I 860 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
199 
for this would require a public record of its actual 
composition. 
Having learned from several reliable parties 
who have tried it, that horses and neat cattle fed 
with it, seemed to exhibit more plumpness of 
form, and sleekness of coat, our first impression 
was, that it contained arsenic, or antimony, both 
of which articles, when fed in small quantities, 
at first favorably affect the appearance of animals. 
13ut we will do the manufacturers the justice to 
say, that we procured samples from headquarters, 
and without their knowledge had these submitted 
to thorough qualitative analysis, by the first 
chemists of the country, without discovering a 
trace of either arsenic or antimony. We are 
glad to find this to be the case, for however great 
or little value the article may have, it is a relief 
to know, that it is not positively poisonous. 
But will it pay to buy this article to be used as 
a frequent and constant food for cattle 1 So far 
as we have examined it under the microscope, 
and by chemical tests, it appears to be a mixture 
of nutritious articles of food—perhaps beans, bar- 
ly, flax seed, etc.—with which is combined a 
small quantity of coloring matter, and some 
tonic medicine. The “ tonic” may sometimes, 
even frequently, render it useful to animals, just 
as “ Peruvian Bark,” quinine, and other tonics 
are useful to men. But no one would recom¬ 
mend every man, sick or well, to use tonic me¬ 
dicines daily and constantly. 
That this food is nutritious, even highly so, we 
will not assert or deny ; but allowing it to be nutri¬ 
tive to the highest degree, we should want much 
greater evidence than has yet been furnished by 
experience, observation, or analogy, to warrant 
us in paying 12 to 14 cents a pound (the price of 
beef steaks) for an article of diet for animals. 
In the English Agricultural Gazette for March 
14, page 272, we notice a communication, signed 
by “ Old Bird,” (one not to be caught with chaff,) 
which we suppose refers to the article under 
consideration. The writer says he has been fa¬ 
vored with a circular of-’s new cattle food, 
and the analysis by Dr. Letheby ; and he pro¬ 
ceeds : “ I find the mixture consists chiefly of 
cereals (grains) and Leguminosae (peas, beans, 
etc ), and contains about 80 per cent nutritive 
matter, viz. : 
Nitrogenous matter.12.1 per cent. 
Carboniferous matter.68.1 per cent. 
“ From this data it is not difficult to ascertain 
its actual value. Mr. Spooner states the value of 
nitrogenous matter to be £20 (about $100) per tun 
of 2240 lbs., (or nearly 4) cents per lb.) ; and of 
carboniferous matter at £12 ($60) per tun, (or 
nearly 2£ c. per lb.)” With these figures before 
him, “Old Bird” puts down the value of this 
“ new cattle food ” at about $53 per tun, or less 
than 2^ cents per lb., while it is there sold at 
£36 ($180) per tun, or 8 cents per lb. 
The writer then gives the estimated value of 
linseed cake, (the common oil cake, left in ex¬ 
pressing oil from flax seed) which by the analysis 
of Johnson, contains s'ay 764 lbs. of nitrogenous 
matter, and 875 lbs. of carboniferous matter in a 
tun (of 2240 lbs.), making the cake worth a little 
over $57 per tun, or about the market price for it 
in London. According to Dr. Ycelcker, chemist to 
the Royal Agricultural Society, a mixture of 
equal parts of barley, beans, and oil cake, contains 
in a tun 509 lbs. of nitrogenous matter, and 1162 
lbs. of carboniferous matter ; and this mixture 
(of barley, beans, and oil cake) is, therefore, 
worth nearly $54 per tun, or a trifle more than 
the same weight of the “ new cattle food.” “Old 
Bird ” thus sums up : “ It is evident, therefore, 
either linseed cake at its present value (£11 per 
tun), or a mixture of equal parts of barley, beans, 
and linseed cake, at the present price contains 
more nutritive matter, than a tun of the cattle 
food. If you add to your own mixture the cost of 
grinding, etc., still you maybe satisfied that your 
own combination of substances (containing a far 
larger portion of nitrogenous matter,) stands you 
at barely one-third the cost of the new cattle 
food. Practical men of business consider these 
things, and are not caught and made to pay the 
forfeit of the inexperienced.” 
In a more recent number of the Agricultural 
Gazette, we find an editorial referring to the 
above, which we will republish entire, as it em¬ 
bodies about what we should say on the same 
subject. 
“ We ha- e received a letter from a London 
firm, makers of a new cattle food, who believe 
that they are referred to by 1 An Old Bird ’ in a 
paragraph published on page 272. They allege 
that our correspondent is mistaken in imagining 
from Dr. Letheby’s analysis that he has ascer¬ 
tained the cost of the article which they manu¬ 
facture. On the contrary, they could tell him 
something about a large percentage of waste, 
about a costly commission agency, about ex¬ 
penses of London premises, labor, carriage, print¬ 
ing, and advertising, of which he seems to know 
nothing. ‘ Besides, as a physician claims his 
guinea for writing a prescription, so we fancy 
our invention, which has cost us some labor and 
expense, is entitled to a profit.’ 
“ Now, if an ‘ Old Bird ’ is to be misled by 
such reasoning as this, he has no claim whatever 
to the signature which he has adopted. What is 
it to him or to any one who may wish to try this 
cattle food, whether the process of its manufac¬ 
ture be costly or not; the only point for his con¬ 
sideration is, whether or not the article offered 
be worth the price asked for it.. To that end let 
him try it if he chooses. But as this involves 
considerable expense, it is perhaps reasonable 
in the first place, to ask the chemist what the 
food contains. Dr. Letheby is accordingly con¬ 
sulted, and he says, so our correspondent alleges, 
that 12.1 per cent of the food is ‘nitrogenous 
matter,’ and 68.1 per cent of it is ‘carbonaceous 
matter.’ Now, Mr. Spooner says that the nitro¬ 
genous matter of any nutriment may be had in 
most foods for £20 a tun, and that the carbona¬ 
ceous matter of any nutriment may be similarly 
had for £12 a tun. 
