536 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



[September 



buggy was ruined. When Grervais saw the 

 animal return with his trappings dangling 

 about him, he understood at a glance what 

 had happened. So, with consummate impu- 

 dence, he wrote a note to Mr. S., in which 

 he "wished he would confine his horse at 

 the manger until he got used to his new 

 lodgings." As he expected, in a few min- 

 utes Mr, S. was at his stables complaining 

 about Grervais having so grievously cheated 

 him in his steed. With the most iuipertur^ 

 bable gravity Grervais replied, " I tc 

 de truth, sare. You ask me abp, 

 — I telled you he breakee d 

 de carriage, de cart, ebery 

 right to complain now 

 as I telled you he would 

 he had been sold. He 

 sue, but all to no pu 

 taken good pains to have wi-^ses at hand 

 to prove the bargain, and to swear to his 

 very words, which showed that. th£. horae 

 would break everything he w^ hitched to? 

 Accordingly Mr. S. determined 5 to Jgitke the 

 best of a bad bargain, and sold th$8\orse at 

 the foot of the market for as much as he \ 

 would bring. R 



conclusion to which I have arrived is, that no 

 proof has yet been given that these new foods 

 have any practical value whatever in an eco- 

 nomical point of view. Nor does a knowledge 

 of the composition of these foods add anything 

 to what was previously known on the subject 

 of feeding." J!* 



In reply to this, I have first to observe' that 

 the experiment is exceptional as to character, 

 next, a failure, and lastly that one failure*({,an 

 never overthrow the ninety and nftie suece 

 that exist in/avorof cattle-food. The 

 der this head is not one of chemistry 

 the ordinary business o/Jarming, m 



ist 

 lass 



o just 

 S. saw how 

 d he would, 

 •jper^is had 



dily per- 

 tnagement 

 little, if 



Condensed Food for Cattle, * 



Mr. Lawes, of Rothamstead, has, it appears, 

 attacked the condensed food for cattle, and evi- 

 dently on the same principle that he attacked 

 Liebig and others, viz., under the supposition 

 that his knowledge of chemist^ and natural 

 law generally, was perfect and faultless. The 

 present state of chemical knowledge is not such 

 as to enable its professors to arrive at exact 

 facts in relation to the value of food for cattle, 

 and whatever may be the short comings, if any, 

 of these new compounds, they at least are not 

 proved to be valueless by the facts offered by 

 Mr. Lawes. We therefore give place to the 

 following communication, although we are not 

 prepared to endorse the claims made by the 

 proprietors of Thorley's Food for Cattle. — [Ed. 

 Working Farmer. 



From the Working Farmer. 



Dear Sir: — In the April number of the 

 Working Farmer, I observed under the head of 

 " Feeding Statistics," an article copied from 

 the London Farmer's Magazine, written by J. 

 B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, on the sub- 

 ject of alimentary and condimental compounds 

 for the seasoning of the food of live stock, and 

 wherein he says : 



" Being largely interested in the feeding of 

 stock for profit, and having devoted a great deal 

 of time and money in inquiries to obtain fixed 

 data relating to the feeding of animals, the 



rmers are better judges^ tt* 

 ftnureitmanufacturers, (to ■ 

 ongs) and farmers^ 

 a failure" in the <j 

 sted ^pigs' has 

 ;> do, with the feeding'and general man- 

 agement 6f their own horses, cattle and sheep. 

 Are w^g^teref()re,;IT) regard Rothamsted exper- 

 imentjpm'as an infallible rule? Are we to 

 have Ro^msted^frtillibility ? Your readers 

 will exjuse me f>r protesting against any- 

 thing of the kinil&j. Nothing can be' more im- 

 pucent or , jsurd, in a commercial point of 

 wew, than tfrhold up any individual as an in- 

 falliy?s rule to others — even the most suecess- 

 fuK S*Jfhe most exemplary farmer is familiar 

 We fact that his balance sheet differs 

 ^fdely^he ofe year with the other, the small- 

 est fractional difference on the one side, produ- 

 cing a corresponding difference on the other — 

 how much-/*R>re absurd should it be, to lay 

 down the un«ucc£ssf ul example as the rule! 



I must now examine the article under notice 

 somewhat more closely. Are not the absurd 

 rules the " fixed data" to which Mr. Lawes 

 refers in the second paragraph quoted, the 

 "facts connected with the subject of feeding 

 which have been established by the results of my 

 own experiments^ in the third paragraph ? Ih 

 Mr. Lawes so innocent as not to perceive the 

 amount of arrogant presumption which such 

 statements exemplify ? Is he not aware that 

 his own balance sheet, in all his experiments, 

 is but the balance sheets of Rothamsted exper- 

 imentalism, and nothing more? 



A member of the Royal Agricultural Socie- 

 ty, of England, says, " that commercial con- 

 clusions deduced from commercial premises, 

 can never establish ' fixed data' in physical 

 science. In other wards* J ou ma y affirm that 

 all the laws of physu ^science are already es- 

 tablished for the gui^VJuAuf^ farmers by an 

 infallible Authority v^JWr jealous of His pre- 

 rogative in this respec|? Is Mr. Lav$es so ig- 

 norant as not to know that the taBfte he has 

 given of the so-called ' feeding statistics/ does 

 not belong to statistical science, but to the 

 wildest, darkest, and most stormy regions of 

 speculation, each of the twenty-five conclusions 

 being deduced from blundering premises? 

 Never did the pen of an agricultural writer 



