584 
IHE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
September 1 
and crop producing power, for the same money. The 
Directors of the Connecticut Experiment Station ad¬ 
vised this procedure as a substitute for ashes some few 
years ago; but we believe that their opinion has al¬ 
tered, from recent remarks made by authorities there. 
You might as well tell your correspondent that if 
he will buy the ingredients of stable manure in a 
chemical form and apply them to his land, it will 
answer the same purpose and give the same results. 
K. V^^. MviGARVEY, 
Manager the Forest City Wood Ash Company. 
R. N -Y.—The director of the Connecticut Experi¬ 
ment Station writes us that they have not changed 
their views on the possibility of preparing a full sub¬ 
stitute for ashes. As to the last sentence—that sub¬ 
stitution of chemicals for stable manure is just what 
thousands of farmers are doing. 
WHAT I KNOW OF THE COLUMBIAN DAIRY 
TEST. 
From the Standpoint of a Guernsey Breeder. 
Part II. 
The most astonishing products of this progressive 
age is the hide siecle cow. 
You ask, “ Was it a perfectly fair test—were the 
cows of each kind the best, or did they have No. 1 
Jerseys, and a second-class of Guernseys ?” 
Tnis I take from their report of the show: “The 
fact that the 13 Jerseys in the show ring contained 
only one cow outside the first barn, is pretty conclusive 
evidence of the thorough work of the Jersey Cattle 
Club committee in selecting cows for the test;'’ and 
again, “ It is, of course, understood that the cream 
of American Jersey herds has been gathered for the 
World's Fair test, but a full realization of all that idea 
implies only comes upon personal inspection of the 
cows” 
“ The work of testing” (Breeder’s Gazette, whose re¬ 
ports we re the most complete and true of any, published 
April 12, before theColumbian test began) “goes steadily 
on in the J srsey barns, and a month from now. May 
11, when the first test begins. Superintendent Fuller 
will be thoroughly acquainted with the capabilities 
of each cow. The tests are not made public, and no 
one but himself knows what each cow is doing.” So 
you see, for months before the opening of the test, 
cows were being tested by the J ersey Club all over the 
country, and the month immediately preceding the test, 
the same cows to be used were under test feed and care 
preparatory ; in fact, “ conditioned” like a race horse 
for the simple and sole purpose of winning all con¬ 
centrated on the issue, not mentioning the official 
sympathy which personal interest in the breed excited. 
Now, it seems to me, a simple test devoid of such 
intricacies as this one of Chicago has woven about it, 
one which all the world could easily read and com¬ 
prehend, would have been much more satisfactory 
than the complications of statistical computations on 
a basis of dead cow products, artificially colored. I 
cannot understand how this test can be of breeds so 
much as it is of management. The commonest cows 
fed on different rations will materially change their 
product. These breeds were fed on very different ra¬ 
tions. 
The spicy reading of Mr. Douglas’s (member of the 
Jersey Club) charges published last May to prove ras¬ 
cality of the superintendent and of the Jerseys’ at¬ 
tendants, shows that some in the camp were opposed 
to the manner of procedure. But the charge of over¬ 
feeding reported by the guards, somehow never got 
any farther than Mr. Buchanan’s office, and that gen¬ 
tleman’s broken promises to have the extra cows re¬ 
moved from the Jersey barns after the test began, 
were never heard about by the public, nor his request 
for the extra cows to remain, which request was de¬ 
nied by the Guernsey superintendent, but acceded to 
by that of the Jerseys. These little “incidentals” 
are merely the accessories expected of the situation. 
Prof. James Cheesman has prepared for the British 
Dairy Associations, by their request, a review of the 
dairy breeds in the Columbian test. I quote from it; 
“It must be admitted that the Jerseys had food com¬ 
pounded for them which contained the largest per¬ 
centages of albuminoids, and the greatest total of 
digestible albuminoids; it was most aromatic, and 
therefore best calculated to excite the appetite, enj oy- 
ment and digestion. It was known that the ensilage 
at Chicago was poor,—most of it unsound. The strong 
points in the J ersey rations are the small amount of 
the inferior ensilage, the proportion of cotton-seed 
meal, linseed meal, oats, corn meal and carrots. The 
carrots were an invaluable salad, and the oats very 
aromatic. All practical men know that results are 
obtained from oats which chemical analysis does not 
explain. The weak points of the Guernsey ration 
were its too large quantity of ensilage, too little cot¬ 
ton-seed meal, linseed meal and oats, and no roots. 
