/“SV 
GERMAN TABLES AGAIN. 
PROFESSOR J. W. SANBORN. 
In the Rural of March 4, Professor E. W. 
SStewart reviews ray objections to the German 
Tables of Food Values, and, quite naturally, 
stands by the tables. Indeed I find our scientific 
men generally inclined to accept them. This 
fact and the great importance of the subject 
warrant, call for a further consideration of 
the matter. I may divide Professor Stewart’s 
article into two parts: first, his objections to 
my views: second, his facts in support of the 
German theories. 
Under the first head I will notice, first, his 
-conclusion summed up in the following:—“ It 
would seem therefore that Mr. Sanborn’s 
warning to fanners—not to be misled by these 
tables—was given without due consideration.” 
For the past six years I have carried on 
several terms of exact feeding trials, covering, 
many of them, months of time,and longer th 
•German trials average. Iu them the fodder 
was accurately weighed,and in the trials from 
which I have drawn my conclusion all the 
toy'd was analyzed. I do not know that at any 
•qther point on this continent so much accurate 
feeding work has been carried on, and I will 
be pardoned for saying that a dozen sets of 
steers and cows have not been carried along 
once without "consideration.” I do not 
'wish to parade the work, or to take offense at 
Mr. Stewart for his gentlemauly article. I 
•imply do not wish to be understood as speak¬ 
ing thoughtlessly, as I fear I shall be by most 
who have confidence in the origin of the 
tables. It would be folly to talk at random 
in this matter. I reaffirm my belief that the 
facts that I have so far accumulated are in¬ 
consistent with the German tables so far as to 
make them appear valueless as sole guides in 
feeding. To make them the guide of our feed¬ 
ing rations as a people, on the whole, would 
work as much mischief as good. 
Since I wrote my first article, there has 
appeared an article in the American Cultiva¬ 
tor from Dr. Lawes, of Rothamstead, covering 
some of the points at issue. It is full of meat. 
He indorses a previous statement of hia that 
•"the value of our ordinary fattening foods 
depends more upon their digestible non-nitro- 
genous than upon their nitrogenous constitu¬ 
ents.” Of this view he says, " If adopted, it 
would involve a considerable change in the 
tables of food values which have been drawn up 
by Dr. Wolff and others.” Again, ref wring to 
the fact that Wolff’s tables make cotton-seed 
meal usually double the value of corn meal, 
he says on end of other objections, "It is 
probable that no living person has used the 
cotton cake made in the Southern States for 
so long a period and so continuously as myself. 
I have also used a good deal of corn meal, but 
should be very sorry to assert that the pound 
of the one would make more increase upon an 
animal than a pound of the other, I should 
say, looking at the composition of Indian 
meal and cotton seed meal, the former would 
prove a better food than the latter.” Please 
to note this: “ I have frequently been asked 
and have often attempted to construct a table 
of food value; but I have found that if con¬ 
structed upon any simple or understandable 
basis it was full of errors, and if the errors 
were removed it became too complicated for 
practical use.” He then proceeds to explain 
why it is difficult to organize tables of value, 
and follows by saying: “I venture to think 
that if Dr. Wolff had carried out as many 
experiments upon feeding as we have at Roth- 
amstod, he would never have advanced such 
a view.” In short, he sits quite heavily down 
on the German basis of table-making, upon the 
principle of table-making, and intimates that 
Wolff's tables are crude; or, to quote Professor 
Btewart, "made without due consideration.’’ 
Also since my article to the Rural, Professor 
Manly Miles, in the Country Gentleman, has 
theoreticaly raised objections in something of 
the same spirit. In over 20 tests that bear 
directly on the points I have raised, the results 
with me have been inconsistent with the 
German tables quoted by Professor Stewart. 
