1871.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
95 
‘authorities’ generally place it low, but many 
breeders of large experience use it extensively. 
What is the value of shorts and of mid¬ 
dlings?” I caunot answer these questions, for 
the simple reason that we do not know how 
much of the cellulose, or woody fibre in bran, 
hay or straw, is ordinarily digested by cattle 
and sheep. Lawes & Gilbert’s experiments 
on pigs show that bran is a very indifferent 
fattening food for these animals. Their stom¬ 
achs are not large enough to digest it. The fol¬ 
lowing table shows the composition of wheat 
bran as compared with other standard articles 
of food: 
Water. 
! Crude Fibre. 
ja 
03 
< 
Total non-nutri- 
t.ious matter. 
J Albuminoids. 
Carbo-hydrates. 
| Fat. 
Total carbona¬ 
ceous mat,ter= 
carbo-hydrates. 
1 Total Nutri- 
1 tious matter. 
Timothy Hay. 
14.8 
22.7 
4.5 
41.5 
9.7 
45.8 
3.0 
53.3 
63.0 
Clover Hay... 
10.7 
35.8 
0.2 
58.7 
13.4 
26.7 
3.2 
34.7 
4S.1 
Wheat Straw. 
14.3 
48.0 
5.5 
67.8 
2.0 
28.7 
1.5 
32.45 
34.9 
Wheat Bran.. 
13.1 
17.8 
5.1 
36.0 
14.0 
46.2 
3.8 
55.7 
69.7 
Indian Corn.. 
14.4 
5.5 
2.1 
22.0 
10.0 
61.0 
7.0 
78.5 
S8.5 
The carbo-hydrates include digestible cellu¬ 
lose, or woody fibre, starch, gum, sugar, etc. 
One pound of fat is equal to 2'| a lbs. of starch; 
and so, in the last column but one, I have given 
the total amount of digestible carbonaceous 
matter, calculated as starch; that is to say, I 
have multiplied the fat by 2’ja. Thus 100 lbs. 
of timothy hay contain 45.8 lbs. of digestible 
carbonaceous matter and 3 lbs. of fat. These 3 
lbs. of fat are equal to 7‘| 2 lbs. of starch, which, 
added to the other digestible carbonaceous 
matter, make the total amount equal to 53.3 
lbs. The last column is obtained by adding 
the albuminoids, or nitrogenous matter, to the 
total amount of digested carbonaceous matter, 
and consequently this column represents the 
total amount of nutriment in the different foods. 
According to these figures, we have the following 
results, estimating clover hay worth $15 per ton : 
Value per 
ton as food 
according to 
analysis. 
Value of the 
manure ob¬ 
tained from 
a ton of 
food. 
Cost of the 
food per 
ton after de¬ 
ducting the 
value of the 
manure. 
Clover Hay. 
$15.00 
$9.64 
$5.36 
Timothy Hay___ 
19.63 
6.43 
13.20 
Wheat Straw. 
10.87 
2.68 
8.19 
Wheat Bran. 
21.70 
14.59 
7.11 
Indian Corn . 
27.58 
6.65 
20.93 
According to analysis, therefore, if the nutri¬ 
ment in a ton of clover hay is worth $15, that 
in timothy hay is worth $19.53, that in bran, 
$21.70, and that in corn, $27.58. 
In the second column is given the value of 
the manure from a ton of the food consumed. 
After deducting this from the actual nutritive 
value of the food, it will be seen that while the 
food in a ton of clover hay is worth $15, it costs 
us only $5.36; and while the food in a'on of 
timothy is worth $19.63, it costs us $13.20; 
wheat bran is worth $21.70, and costs us $7.11. 
A little calculation will show which of these 
articles is the cheapest food, after deducting the 
value of the manure. 
It will be seen that Judge Jones is right in 
his estimate of bran as food for cattle and 
sheep. It is unquestionably a valuable food, 
and in those sections where manure is needed 
(and where is it not ?) it can usually be bought 
to advantage. If timothy hay is worth $26.06 
per ton, bran is worth $36.29; and I believe 
these figures represent the relative value of 
timothy hay and bran with a good degree of 
accuracy. But when you compare bran with 
corn, there is another question to be taken into 
consideration by the grain-growing farmer, who 
has plenty of straw, corn-stalks, and other bulky 
fodder. It is certain that such a farmer cannot 
afford to pay $36.29 per ton for bran while he 
can get corn for $34.23 per ton. The corn is 
more easily digested thau the bran ; and further¬ 
more, the nutriment in corn is more concen¬ 
trated, and can be fed out to much greater ad¬ 
vantage in connection with straw and stalks 
thau bran can. The table shows that straw has 
a far greater nutritive value than it is usually 
found to be worth when fed out alone on the 
farm. Its actual value as food is $10.87 per 
ton, as compared with clover hay at $15 per 
ton. But it is certainly not worth half this sum 
to feed out alone. It is too bulky. The animals 
cannot eat and digest enough of it to enable 
them to take on flesh and fat rapidly. We need 
to feed out corn or other concentrated food 
with it; and in such a case as this, the figures 
in the table place the value of bran too high, 
and that of corn too low. 
On my farm, I am always tempted to buy 
bran, when I can get it $10 per ton less than 
corn-meal, simply because it makes such rich 
manure. But this winter, so far, I have not fed 
out a single ton. I buy corn and corn-meal in¬ 
stead. And I do it for the reason above given. 
With well-bred stock that is growing rapidly, 
bran is a substitute for hay and roots, not for 
grain. If I was short of hay and coarse fodder, 
I should buy bran; but with plenty of clover 
hay there is little necessity for buying bran. 
