AMERICAN AG-RICULTUR^IST. 
[December, 
Convenient Horse Manger. 
There have been many contrivances sug¬ 
gested, and used indeed, to prevent horses 
throwing their hay and other food out of their 
mangers, to preserve the fodder from contami¬ 
nation by the breath of the animals, and always 
to maintain in the manger a sufficient supply, 
but no excess. Such a contrivance, hampeied 
by no patents, and easy to make, we present the 
HORSE MANGER. 
readers of tlie Agriculturist. It strikes us as 
convenient and practical, and a person with any 
facility in the use of tools can construct one. 
The engraving shows the manger, (A,) extend¬ 
ing the width of the stall, but not of necessity 
so large, two feet wude, and two feet deep, made 
of two-inch plank, and iron bound. It has a 
box, (F,) for feeding grain at one end, and above 
the other a trunk, (B,) for ha}’’, descends from 
the floor above. This is the peculiar feature of 
the arrangement. The ha}^-trunk is eighteen 
inches wide, and a foot deep. It descends four 
inches below the top of the manger, and the 
end is slanting, as shown in the engraving. A 
lid, hinged to the back and lowest part of the 
trunk, shuts up into it, where it may be fastened 
by a pin or button. When the lid is let down 
it rests on the two bars, (d, e,) and the hay will 
slide down within reach of the horse. The op¬ 
ening between the front edge of the trunk and 
the open lid being only about flve or six inches, 
the horse can draw out but little hay at a time, 
yet he can get at all that is thrown into the 
trunk at one time. If the animal drops any 
hay, the tendency is to drop it into his man¬ 
gel, and not waste it. The trunk is made of 
inch stuff, and iron bound about the bottom 
and corners if necessary. The lid shuts in the 
way it does to prevent the horse gnawing upon 
it as he would otherwise be very likely to do. 
- ———— -- 
Walks and Talks on the Farm.— No. 48. 
One of the most interesting experiments I 
have seen for some time was made last year 
at the Micliigan Agricultural College, by Pro¬ 
fessors Miles and Sanford Howard to ascertain 
whether an animal eats less or more food in 
proportion to live weight as it grows older, and 
whether we get less or more increase from the 
food consumed. 
Three thoroughbred Essex pigs were weighed 
when 11 days old. They then weighed 14’|3 
pounds, or 4.83 pounds each. They were then 
allowed all the milk they would eat, and con¬ 
sumed the first week 79.19 pounds. They then 
weigiied 25* la pounds, or an average of 8*1 a 
pounds each. The next week they eat 106.94 
pounds milk. At the end of thesecond week they 
weighed 39 pounds, or 13 pounds each. The next 
week they eat 129.94 pounds of milk, and at the 
end of the week weighed 50 pounds, or 16.66 
pounds each. The next w^eek they eat 141.81 
pounds milk, and at the end of the week weigh¬ 
ed 64 pounds, or 21.33 pounds each. They 
gained on an average 8.66 pounds each the first 
week, 4.5 pounds the second week, 3.66pounds 
the third week, and 4.66 pounds the fourth 
week. 
The average amount of milk consumed for 
each pound of live weight was: 1st week, 3.96 
pounds; 2d week, 3.32 pounds; 3d week, 2.92 
pounds; 4th week, 2.49 pounds.. This is a very 
remarkable off in the rate of consumption 
in proportion to live weight.^ as the animal grows 
older. 
At this point the experiment terminated “for 
want of suitable facilities for weighing the mixed 
food.” Shame to the State of Micliigan, shame 
to a nation of Farmers, that our oldest and best 
Agricultural College should be compelled to stop 
such an important experiment for want of a 
pair of scales ! 
The gain for each 100 pounds live weight was: 
1st week, 75.86 pounds; 2d, 59.92 pounds; 3d, 
28.20 pounds, and 4th, 28 pounds. 
The amount of milk consumed to produce one 
pound of increase of live weight was: 1st week, 
7.20 pounds; 2d, 7.92 pounds; 3d, 11.81 pounds j 
and 4th, 10.13 pounds. 
So far as these experiments go, they sustain 
a principle which I have long supposed was 
true, that, other things being equal, the more 
you can get an animal to eat in proportion to 
its live w’eight, the more it will gain in propor¬ 
tion to the food consumed. If this is true, the 
aim of breeders should be to produce animals 
that are “ great eaters ”—and, of course, they 
should also aim at the same time to reduce the 
offiil parts, so that nearly all the food shall be 
turned into valuable meat. 
For the first two weeks it took only 7*) a 
pounds of milk to produce one pound of in¬ 
crease, and for the next two weeks, 11 pounds, 
or 46*12 per cent. more. This is an enormous 
falling ofi; in the meat-producing power of the 
food, and as the pigs grow larger there would 
doubtless be less and less increase from the food 
consumed. And this is really the point which 
we wish to ascertain experimentally. 
