1867.] 
AMERICAN ACRICUETURIST. 
443 
Another cow fed according to Mr. Horsfall's 
system on steamed food, gave 18 quarts per day 
at the time of calving, October 8 lh, and at the 
commencement of the experiment, January 1st, 
13*1 1 quarts per day. She then weighed 1093 
pounds. She gave, on the average, 14 quarts per 
day, and at the end of the experiment weighed 
1170 pounds—again of 50 pounds. 
Mr. Horsfall figures up the result as follows: 
No. 1. Average yield of milk per day 12^ qnarta ® 
4 cent*.$3.50 
Deduct lost of flesh, ^ 13 cents. 1.13 
$3.3S 
3S pounds of hay per day, <!^ $17.14 per ton_1.08 
Profit per week.$0.70 
No. 3. Arerago yield of milk per day 14 quarts, 
4 cents.$3.93 
Oain of flesh pounds, 13 cents. 75 
$4.S7 
Hay, 63 ponnds per week.54c. 
Straw and oat shells.30c. 
Mangel wurzcl.34c. $1.08 
Rape-cake. 35 ponnds; Bran, 104 
pounds; Malt combs, 104 p'nds; 
Bean meal, 104 pounds. 97 3.06 
Profit per week.$3.63 
“The richer quality of the manure,” Mr. 11. 
well observes, “ will probably compensate for 
the extra labor, cooking, and attention bestow¬ 
ed.” The profits from the cow fed ou hay are 
70 cents per week, while from the cow fed on 
rich food they are $2.62 per week. It Is true, if 
we take merely the cost of the food and the 
value of the milk, the profit from the two cows 
is nearly identical, or $ 1 .S 2 from the hay-fed 
cow, and $l .87 from the high-fed cow. And 
there are many jicople who would figure in this 
way. They would leave out of the question 
the gain or loss of flesli. 
The 9'|s pounds of flesh which the cow lost 
per week either went to make milk or to sup¬ 
port the animal. It was equivalent to a certain 
amount of food. Thanks to the investigations 
of Lawes and Gilbert, we know what this flesh 
which an animal lost is composed of, or, at all 
events, we know what the flesh which an ani¬ 
mal gains is composed of, and we may well sup¬ 
pose that within certain limits they arc identical. 
One hundred pounds increcue of beef cattle is 
composed of: 
Water. .31.6 ponnda 
Mineral matter. 1.47 “ 
Nitrogenous compounds . 7.09 ^ 
Fat.66.3 
Now it is very evident that 12 cents per pound 
is rather a low estimate of the value of such 
animal food. 
The carea*$ of a half-fat ox is composed of— 
Water.. .54.00 per cent. 
Mineral matter. 5.50 “ “ 
Nitrogeooaa compounds.17.8 “ “ 
Fat.. 23.6 “ “ 
Even the carcass of a “ fat ox” contains 45.0 
per cent of water; and such beef sells in New 
York for 17 cents per pound, and I think it 
would not be difficult to show that butchers and 
consumers really pay us from 20 to 2 o cents for 
every potind of increase we put on a well 
bred, half-fat ox. What does a thin steer sell for 
in New York, and what a faUonc ? I have fre¬ 
quently seen “ extra ” cattle quoted at 18 cents, 
and “inferior” at 8 cts. Bullet us assume that 
a “half-fat ox” brings 12 cents per lb. “ estimat¬ 
ed dressed weight for the four quarters,” and 
the “ fat ox ” 17 centa The “ half-fat ox,” anal¬ 
ysed by Lawes and Gilbert, weighed, alive, after 
fasting, 1232 pounds; the carcass, 797*1 4 ponnds. 
At 12 cents per pound, he would bring $95.73. 
The “ fat ox,” analysed by Lawes and Gilbert, 
weighed, alive, after fasting, 1419 pounds, and 
dressed 939‘|* pounds. At 17 cents i>er lb. this 
ox would bring $149.71. 
Now, the difference between the two. In live 
weight, is 187 pounds. One was kept fatting 
till ho bad inereaaed 187 pounds more than the 
other. Mr. Horsefull reckons this increase of 
flesh at 12 cents per pound. What do the New 
York butchers estimate it at? At 12 cents per 
pound, it comes to $22.44. But the butchers 
will pay $93.73 for the one animal, and $149.71 
for the other. In other words, they pay for this 
187 pounds of increa.sed live weight $53.98, or 
over 28 *I 4 cents per pound. 
This 9'| a pounds of flesh which the cow lost 
each week would contain over 6 pounds of fat, 
equivalent to over 7 pounds of butter. There is 
no record of how much butler the 12*|i quarts 
of milk contained, but It would be of full aver¬ 
age quality if it gave a pound a day, and conse¬ 
quently the whole of the butter obtained might 
have come from the fat which had been stored 
up in the cow previous to calving. But this 9'|i 
pounds of flesh, so called, would contain only 
about 12 ounces of nitrogenous compounds, 
while the milk obtained during the week con¬ 
tained probably six or seven pounds. Nearly 
the whole of this must have come from the food. 
And this will account, in some measure, for the 
well known fact that milch cows require a more 
nitrogenous food than fattening animals. 