“ If these data be correct what can be easier 
than to ascertain the value as a nutriment of the 
new cattle food in question 1 This accordingly 
has been done, and our correspondent, finding 
that the article comes out of this arithmetical 
examination worth £10 11s. 9 d. a tun, whereas 
the manufacturers ask £35 a tun for it, declares 
he is not to be caught, and very properly signs 
himself ‘An Old Bird.’ The manufacturers may 
be losers or they may be gainers, that is nothing 
to him. If they can offer in their food these two 
classes of nutriment at a smaller price than he 
pays for them in beans or linseed-cake, he will 
gladly be a customer, but seeing that they offer 
them at more than three times the price for which 
he can procure them elsewhere, he is wise 
enough to decline the offer, and good enough to 
point out the snare to others. 
“ Let any manufacturer of a new cattle food 
buy beans and linseed, lentils, cake, etc., and 
mix a little salt and grind them up so as to be 
immediately available for use in the feeding house, 
and farmers will pay him handsomely for his la¬ 
bor. The division of labor principle is econom¬ 
ical, and therefore profitable for all; and there 
can be no reason why the grinding of food for 
cattle should not be a business as much as the 
grinding of food for man. But if any one, as we 
believe that many do, justifying themselves by 
the expenses of London management and by the 
cost of some mysterious condiment which they 
use in their manufacture, shall offer his manu¬ 
factured food at three or four times the cost of 
the only nourishing ingredients it contains, cer¬ 
tainly we shall not help him to a customer.” 
With our present light on the subject, we are 
forced to agreq with our London cotemporary. 
We believe, our farmers can not afford to pay 
the profit required by the manufacture and im¬ 
portation of an article from London, together 
with extensive advertising, etc., for nutriment,' 
which they can obtain at a fourth of the cost in 
other forms. Beans, barley, and oil cake, are 
cheaper here than in England, and to buy and 
mix them in England to be brought here, is 
“bringing coal to Newcastle.” Give horses 
and cattle a due supply of nutritious food, barley, 
beans, and oil cake, if you like, but mix and grind 
them yourselves, instead of purchasing them at 
three, four, and five times their value, because 
mixed by others. If animals are diseased or 
weak, give them tonics when needed, but do not 
force them to eat medicines daily in the form of 
“ cattle food.” 
- - ■! »-- «-—: - 
Agricultural Inventions for a Single 
Year (1859). 
We were never more forcibly impressed with the 
rapid improvement now taking place in all that 
pertains to the cultivation of the soil than when 
this morning we took up an advance copy of the 
Patent Office Report for 1859, (kindly furnished 
by H. McCormick Esq., ch. Agr. clerk) and turned 
to the list of patents granted during one year in 
the single department of Agriculture. An hour 
or two spent in classifying and counting the va¬ 
rious inventions and discoveries, gave us the fol¬ 
lowing results, viz : 
There were patented during 1859 : 
Agricultural Implements of all kinds.659 
Seed Planters ; 30 designated as corn plant¬ 
ers ; 34 as seed planters ; 42 as seeding 
machines ; 10 as cotton seed drills ; and 
1 potato planter.117 
Plarvesters, including 9 for cutting corn and 
sugar cane, 3 for harvesting cotton, 2 for 
digging potatoes,and 1 forgathering beans. 113 
Cultivators. 58 
Plows, including 5 Steam Plows. 43 
Churns. 42 
Grain Separators. 26 
Horse Rakes. 24 
Straw Cutters. 2i 
Harrows, including 13 Rotary Harrows. 2o 
Bee Hives. 14 
Sugar cane mills. 13 
Improvements in sugar manufacture.•.. 13 
Mills for grinding Corn. 9 
Cotton Gins. 9 
Potato Diggers. 8 
Threshing Machines. 7 
Corn Huskers. 6 
Cotton Seed Hullers. 6 
Machines for sowing fertilizers. 6 
Machines for cutting and binding grain. 6 
Vegetable Slicers. 6 
Fertilizers. 5 
Cotton Seed Cleaners. 4 
Hop Frames. 4 
Hay Making Machines. 4 
Mowing Machines. 4 
Cheese Vats. 3 
Ox Yokes. 3 
Spading machines, including 1 Steam spader. 3 
Two of each of the following : Butter work¬ 
ing, Clover (seed!) hulling, Grain fans, 
Grain weighers, Weeding Hoes, Ma¬ 
chines for milking, Cider Mills. 
One each of machines for making “Pearl 
barley,” Cleaning animals, Corn cribs, 
Machine for Making Drain Tiles, Flail 
caps, grain bin, grain cradle, grain dry¬ 
er, grain shovel, grain hulling, hay man¬ 
ger, plant protector, field roller, scythe 
snath, machine for smoothing walks, 
pitch-fork, pea-vine trellis, and machine 
for girdling and felling trees. 
Here are 659 inventions designed to facilitate 
the work of the cultivator of the soil all brought 
out in one year. Other years are similarly pro¬ 
ductive. It is true that many of these inventions 
do not turn out to be of special value either to the 
public or the inventors themselves ; but there is 
originality enough in each of them to warrant 