The error of the Short-horn ration was excess of 
ensilage, deficient linseed meal and oats. It would be 
hard to improve on the Jersey compound, having re¬ 
gard to the mechanical conditiou of the mixture, the 
nutritive ratio, and the aromatic effect. In the com¬ 
petition of breeds, the Guernseys came out as pro¬ 
ducers at lowest cost. The yields in the 30 days’ test 
were wonderfully even in quantity, the food cost 
nearly alike, and the net profits of each o? the best 
five were very close. The question suggests itself; 
Could they not have been fed more, and have run the 
winners closer, or have placed three of their number 
in the best five of any breed, and, at least two of 
them in the best of any breed in the 90 days’ test ? ” 
This is from a disinterested judge. Again we quote 
from a no less authority than Hoard’s Dairyman : 
“In quoting from the columns of ‘ net profits,’the 
prices at which the products are valued should never 
be omitted ; for instance, in the 30 days’ test, the 
offijial figures valuing Jersey butter at 46 1 cents per 
pound, give Ida Marigold SI.11 more net profit than 
Romp’s Princess, but with butter at any price less than 
32 cents per pound net. Romp’s Princess would lead in 
profit on the basis of the 30 days’ test; which is the 
better cow?” There seems a peculiar quality about 
this test which can only be understood by those who 
formulated the rules s. b tabkr-willets. 
SMUT AND RUSr ON CATTLE FODDER. 
IS IT SAFE TO FEED THEM ? 
Never Heard of Any III Effects. 
I have never observed the slightest ill effects from 
either, and this in spite of the fact that we have care¬ 
fully watched for such effects. Our corn is all cut and 
the fodder fed, mostly in racks outdoors; and although 
there is a considerable per cent of smutty stalks 
in the crop every year, this seed has never affected the 
cattle disastrously. Our ensilage corn, in like manner, 
always contains more or less smutty stalks and ears. 
These are put in with the rest, and show no ill effects 
in feeding. The station has further experimented on 
feeding smutty corn exclusively, but in like manner 
without the slightest ill effects beiug apparent. We 
feed but little straw, it being nearly all used for bed¬ 
ding ; but both wheat and oats are usually somewhat 
affected with rust, and what little wa have fed has not 
proved itself injurious in any way. c c. georqeson. 
Kansas Experiment Statjoa. 
"Would Certainly Feed Them. 
So far as I have observed in a rather extended ex¬ 
perience of feeding corn fodder and cereal grains, 
I never knew of a case where smut or rust resulted in 
any acute injury to live stock. Of course corn that 
has a large proportion of smut, would doubtless have 
a much less feeding value than corn not diseased. 
Likewise wheat straw very badly rusted would not be 
worth as much per ton for feed as clean, bright straw. 
It may be that these fungous plants do considerable to 
lessen the palatability and the nutritive effect of these 
fodders, but we have no direct evidence, so far as I 
know, on this question. Doubtless, whatever effect 
there is, is more of a general effect on the health of 
the animal; although in rare cases, acute corn diseases 
have been reported, none has been in this State that 
I know of. W. M. HAYS. 
Minnesota Experiment Station. 
Would Not Reject Smutted Stalks. 
I have never noted any evil consequences following 
the feeding of corn stalks badly smutted. I know that 
there is a belief among farmers and dairymen that 
eating too much smut will cause abortion or other ill¬ 
ness, but upon what proof, if any, such belief rests, 1 
know not. It has never been my lot to feed very much 
of the stuff, hence I cannot speak from experience. 
Others have experimented with smut and found no 
deleterious effects. Dr. Gamgee is reported to have 
experimented with smut as a cow feed as long ago as 
1869, when he fed to two cows 42 pounds of clear corn 
smut mixed with corn meal and hay, in three weeks 
and noted no ill effects. This seems well nigh con¬ 
clusive, but further experiments are necessary before 
we know the exact truth of the matter. Meantime I 
would not advise the introduction of smut to improve 
the ration, nor would I rej ect corn stalks because they 
may have upon them some smut, clintox d. smith. 
Michigan Agricultural College. 
One Fatal Case On Record. 
In 1881, I conducted an experiment to ascertain 
whether smut was injurious to cows when fed in 
quantity. Two cows were selected, and smut taken 
from the stalks and ears of corn, carefully cleaned 
from all foreign matter, was fed to both. We started 
in by giving each cow six ounces of smut daily, mixed 
with bran, gradually increasing the amount. The 
smut was collected from the corn stalks by an attend¬ 
ant who carefully cleaned it and gave patient attention 
to every detail. The cows were weighed daily, the 
water drank was weighed, and the temperature of the 
animals carefully taken with a clinical thermometer. 
