POULTR?Y-CRAFT. 115 
The mash described in 4146, (2), has —computing the values of its solids, 
the amount of beef scraps being doubled, as the weight of milk used is not 
known,—a nutritive ratio of 1:5.1; a potential energy of 99 calories per 
ounce. The mixed grain fed with this mash has, in summer, a nutritive ratio 
of 1:6.8; a potential energy of 95: in winter, a nutritive ratio of 1: 6.8; a 
potential energy of 96. The means of these values may fairly be taken as the 
values of the complete ration, for the feed of green stuff given at noon is too 
light to materially affect the values of the ration as a whole, and its tendency to 
reduce these values is offset by the occasional noon feeds of grain with their 
tendency to increase the values. The mean values are for the summer ration 
nutritive ratio 1:5.9; potential energy 97; for the winter ration, nutritive 
ratio 1:6; potential energy 97.5. 
Wheat, the best grain for poultry, itself a practically complete grain ration, 
has a nutritive ratio of 1:6.3; a potential energy of 102. Barley, the next 
best grain, has a nutritive ratio of 1:6; a potential energy of 100. A mixture 
of corn and wheat, equal parts, has a nutritive ratio of 1: 7.1; a potential 
energy of roy. A mash of 3 parts corn meal to r part shorts, recommended 
by one of the highest authorities, on feeding (Rankin), to use with wheat and 
corn as a food for young chicks, has a nutritive ratio of 1:7; a potential energy 
of 100. (The green food used with that ration would slightly narrow the ratio 
and reduce the energy). Germ meal, a mixture of equal parts ground oats, 
corn, barley and wheat, has a nutritive ratio of 1:6.6; a potential energy of 
ror. A mixture of bran, corn mealand oat meal, equal parts, has a nutritive 
ratio of 1:5.5; a potential energy of ror. The mixture (see 4146 (5) ) of 
100 Ibs. bran, 75 lbs. corn, 100 Ibs. oats, 50 Ibs. linseed meal, has a nutritive 
ratio of 1:5.5; a potential energy of 100. ‘‘ Excelsior Meal” (see 4146 (24) ) 
has a nutritive ratio of 1:63; a potential energy of ror. 
The averages of these values give for the standard of Nutritive Ratio, 
1:6; for the standard of Potential Energy 100 calories per ounce.* 
Computed values of approved fattening rations give a standard for nutritive 
ratio, 1:8; for potential energy, 108. 
* Note.—The method which arrives at these standards is, perhaps, shirt-sleeves science. 
It is more accurate, none the less, than the more formal method of those who may rightly 
be called the founders of the science of poultry feeding. This practical tests will show. 
The trouble with students of the science of poultry feeding, has been that they weve 
better scientists than poultry men, and have been establishing standards and deducing 
principles from the data of experiments, which, froma practical standpoint, were partial 
failures. Such standards as, xutritive ratio 1: 3.5 for young chicks; 1:4 for laying hens; 
1:6 for special fattening ; with potential energies ranging from 50 to go, are not practi- 
cable. The feeder learns this as soon as he begins to use them. They were suggested. 
by false analogies from cattle feeding standards. Milk, which is a perfect food — for a 
young calf — has a nutritive ratio of 1:4. The chicks’ digestive organs are adapted to a 
concentrated food: therefore — it was reasoned —the nutritive ratio for chicks must be 
narrower. The contrary of this proposition is true: the nutritive ratio of a concentrated 
food must be w1DER than of a bulky food. The reasons for this need not be given here. 
The fact can be verified by examining the table. It will appear that natural foods having 