The experiment terminated August 18th. The 
best pig of the three was then five weeks and 
four days old, and weighed 24^14 pounds. He 
was then gaining at the rate of 28 per cent, per 
week. Although no record was kept of the 
amount of food consumed, the pig was weighed 
at the end of the week, (August 25th,) and 
weighed 29^14 pounds. This is a gain for the 
week of 20 per cent. He was not weighed the 
next week, but ’was the week after, (September 
8th.) He then weighed 45=14 pounds. This is 
also a gain of a little over 20 per cent, per week. 
Now, if he could be kept on growing at that 
rate, he would weigh the next week, (Septem¬ 
ber 15th,) about 57 pounds, and the next, (Sep¬ 
tember 22d,) 71 pounds, and the next week, 
(September 29th,) 89 pounds. He would then 
be between ten and eleven weeks old, and would 
probably dress, if as fat as such a rapid-growing 
pig must be, about 6o pounds, if ■\ve keep him 
longer than this, the proportion of increase will 
rapidly grow less. This very hog, at 5* la months 
old, weighed 154 pounds; which, if we assume 
that he weighed 89 pounds when 11 weeks old, 
is a gain of only between 4 and 5 per cent, per 
week. 
• Only give us a breed of ifigs that will gain for 
ten Or eleven weeks, in propoxiiion to live weight, 
as rapidly as this one gained for eight Aveeks, 
and nothing more could be desired, so far as the 
supply of fresh pork is concerned. In London, 
the pig most in demand by the butchers, and most 
profitable for the farmers, is one dressing be¬ 
tween 60 and 70 pounds. 
The real point I want to enforce is this. It 
takes some 75 per cent, of all the food an ordi¬ 
nary animal cats to keep him alive, and the in¬ 
crease is derived from the other 25 pounds. 
Now, if you can get him to eat 125 pounds, or 
only one-fourth more, you double your increase; 
if 150 pounds, you get three times the increase, 
and with 175 pounds,/owr times, and Avith 200 
pounds, j/i-re times, Avhile your food is only doub¬ 
led. Now, Avill not a little, Avell bred pig, eat 
as much again in proportion to liA’e weight as 
he Avill at an older age, and Avill he not conse¬ 
quently give more than double the increase in 
proportion to the food consumed? And if this 
is so, should not our aim be to get animals hav¬ 
ing immense digestive powers embodied in a 
small frame ? I believe breeders have never 
turned their attention to this point. 
In Mr. LaAves’ experiments on the “ Compar¬ 
ative Fattening Qualities of the Dilferent Breeds 
of Sheep,” the sheep that gained the most on 
the same kind of food had the largest stomachs. 
Thus, of 20 Cotswold sheep, the five that gained 
the most A\’ere found, on killing them, to have 
stomachs Aveighing on the average, 4 lbs. 14|oz.; 
Avhile the stomachs of the five that gained the 
least averaged only 4 lbs. 4| oz. 
Of the Leicesters’ the four that gained the 
most had stomachs averaging 4 lbs. 1*]5 oz., 
and the four that gained the least, 3 lbs. 2*'|5 oz. 
Of the Hampshire Downs, the four that gained 
the most had stomachs aA’eraging 4 lbs. 8 *j 2 oz., 
and the four that gained the least, 3 lbs. 8*|3 oz. 
Of the Sussex DoAvns, the four that gained 
the most had stomachs Aveighing 3 lbs. 4 oz., 
and the four that gained the least, 21 bs. ll*jaOz., 
and so it Avas in other cases Avhich I have not 
time to mention. 
You say that this Avould naturally be so ; that 
the sheep that gained the most Avere the largest 
animals, and consequently had the Largest stom¬ 
achs. But Avhile this is true of the sheep at the 
termination of the experiment, it AA’as not so 
when the animals were put up to fatten. And 
this is the real point. Thus, at the commence¬ 
ment of the experiment, the five Cotswold sheep 
that afterward gained the most AA’eighed 122 lbs. 
each, and the five that gained the least, 123 lbs. 
At the end of the experiment the latter Aveighed 
167 lbs. each, and the former, 202 lbs. So much 
for big stomachs! To anticipate another ob¬ 
jection, I may-add that the dressed Aveight of 
the five that gained the most Avas 117 lbs. each, 
and that of the five that gained the least, 93 lbs. 
In Mr. LaAves’ Pig Experiments, one of the 
pigs, considered a fair representative of the oth¬ 
ers, Avas killed at the commencement of the ex¬ 
periment. His “fasted” live Aveigbt Avas 94 
lbs.; carcass, 62*|a lbs. The stomach of this pig 
Aveighed 1 lb. 3.03 oz. 
After the pigs had been fattened for ten weeks, 
another pig of the same litter Avas killed. His 
fasted live Aveight Avas 185 lbs.; carcass 140*|'3 
lbs. The stomach of this pig Aveighed 1 lb. 3.48 
oz.—less than tAvo-tenths of an ounce more 
than the pig killed 10 Aveeks before. The older 
pig weighed nearly as much again as the other, 
(and dressed 226 per cent, more,) and yet the 
stomach AA’as no larger. You can draAv your 
own conclusion from the firct. To me it seems 
to confirm the view^s I have endeayored to set 
(Continv^on page 