I will follow Professor Stewart’s objections 
step by step. He says, referring to me: " He 
did not seem prepared to suggest any substi¬ 
tute.” Why exchange one fallacy for anothe^ 
and bring science into contempt among far¬ 
mers, as these hasty tables soon will, and 
others hastily made must i He speaks of the 
German contribution to the science of feeding 
as an immense stride. Their facts, so far as 
they go, are invaluable; but their theoretical 
conclusions, especially as embodied in their 
tables, are very questionable. He says that 
the German system is a great improvement 
over the old nitrogen basis. Certainly, in the 
Bense that we enjoy more elaborate fictions 
better than plaiu ones. Professor Stewart 
says he is inclined to agree with me in so far 
as the German standard overestimates the 
comparative value of albuminoids to carbo¬ 
hydrates, and he changes 1 to 4.8 in money 
value of carbohydrates to albuminoids to 1 to 
4, a difference of lfi.^s per cent, and in fats he 
he makes a chauge of 35 per cent. These are 
differences enough to condemn the basis of 
money values, considering the narrow margin 
on which farmers work. But this concession 
by no means brings the real exaggeration 
down to its true place. 
Under the second heading 1 find each step 
that Professor Stewart attempts in defense of 
the tables is an argument against them. Thus 
he draws a table showing that 20 pounds of 
straw and two pounds of cotton-seed meal 
give 0.29 pound of digestible albuminoids 
more, and 2,52 pounds less of carbohydrates 
than 20 pounds of straw and seven pounds of 
hay. Upon the latter he got no gain when 
fed; but upon the former he did. But the 
Germans teach that in the presence of a main¬ 
tenance ration of albuminoids an excess of 
carlx>hydrates will give a gain. But Profes¬ 
sor Stewart proves too much; two pounds of 
cotton seed meal become more than the 
equivalent of seven pounds of hay, for he gets 
gain with the cotton-seed meal ratien, and 
a_> the table has not rated cotton-seed meal 
high enough. I supposed that Professor Stew¬ 
art was to show the table right. Right here 
let me tell Professor Stewart that I have had 
a steer gain on 0.35 pound of albuminoids and 
5.68 pounds of carbohydrates per 1,000-pound 
steer per day on oat straw, or on 1S.G pounds 
of straw,for 40 days. Was Professor Stewart’s 
straw analyzed and did he weigh it and know 
that 20 pounds were eaten ? Of many tried I 
never yet found a 1,000-pound steer that would 
actually consume 15 pounds of straw when 
eating three pounds of cotton-seed meal. 
As my article of the same date as that of 
Professor Stewart shows the greater efficacy 
of cotton-seed meal aud straw per pound of 
organic matter than of hay, aud hence the 
fallacy of the standard, I may proceed to ask, 
is it a logical conclusion because two pounds 
of cotton-seed meal fill, in that combination, 
the place of seven pounds of hay, that two 
pounds of cotton-seed meal are an equivalent 
in value ? W hat a beautiful illusion it is I may 
show by saying that uniformly one pound of 
straw and one pound of clover hay are equal 
in feeding value with me to two pounds of 
good hay—does it follow therefore that straw 
is as valuable as hay? The clover alone will 
make no better animal growth with me than 
hay alone. In this combination each gives a 
value to the other, and so in Professor Stew¬ 
art’s trial the straw gave the cotton seed meal 
a value that it would not have had if fed with 
hay or in other places, and other fodders 
could have been put iu place of cottou-seed 
meal and would have given the same growth 
at the same cost. Both tables that Professor 
Stewart gives do not touch the points at issue. 
His trials based upon Gorman tables and his 
conclusions drawn from their theories seem to 
agree. As he fed a full ration of albumin¬ 
oids in his last table, let me ask him how he 
can know whether one-half the amount of 
albuminoids given would not have done the 
same business? If it would, then corn meal 
would have fully answered and the fictitious 
value of cotton-seed meal in a fattening 
ration would bo exploded. 