Better buy corn. Clover hay and corn are bet¬ 
ter for fattening stock than clover hay and bran. 
I say well-bred stock, and by this I mean an¬ 
imals that have been bred to grow rapidly. 
Such animals require more nutriment in a given 
time than animals that have been bred to grow 
slowly. The latter can get all the food they 
need from ordinary hay; but the former must 
have hay of extra quality, or, in the absence of 
this, they must be fed enough grain to bring the 
hay or straw or roots up to the desired stand¬ 
ard ; and this standard will be determined by 
the growing qualities of the animals and the 
size of the stomach. The animal can eat only 
as much as the stomach will hold ; and if this 
is sufficient to enable it to grow and fatten as 
rapidly as it is capable of growing, it would be 
a waste of food to give grain in addition, and 
would be deleterious to health. But if the an¬ 
imal is capable of digesting more food than the 
stomach will hold, it is a great loss not to fur¬ 
nish it. And we do this either by providing 
richer hay, or by substituting more or less grain 
in place of a portion of the fodder. In such a 
case it would be cheaper to feed corn than bran, 
even if the nutritive matter in the corn cost con¬ 
siderably more than that in bran. Nevertheless, 
I-tliink very highly of bran, especially for milch 
cows, and for breeding ewes. It is the best 
substitute for roots that we have. But if the 
animals can stand it, I would give more or less 
grain in addition. 
The Kansas Farmer says: “ ‘ Walks and 
Talks,’ in the September Agriculturist , advises 
sowing two bushels to the acre of wheat. We 
would call this pretty heavy seeding, out West 
here, and we believe our soil will stand a heav¬ 
ier seeding than the soil of New York will. AYe 
have advocated a heavier seeding of oats than 
our farmers generally give, and have thought 
that the seeding for wheat could be slightly in¬ 
creased with profit, but we believe that ‘ Walks 
and Talks’ has rather over-reached the mark. AVe 
are free to confess, however, that we have never 
tried two bushels per acre; nor have ive ever 
seen it tried. * * * Five pecks have been the 
rule among the Avheat growers of Indiana, 
Ohio, and Michigan, and that rule has rarely 
been infringed upon. In Kansas and Missouri 
some of our best wheat growers have used as 
much as six pecks of seed. AVe would like to 
hear from ‘Walks and Talks,’ if lie has ever 
used two bushels of seed, and, if so, was it 
thinned by winter-killing or any other cause? 
And what was the yield of the crop ?” 
I have now between forty and fifty acres of 
winter wheat drilled in at the rate of two bush¬ 
els per acre; and I have sown at this rate for 
several years, sometimes getting on a little more 
and sometimes a little less. I do not think my 
wheat has ever been injured by being too thick. 
The Deacon sows only a bushel and a half, and 
some others only five pecks. I sow later, and 
put on a little more seed. Some of them sow 
as early as the last Aveek in August. I do 
not care to soav earlier than the 10tli of Sep¬ 
tember, and from that to the 25t,h. The Hes¬ 
sian-fly, which has not troubled us for many 
years, seems to have returned, and of course 
early sown wheat Avill be the most likely to 
suffer from its attack. On the other hand, to 
avoid the midge Ave want our wheat to ripen 
early, or perhaps more correctly speaking, to 
come earlier into flower. I have an idea that 
moderately thick seeding favors early ripening. 
But after all that has been written on this 
subject of thick and thin seeding, and the nu¬ 
merous experiments that have been made, there 
is a great diversity of opinion on the point. 
And the old question, as to Avhether rich land 
or pooi- land needs the most seed, is still in dis¬ 
pute. I suppose from the remark that “ our 
soil Avill stand a heavier seeding than the soil 
of New York,” the editor of the Kansas Farmer 
thinks that rich land requires heavier seeding 
than poor land. I have always taken the other 
view, so far as wheat, barley, and oats are con¬ 
cerned, but not in regard to Indian corn. 
Within certain limits, the richer the land the 
more plants of Indian corn can be left on an 
acre. But with Avheat, the richer the land the 
more the plants will stool out and the less seed 
Avill be required. 
But I suppose a good deal depends on what 
Ave understand by rich and poor land. What I 
mean by rich land is a soil that contains suffi¬ 
cient plant-food, in an immediately available 
condition, to produce as heavy a crop as the 
season is capable of bringing to perfection. In 
other words, on rich soil it is the character of 
the season that determines the yield per acre. 
And any land that, from lack of available plant- 
food, can not produce as large a crop as the 
season is capable of maturing, is poor land. It 
the season is capable of maturing 40 bushels of 
wheat per acre, and the land is capable of pro¬ 
ducing only 30 bushels, that land is poor. If the 
season is capable of maturing only 30 bushels 
per acre, then this same land avouUI be rich. 
Now, when we say “ the richer the land the 
less seed we require,” we refer to land capable- 
of producing more Avheat than the season is 
capable of maturing. On such land, containing 
an excess of available plant-food, the greater this 
excess the less seed, Within certain limits, should 
Ave sow. One bushel per acre would be better 
than two bushels. And though it seems para¬ 
doxical, I think it may be true that the poorer 
the land the less seed is required. Land that is 
capable of producing only 5 bushels of Avheat 
per acre would require less seed than land cap¬ 
able of producing 10 bushels, and this less than 
land capable of producing 20 bushels. Very 
rich and very poor land should be thinly seeded; 
but on medium land, such, say, as is capable of 
