Practical Experiences in the Preparation of Food for Stock. 473 
These replies, as was to be expected, show a great variation 
in practice, this variation being as a rule controlled by local 
custom, and the actual resources of the farm. 
Chaffing. — Taking the first subject, the answers show a 
general consensus of opinion in favour of chafiing foods. Of 
the whole of the replies, no less than 70 per cent, show chaffing 
to be adopted, while in 20 per cent, more it is partially adopted, 
and in 10 per cent, only is the answer in the negative. The 
further answers on this question are of the greatest interest, 
showing as they do how much straw is now used for feeding, 
only the rough being used for bedding, and where this is also 
used for food, moss litter is the usual substitute. No less than 
46 per cent, of my correspondents use this substitute, and as a 
rule the remainder either have sufficient straw both for feeding 
and litter, or else use the rough for the latter purpose. Over 
the whole of the replies in which prices are given there is a 
saving of 55 per cent, in the cost of moss litter as compared 
with the value of straw. In one case the very bold opinion 
is put forward that litter is not required for any description of 
stock. This opinion is expressed by Professor J. P. Sheldon, a 
gentleman farming in the bleak peak district of Derbyshire, the 
last district from which we should expect to hear that " litter, 
speaking generally, is a superfluity and a waste." All the 
replies to questions 3 to 7, as given by Professor Sheldon, are 
well worthy of careful attention (see page 452). On the whole 
question, there is a general agreement as to the usefulness and 
economy of chaffing foods. The latter comes chiefly from the 
avoidance of waste, and the gi'eat facility it gives for moistening 
and mixing with various meals. Another point which is really 
of great importance is brought out in the very valuable reply by 
Mr. Henry Straker (page 450), where he says that "there is also 
less anxiety about fire when the cattle-man is feeding by candle- 
light, when he has no long straw near him." On the other hand 
there are some influential opinions against chaffing. Whatever 
is said by such experienced m.en as the Strattons deserves atten- 
tion. Mr. Eichard Stratton, of The Duffi:'yn, Newport (Mon.), 
believes that " chaffing does not pay for the labour, and that 
cattle are less liable to get out of health on long food " (see page 
453). But it is a curious commentary on this opinion, especially 
when taken in conjunction with the practice and opinion of such 
a large number of other feeders, that in years of scarcity the 
food is here given chafffed. Unless this is because of the greater 
economy of the practice, it is impossible to imagine the reason. 
Mr. William Stratton, another good farmer, considers it bad 
economy to chaff, and never uses a chaff-cutter (see page 466). 