The Germans assume that carbohydrates 
are uot the source of fat, but that albumin¬ 
oids aud fats are. Dr. Lawes includes the 
carbohydrates as fat-formers, and asserts that 
corn meal is an equivalent of cotton seed 
meal. With some qualification, 1 agree with 
Dr Lawes. Above very small quantities for 
fattening purposes, corn meal is the equivaleut 
of cotton seed meal. Stewart’s gain in Table 
2 (Rural, page 138,) from lot 1, with little 
over a two-third ration of carbohydrates 
sounds queerly in defence of the tables. To 
prove that Professor Stewart’s addition of 
albuminoids in cotton seed meal to straw as 
against bay, is no evidence either in favor of 
the high value of albuminoids or of cotton¬ 
seed meal in either of his tables, i will, further 
on, cite one or more cases of many. 
In the meanwhile I wish to put my objec¬ 
tions to the German tables aud one or more 
facts of experience supporting those objec¬ 
tions in a compact form so that they may be 
easily understood, aud in fair form for criti¬ 
cism, for I concede that they are so radical 
as to invite criticism. 
First.—For our country the money values 
of the food nutrients of the tables are so crude 
as to be hardly respectable. I have used 
blood, fish, meat, meat-scraps, cotton-seed and 
linseed meals, bran, clover and other sources 
of albuminoids in exact feeding trials. The 
fish has given me 72 per cent of digestible 
albuminoids, or 1,440 pounds per ton, and 
has cost but $45 to $30 per ton, or, in round 
numbers, 8)-£ cents per pound. The cotton 
seed that I have used has cost, on an avevag6 ) 
$2(3 per ton, delivered, and h»s given me from 
040 pounds to 770 pounds of digestible albumin¬ 
oids, or an outlay of but about 3>* cents per 
pound for albuminoids, while there have been 
200 to 300 pounds of fat and 360 to 400 pounds 
of carbohydrates left for nothing. The man 
who buys food upon the German money basis 
is greviously imposed upon by so-called 
science. 
Second.—The theoretical importance of al¬ 
buminoids is overstated, at least both for but¬ 
ter and fat production. I universally find a 
decrease of butter production when I substi¬ 
tute bran for cprn meal. Although after the 
change, the cows eat more digestible albumin¬ 
oids—but still less than Germans call for—yet 
the butter production declines 17 per cent or 
more. 
Third.—The source of digestible food nutri¬ 
ents, alone or in combinations, greatly modi¬ 
fies their efficacy, although fatal to the table; 
this the table ignores. How much this objec¬ 
tion means the following illustrates, and also 
illustrates objection second, and the want of 
completeness in Professor Stewart’s tables or 
trials. The following steers were of the same 
age and weight. They were fed in lots of 
two each. Each lot went through a long pre¬ 
paratory period to note the difference in grow¬ 
ing capacity on the same food with steers 
varj ing slightly either way from 1,650 pounds. 
Time of trial 89 days. 
Q 
O 
O 
£ 
Lot . 
C 
£ ^3 
9-2 
® <s> ® 
• •-* 
• off 
• 
:: *2 H 
: 8? 
Digest Ihle carbohy¬ 
drates per lot pet- 
day, ft 8. 
o 
» 
6* 
TJ 
rt> 
CL 
> 
5* 
m 
1. Timothy (Phleum pratense)... 
l.G? 
20.6? 
1.25 
2. Oat straw and 9 ft s corn meal. 
1.45 
15.26 
1,89 
3. Oat straw aud 8 fts New Pro- 
ce6s linseed meal. 
8.09 
11.61 
0.55 
4. Oat straw and 8 fts wheat 
bran. 
1.64 
12.?8 
1.50 
5. Oat sttaw and 3tts cotton seed 
meal. 
3.63 
11.50 
1.64 
6. Oat straw- and S fts mixed 
meals. 
2.29 
11.65 
1.54 
The reason why the cotton seed meal ration 
in lot 5, shows less of albuminoids eaten is 
that during the latter one-third of the period 
I fed a part of this ration in corn meal. I 
began each with three pounds, then another pe¬ 
riod, four, aud the final period, five pounds of 
meal per steer per day. I have sometimes had 
trouble in feediug five and six pounds of cot¬ 
ton-seed meal per day, and so did not give the 
five pounds clear for the Last period. Now, if 
the reader will compare lots 1 and 2, be will 
notice that lot 1 eats more of albuminoids anil 
carbohydrates than 2, by a heavy per cent., 
for less gain. This is a universal result with 
me—that combination foods are far more eco¬ 
These German rations furnished, according 
to the German tables, the following amounts 
of digestible nutrients per day:— 
-j 
> 
*1 
O 
W * 
63 
d g 
££ 
Ic 
s 
|l 
•d 
"! 
