242 
FATTENING- ANIMALS IN CONFINEMENT. 
it from the tank without diluting, convey it to the 
fields in casks, and pour it into a tub, fig. 53, from 
which it is made to flow over the ground; or it 
is distributed directly from the tank in a hand 
cart, denoted by fig. 52. 
It is a question which has not been satisfacto¬ 
rily determined, whether means may not yet be 
devised of completely , easily , and cheaply separa¬ 
ting the fertilising ingredients of urine and tank 
stuffs from the water in which they are dis¬ 
solved. It is well known that alum, green vi¬ 
triol, (sulphate of iron,) Epsom salts, (sulphate of 
magnesia,) and the sulphate of ^Pnc, when 
mixed with fermenting urine or tank stuff, cause 
a precipitate to fall to the bottom, more or less 
dense, which will contain the phosphates and a 
portion of the other saline, and even of the or¬ 
ganic constituents of the liquid. This precip¬ 
itate, therefore, when dried to a powder, may 
be used as a fertiliser, either by itself, or what 
is better, in admixture with other fermenting 
manure; but all these substances leave most 
of the valuable salts in the water behind them, 
and, therefore, besides their cost, are open to 
the objection that they do not perform the pur¬ 
poses for which they have been employed. 
The method which would seem to be the most 
rational, and is generally within the reach of 
the farmer, without much expense in the outlay, 
is, to absorb the whole liquid manure by par¬ 
tially-dried peat or swamp or pond muck, and 
thus add to its bulk, the fertilising matter con¬ 
tained in it. A method which has been exten¬ 
sively adopted both in Ireland and Scotland, 
is, to use the peat in a half-charred state, in¬ 
stead of using it raw. In localities where peat 
does not abound, charred saw dust, tan bark, 
apple pomace, or bagasse may be substituted 
with equally good effects. The waters of barn 
yards, common sewers, of gas houses, bone boil¬ 
ers, glue makers, bleacheries, flannel manufacto¬ 
ries, &c., &c.,may all be applied with the fore- 
named apparatus, or they may be absorbed by 
peat, &c., as recommended above. 
FATTENING- ANIMALS IN CONFINEMENT. 
I perceive by the May number of your pa¬ 
per that you have seen fit to publish an extract 
from a letter of mine to a venerable friend, in 
which I mentioned an experiment in feeding 
oxen confined in the stalls. Although it was 
not intended for publication, yet, on account of 
the remarks it elicited upon the subject, I was 
glad you deigned to notice the communica¬ 
tion. 
I do not now intend to raise the tomahawk 
for contest, but with the calumet in hand, to say 
I that I cannot discover wherein said neighbors 
I were right in any one particular. The cattle 
did not sicken, but fatten. Whether they would 
have fattened better in the open air, was not 
tried, and is not known; and if I “ get more 
weight of fat, flesh, and manure from the food 
consumed,” I attain the object sought. 
I am willing to concede that the flesh of the 
wild animal is healthier and better in all re¬ 
spects, except, perhaps, for making candles, or 
enlarging the business of the undertaker, than 
the pampered, artificial brute. But farmers aim 
at the greatest profits; and when the market 
will give us as great a price for the lighter and 
leaner animal, I will supply them equally fed, 
duly exercised, and stormed upon. Because, 
deer, elk, partridges, &c., are better, taken in 
proper season, than domesticated stock, I am 
not certain as it follows that stall feeding is 
to be condemned. Whether the former would 
be relished better by pampering awhile, I am 
not prepared to say. The wild pigeon is said 
to improve by confinement and feeding; at all 
events, I have had them taken wild, when “ bar¬ 
ring the trimmings,” I would as lief dine upon 
a paper of pins. Wild animals, birds, &c., 1 
believe are taught by nature to seek for the 
muscle-forming food to give them strength and 
corporal activity. Mere fat would encumber 
them. Hence, jockeys match their horses some¬ 
times by fattening the more spirited steed with 
oily substances, and feeding the slower one 
with those kinds of provender that form the 
muscle, and therefore a livelier action. 
But if game be better because, it has more 
muscle and less fat, why would not the ox be 
better beef if worked while fed ? I should prob¬ 
ably secure more nearly the quantity of exer¬ 
cise he would take in a state of nature; for an 
ox would exercise but little in the open field if 
supplied with drink and food. Of course, the 
flesh would be less flabby and more solid, if put 
on while moderately working. Would it not 
be tougher, too ? 
I have been taught to believe that the lean of 
a very fat beeve is more tender, juicy, and better 
flavored than the lean of an animal poorly or 
moderately fattened; though the quantity of 
muscle be the same in each animal; and if the 
lean only be used as the part to be eaten, and 
the fat rejected as an article of diet, the whole 
grease-consuming community, I think, would 
be as much better as you suppose the wild game 
of the forest is better than the domesticated 
stock confined and fattened in the stall. 
The graziers of England might, with propri¬ 
ety, be governed by different rules, on account 