The smut fed was gradually increased in amaunt. a& 
the cows would take it. At the end of 12 days, one 
cow was eat'ng 32 ounces; she refused to eat her feed 
containing the smut longer, and we discharged her as 
smut-proof. The other cow seemed to grow fond of 
the stuff, and under liberal feeding, was increasing in 
weight. The work of collecting and preparing the 
smut was unpleasant and the attendant became dis¬ 
couraged with this cow. I toM him we would fatten 
her on bran, smut and other feed. At the end of two 
weeks this cow was eating as much as 64 ounces of 
smut a day. ab jut one peck. She had gained in weight, 
and seemed to be thriving. Oae morning the attend¬ 
ant reported that the cow had refused her feed. By 
the time I reached the stable she was lying down, and 
before noon was dead. The symptoms were as fol¬ 
lows : Loss of use of limbs ; head thrown forward so 
as to bring nose on a line with back ; hard breathing 
and groaning ; spasmodic contractions of the body ; 
horns and legs cold, the latter stretched out stiffly and 
hoofs rattling when shivering ; some frothing at the 
mouth, from which also flowed quite a quantity of 
thin, yellowish fluid. 
Most foolishly, I attempted to make the post mortem 
without assistance, being then young in investigational 
work, and having little money to do with. A careful 
examination was made of the alimentary tract, and 
nothing unusual was found. I feel quite sure now the 
trouble was with the brain. Incidentally let me say 
here that in making the post mortem examination, I 
contracted blood poisoning, which nearly cost me my 
life. 
I know of only one other experiment of this charac¬ 
ter, that conducted by Prof. Gamgee, under direction 
of the Department of Agriculture, Washington, pub¬ 
lished under a repart entitled “ Diseases of Cattle in 
the United States,” Washington, IStl. In this case, 
Prof. Gamgee fed smut up to 36 ounces per day, with 
no other ill effects than causing the cows to lose flesh. 
In the West, many cattle die every fall shortly after 
having been turned into the stalk fields, and farmers 
very frequently attribute these deaths to the eating 
of smut. I doubt the correctness of this conclusion. 
Is it not more reasonable to believe that these cattle eat 
too much corn or too freely of the stalks, or both, and, 
suffering from the want of water, or an over supply 
after great thirst, die from gastric derangement ? It 
seems to me entirely possible, on the other hand, that 
some animals acquire a fondness for the com smut, 
and seek it out in the stalk fields, and die therefrom. 
In other words, while I do not believe deaths from 
eating corn smut are very common, I believe such are 
possible and do occur. It is certain that corn smut is 
not usually a virulent poison. Possibly, in certain 
seasons, the smut is more poisonous or more fatal, for 
some reason, than in others ; or it may be so to cer¬ 
tain animals in the herd while others are not injured 
by it. I doubt if feeding cattle shock corn or ensi¬ 
lage carrying the usual amount of smut, will prove 
injurious to the health of the animals. Is it not well, 
however, to take off, as far as possible, the bunches 
of smut, and destroy them to prevent the spread of 
this disease in the corn ? While it may be tme that 
smut does not injure the cattle, it certainly causes a 
heavy loss to the farmer. In one study of the injury 
caused by imut, we found the loss of corn amounting 
to from 0 to 20 per cent of the total crop. That year 
1 estimated the loss to this county at two bushels per 
acre because of the smut, but generally it is not so 
destructive as this. 
In regard to smut on the straw of oats, wheat or 
barley being injurious to cattle, I have never known 
of any trouble from this cause. I have had many let¬ 
ters from farmers asking me whether or not it would 
be wise to feed their straw thus injured, and I have 
always recommended them to go ahead and feed it, 
asking them if any injurious results followed, to be 
sure to write to me. I have never had any reply re¬ 
porting trouble. Of course, what is said above does 
not apply to ergot or ergotized grains and grasses ; 
we know that trouble has followed the eating of 
such, in several cases at the West. w. A. henry. 
Wisconsin Experiment Station. 
DAIRYING VS. DROUGHT. 
It is a well established fact that oats, being rich in 
nitrogenous substance, make a good combination in 
nearly all food rations, especially where milk and 
butter are most sought. From experience, I learned 
that oats cut while slightly green, made most excel¬ 
lent feed for ewes at lambing time. From articles read 
in The R N.-Y. I had my attention drawn to the fact 
that sheaf oats cut and fed to milch cows were good, 
so I concluded to try their efficacy as a fat producer in 
in41k. Being short of mill feed the last week of July, 
I began running some well-cured sheaves through the 
feed cutter and dampening them. I fed a ration of one 
binder sheaf twice each day to each cow. 
The heavy pasture during the month of May and 
June and fore part of July, had run the price of but¬ 
ter down so low that grain feeding was out of the 
