Lolium was eaten.” 
* The hay consumed by bullock A, from the 1st to 
the 15th October inclusive, was 312.7769 lbs., and that 
by bullock B, 311.75 lbs., or very nearly the same by 
each. Bullock A consumed 198 lbs. of Barley, and bul- 
lock B the same weight of malt. I conclude that the 
relative fattening value will be proporticned to the in- 
crease of weight of the bullocks, 
From Ist to 4th October m m 
hto 8 » ie; RA 
4th 
8th to lith 3 ae - 
9 | 90.5 
“Here the bullock fed on Barley increased in weight 
109 lbs.,while the bullock fed on malt increased 903 lbs. 
This shows a decided superiority of Barley over malt 
een ompleyed, weight for weight, for fattening bul- 
locks.” 
In another trial— 
From 8th to 12th November .. oe 
»» 12th to 15tl » VESTES 
15th to 22d 5 .. .. 
5 | 44 
After a time the bullocks became ill, and the ex- 
periments were interrupted. They were again re- 
newed, occasionally with conflicting results ; but 