But excuse me. You have been out in the 
cold all day, and I know that a warm stove and 
a talk about “ nitrogenous food” will put any 
farmer to sleep. 
The matter has, however, a very Important 
practical bearing, and a young farmer, at least, 
should make himself acquainted with the sub¬ 
ject The old people may be excusctl. It Is 
just as easy to learn the diflercnce between ni¬ 
trogenous food and carbonaceous food as it is 
to learn the difference between haw and gee. 
But I will not use the terms any more than is 
necessary. In short, it may be said that theory 
and practice both indicate that it is most eco¬ 
nomical to feed niilcli cows high enough to en¬ 
able them to give all the milk they can secrete, 
and to lay on fat at the same lime. 
The drouth still continues in this section, and 
fears are entertained that winter may set in 
before we have rain enough to start the springs. 
Should such be the case, we shall surely be 
troubled to get water for the s'oek. 3Iany 
farmers now have to drive their cattle to the 
canal or to the nearest stream; and water for 
the hogs has to be carried In barrels. It has 
been vain to think of fall plowing. Heavy 
soil is as dry and as hard as a rock—and it is 
this kind of land, rather than the sandy loams,8 
that is most benefited by fall plowing. Wheat 
has come up very unevenly. Where the ground 
is loose and moist, the wheat is too rank; while 
on the dr)’, lumpy “clay spots,” much of it Is 
barely out of tlie ground. It has been splendid 
weather for doing fall work—digging potatoes, 
husking com, etc. But the stalks arc so dry 
and brilllc, that it is almost impossible to tie up 
the bundles. Pigs that are well fed grow rap¬ 
idly this mild weather, but corn is so high that 
farmers are selling them before they are half or 
quarter fat. Buyers are picking them up at 
about 5 cents per pound. One of my neighbors 
was selling cider the other day, and was 
asked if he had put any water in it. “Water,” 
said he, “no, sir; not this year. Water is a 
good deal scarcer than cider.” 
The Cotton Moth.— rylina.) 
Again the destructive larv» of this Insect have 
done great damage to llie cotton crop. 
Of late years their reappearance has been 
more frequent, and at shorter intervals, al¬ 
though not always over the entire cotton-grow¬ 
ing region. 
It is strange that so Ulllc has been published 
of their nature and habits; and that of that little 
still less has been at all correct. Here is a rep¬ 
resentation of the parent moth, ns nearly cor¬ 
rect as It is possible to make wood cuts which 
must be printed on ordinary paper by a power 
press. Few of the beautiful and delicate markings 
can be shown; but in form, true proportions, 
and general markings, the likeness Is correct. So 
of the lan’n, or Cotton teorm, and the chrysalis. 
The insect has never been even aulborilalively 
named. 
Fabricius describes an entirely different insect 
under the name of Xoctua rylina. 
Jay gives a pretty good description of the 
true Collon-molh, styling it Noetua rylina, 
“ which name,” the late Dr. T. W. Harris re¬ 
marks in a letter to the writer of this, “was a 
good and proper name for the insect, as the 
subject was understood by Mr. Jay, who did 
not pretend to know much of the J.rpidoptera. 
Ophiusa rylina better accords with the present 
state of the science.” That name, first published 
by myself, on the aliovc authority, seems now to 
Ik; adoptetL I will spare you any Icngtliy his¬ 
tory of the previous api>e.aranccs of the insects, 
or any attempt at a scientific disquisition, and 
confine myself to a familiar sketch of their 
habits, and their effects upon the crop, probable 
manner of bybemating, and possible means of 
heading them off. 
It is difficult, nay, well-nlgli impossible, to 
speak positively ns to the tehere or tchen of the 
first appearance of an insect which spreads itself 
over so vast an extent of countr)’, and possesses 
such wonderful powers of migration for a thing 
so frail. 
This present year, I beard of them early in 
June, as being then at work In a small crop of 
Sea Island or Long-stapled Cotton on the farm of 
Judge Jones, at Virginia Point, on the main-land 
opposite the city of Galveston—the extreme 
southern portion of the main-land at that point. 
Although doubts were expressctl as to their 
being the real pure," I found they were 
BO. They were few in number, and thinly 
spread over a scattering crop of cotton. They 
bad been reported on the extreme soutliem 
plantations at the mouth of the Brazos and of 
Old Cancy rivers, some 50 or 00 miles west and 
soutii of Virginia Point, several days before. 
They soon spread northward, utterly destroying 
the crops in some localities, doing partial dam¬ 
age to others, and in some places appearing 
only In small numbers. In old limes, the Injury 
would have bcem deemed quite serious where- 
ever they appeared, but now, all of the cotton 
the worm spared will not Ik: picked. 
And this has been the invariable history of 
their advent each season of their nppeumnee. 
Tlicy first sliow themselves to the extreme 
south and south-west, and thence spread rapid¬ 
ly into the interior. 
The worm cannot exist without a plentiful 
supply of iu only food. The egg is extremely 
fragile, and deposited, I believe, invariably on 
the leaf of the cotton plant. In no instance 
have I been able to keep the chrysalis long be¬ 
yond the time of the appearance of the perfect 
insect It is the Moth, then, that hyUrnatss. 