Cits 
£•3 
o 
£ 
* a 
o 2- 
T4 £ 
-t f 
n ft 
51 o 
• 
i 1 
; m 
g. 
00 
: 3 
if 
- 
50.7 
0.84 
0.04 
7.61 
61.7 
0.56 
0.04 
7.12 
68.7 
0.41 
0.25 
7.53 
68.7 
0.49 
0.46 
7.03 
Lot 5.. 
61.7 
0.56 
0.60 
7.44 
It is remarked on this showing that lot 1 
was the only lot that lost weight, while the 
others gained slightly. It is also rema rked that 
the temperature is lower than it is practicable 
to keep it in Winter; and, notwithstanding 
that,lot 3 gained with only 0.41 pound of albu¬ 
minoids and 7.52 pounds of carbohydrates. As 
lot i lost on a much larger ration in a lower 
temperature, it is recommended by Wolff to 
feed 0.7 pound of albuminoids and 8.0 pounds 
of carbohydrates. Jt seems to me that it would 
have been far more sensible for Wolff to have 
said, " This table appears to show that organ¬ 
ic matter from different sources has different 
feeding values, and whereas 0.41 pound of al¬ 
buminoids answered for maintenance in a cer¬ 
tain combination, indeed made a slight 
growth, it is possible that in the ideal combi¬ 
nation 0.30 pound of albuminoids will answer 
when no growth at all is made; at least if too 
close it will set farmers to searching for eco¬ 
nomical rations instead of producing costly 
ones.” Better still to have drawn no tables. 
I must conclude that these tables are crude as 
yet. 
Let me say, in conclusion, that I value as 
j highly as any one German facts, or anybody’s 
facts, American as well as German; but I ob¬ 
ject to the foisting, upon the unsuspecting 
American feeders, of speculations not in ac¬ 
cordance with facts taken, or the using of 
those facts to draw conclusions to which those 
facts have no legitimate relation. From what 
I have seen of the valuable writings of Pro¬ 
fessor Stewart, I have no doubt that he, as 
well as the rest of us, is anxious for the truth 
in regard to these tables. With this feeling, 
I am anxious to be set right when wrong. A 
vast deal of work lies before investigators ere 
they should rest satisfied. At least another 
mile-stone must take its place ahead of the one 
before American feeders. 
Hanover, N. H. 
nomical than a hay ration of digestible matter; 
hence Professor Stewart’s showing of cotton¬ 
seed meal and straw against hay meaus noth¬ 
ing whatever in this discussion. You will see 
that no one of the other five rations is as large 
as the hay ration in amount consumed, while 
the average gain is greater. In lots 3,4,5 and 
6 the amounts of carbohydrates consumed are 
similar, while the albuminoids vary; yet the 
largest proportion of albuminoids gives the 
least gain. Some one observes, “ It is in the 
steers.” For 46 days before the experiment 
began these lots, 3, 4 and 5, were fed alike, and 
gained 72 pounds, 73 pounds and 73 pounds re¬ 
spectively on the same consumption of food 
by weight or weighed for part of the fitting 
period to test their eatiug capacity. Again, 
I have fed the same amount of grain to a 
given lot of steers, with straw, and again with 
corn fodder, and I find not only is less organic 
matter used to make a pound of growth with 
grain and straw than with hay, but less than 
with corn fodder, but not to the same degree, 
and so with swale hay, and so with clover and 
straw. Finally, the materials—sugar, starch, 
wax, fiber, etc —that go to make up the car¬ 
bohydrates, have such different significance 
in different plants, and in the same plant at 
varying stages of growth, as to make it im¬ 
possible at present to fix, in all probability, 
their true nutritive significance. Again, the 
tables all assume that all the nitrogen of 
plants is albuminoid nitrogen. We know that 
it is not How much there is about the nutrir 
tivo quality of plants that we don’t know, who 
shall say ? 
Fourth objection to table.—The standard 
they fix for maintenance is 0.7 pound of albu¬ 
minoids, 8.0 pounds of carbohydrates and 0.15 
pound of fat per day for 1,000 pounds of live 
weight. I will guarantee to show, either at 
Professor Stewart's place or at mine, that on 
less than three-fourths of this amount I will 
maintain a 1,000-pound steer. Practical far¬ 
mers do not want a guide that carries them 90 
degrees from the point aimed at. I think some 
of our accurate American thinkers will smile 
at the child-like manner in which this main¬ 
tenance standard was drawn up by the Ger¬ 
mans. Professor Armsby, in his valuable 
work on feeding, gives, on page 375, what he 
professes to be the leading facts upon which it 
was based. 
feed lot 1...19.5 fts clover buy per 1,000 tbs live weight 
Feed lot 2... 13.o tbs oat straw, 0.6 lb rape cake, 3.7 as 
clover hay. 
Feed lot 3...11.2 lbs oat straw, 0.5 lb rape cake, 3 6 lbs 
clover hay. 
Feed lot 4...13.3 lbs rye straw, 0.6 lb rape cake, 8.8 lbs 
clover hay. 
Feed lot 5...25.6 lbs mangels, 12 6 lbs oat straw, 1 ft 
rape cake. __ 
el)c $tmxisL 
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name 
and address of the writer to Insure attention 1 
THE LAST TIMBER-CULTURE ACT. 
Many Enquirer's in different parts of the 
country, but especially in the border States, 
ask what is the law with regard to taking up 
land under the Timber Culture Act. 
Ans.— Several Acts of Congress have been 
passed on this subject, the last being that ap¬ 
proved June 14, 1878. This provide® as fol¬ 
lows;—That any person who is the head of a 
family, or who has arrived at the age of 21 
years, and is a citizen of the U nited States, or 
who shall h tve filed bis declaration of inten¬ 
tion to become such, as required by the nat¬ 
uralization laws of the United States, who 
shall plant, protect, and keep in a healthy, 
growing condition for eight years 10 acres of 
timber, on any quarter-section of any of the 
public lands of the United States, or five acres 
on any legal subdivision of 80 acres, or two 
and one-halt acres on any legal subdivision of 
40 acres or less, shall be entitled to a patent 
for the whole of said quarter section, or of 
such legal sulxUvision of 80 or 40 acres, or 
fractional subdivision of less than 40 acre®, as 
the case may be, at the expiration of said 
eight years, on making proof of such fact by 
not less than two credible witnesses, and a 
full compliance of the further conditions aa 
provided in section two: Provided, further, 
That, not more than one-quarter of any section 
i shall be thus granted, and that no person shall 
make more than one entry under the provia- 
| ions ot this act. 
Sec. 2. That tbe person applying for the 
benefits of this act shall, upon application to 
the Register of tbe land-district m which he 
or she is about to make such entry, make affi¬ 
davit before the Register or the Receiver, or 
the Clerk of seme Court of Record, or officer 
authorized to administer oaths in tbe district 
where the land is situated; which affidavit 
I shall be as follows, to wit: I,-, 
| having filed my application, number-, for 
an entry under the provisions of au act entl- 
! titled " An Act to amend an act entitled ‘ An 
Act to encourage the growth of timber on the 
Western Frail ies, 1 ” approved-, 18?-, 
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am the 
head of a family tor over 81 years of age), and 
a citizen of the United States tor have declared 
my intention to become sueb); that the 
section of land specified in my said appli¬ 
cation is composed exclusively of prairie 
lands, or other lands devoid of timber; that 
this filing and entry is made for tbe cultiva¬ 
tion of timber, and'for my own exclusive use 
and benefit; that I have made the said appli- 
