EBAY 43 
« 
and hardly respectable, he is simply beating 
the air, for those values do not purport to 
apply to our markets. 
Moreover, the Germans are not satisfied 
with those values for their own markets. 
At a convention of scientists at Cassel, in 
in 1878, a committee was appointed to con¬ 
sider the question of the valuation of fodders. 
That committee has already published an 
elaborate report (Lardw. Juhrbacker , ix. 805) 
closing it with a request for discussion and 
criticism on the part of those interested. 
Several articles on the subject have been 
brought out, and the matter is in a fair way 
to be thoroughly considered. All this should 
certainly be placed to the credit of the German 
investigators before their work is condemned. 
That the valuations so frequently used do not 
apply to our markets, may be freely conceded. 
But their originators did not intend that they 
should, and are using their best endeavors to 
correct them, so as to represent more truly 
their own markets. 
Prof. Sanborn's second and fourth objec¬ 
tions to the German tables are of much the 
same nature, and touch the question of the 
correctness of their Feeding Standards. 
Now, what is a Feeding Standard? It is a 
statement of the amounts per day of di¬ 
gestible albuminoids, earbhydrates and fat 
which more or less numerous experiments 
have shown to produce, on the average, the 
best results iu the direction aimed at. 
It is obtained in the same way that Professor 
Sanborn obtains his results—by actual experi- 
me ts ou animals. Tbe more numerous the 
experiments, the more trustworthy is the feed¬ 
ing standard; but in no case can absolute ac¬ 
curacy be obtained, nor is it claimed that it 
can. Furthermore, what are the “best re¬ 
sults V What is the best for one farmer may 
not be the best for another. The “best" ra¬ 
tion is not the one which gives tbe most pro¬ 
duction, but the most profitable production, 
and “that depends." Evidently a mainte¬ 
nance ration is the one which is capable of 
being fixed with the greatest degree of. accu¬ 
racy, and, as Prof. Sanborn devotes some 
space to tho consideration of this, wo may 
profitably examine the subject a little. And 
first, a few words as to how the German stand¬ 
ard was arrived at. Prof. Sanborn quotes 
from my Manual of Cattle Feeding as follows: 
“Professor Arrnsby, in his valuable work on 
feeding, gives, on page 375, what he professes 
to lie the leadiug facts upon which it was based. 
Feed lot 1. .19.5 jt> 8 clover hay per 1JOOO Its live weight 
Feed lot 2. .13u ms oat straw, U.ft ft rape cake,3 7 ms 
clover hny. 
Feed lot 8.. 142 ms oar. straw, 0.5 lb rape cake, 2 « tbs 
clover liay. , „ „ _ 
Feed loC4..13.;> tbs rye riraw, 0.G lb rape cake, 5S lbs 
clover nay. 
Feed lot 5..35 i> tbs ntaugcls, Vi.C lbs oat straw. 1 lb 
ratio cake 
These German rations furnished, according 
to the German tables, the following amounts 
of digestible nutrients per day 
-f p 
El ? £5 
re a 3 ^ 5" 
s-.rr 6 
!"K C “a. 
Loti. 50.7 tl.Hl 0.04 7.ill 
Lot 2 . 81.7 0.56 0.04 7.12 
Lots. 8S.7 0.11 0.25 7.52 
Lot-I. tiS.l 0.49 0.46 7.0:5 
Lot 5... 61.7 0.00 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 remarked 
that tire temperature is lower than it is practi¬ 
cable to keep it iu Winter; and, notwithstand¬ 
ing that, lot 8 gained with only 0.41 pound of 
albuminoids and 7.52 pounds of earbhydrates. 
As lot l lost on a much larger ration in a lower 
temperature, it is recommended by Wolff to 
feed 0.7 pound of albumiuoids and 8.0 pounds 
of earbhydrates. 
A few points in the above quotation require 
notice. Tho last number in the second table 
should be 0.44. The temperature, us will be 
seen at a glance, was nob lower but higher 
than it is practicable to keep it in Winter, and 
hence Wolff’s recommendation to feed a little 
more than t he average of the five experiments. 
The amounts of digested matters given in the 
second table were fouud, not “according to 
tho German tables,” but by laborious digestion 
experiments. They are the results of actual 
and careful determinations and not of esti- 
tiinates, as Prof. Sanborn’s remark would 
seem to imply. 
The gain or loss of flesh iu these experiments 
was also determined as accurately as possible, 
by comparing the amount of nitrogen excreted 
in the urine with that eaten iu the food, and 
in only one case was a slight loss observed. 
Coming now to tbe formation of the feeding 
standard, it will be well to state first the aver¬ 
age of tho five experiments quoted above, and 
which Prof. Sanborn omitted to give. It is, 
in round numbers: 
Albuminoids. 0.6 lbs. 
Fat. 0.8 “ 
earbhydrates. 7.2 “ 
Now it is well known that the average of a 
series of experiments is likely to be much 
nearer the truth than a single experiment, 
and hence we should do well to take this aver¬ 
age us tho basis of our feeding standard in¬ 
stead of arbitrarily choosing either tho highest 
or lowest result. To allow for the lower tern- < 
perature at which barns will ordinarily be ; 
kept, Wolff recommends the addition of 0.1 | 
pound of digestible albuminoids and 0.5 pound 
of digestible earbhydrates to the above quan 1 
titles, making the ration contain 0.7 pound of 
digestible albuminoids and 8,0 pounds of di¬ 
gestible earbhydrates and fat, not of carb- 
hydrates alone, as Prof. Sanborn represents 
it. Wolff says, in effect: “Here are the re¬ 
sults of actual experiments. From my gene- '• 
ral knowledge of the laws of animal nutri¬ 
tion, I advise you to add a little to them, to 
allow for differences of temperature and to be 
sure of having your stock come out in good 
condition in the Spring. You can take my 
advice or reject it. If your circumstauces are 
such that you can get along without the added 
food, you are at full liberty to do so.” I fail 
to see anything particularly ‘•childlike’’ in 
this, except that it is simple and easily com¬ 
prehended, or anything to which “our accu¬ 
rate Americau thinkers,” whoever they may 
be, can take serious exception. The ouly thing 
to which exception could be taken is the inclu¬ 
sion of the first ration in the average. Ex 
eluding that, the average becomes 
Albuminoids... 0.51 lbs. 
Carbhydratos and fat.7.35 *• 
with a probable error of 0.02 pound for the 
albuminoids and of 0.10 pound for earbhy¬ 
drates and fat. 
If, taking Wolff’s estimate, we add 0.1 pound 
of albuminoids and 0.5 pound of earbhy¬ 
drates and fat, we have for our standard: 
Albuminoids.0.61 lbs. 
earbhydrates and l’at. .7.S5 “ 
and the difference between this and Wolff’s 
standard is too small to be detected by Prof, 
Sanborn’s method of experiment. 
What, now, are the reasons which lead Prof. 
Sanborn to doubt the validity of this standard 
for our circumstances ? They can be briefly 
stated, and are apparently convincing. He 
has carried out several feeding trials, and finds 
that rations containing, according to his cal¬ 
culations, considerably less digestible matter 
than is called for by the above standard, have 
supported his cattle without loss of weight. 
Now, while it is not impossible that his con¬ 
clusion is correct, it is, nevertheless, improba¬ 
ble that our cattle differ so much from those 
ou which the German experiments were made, 
and at any rate, before such an important 
matter is considered proved, the methods of 
experiment must be subjected to a critical ex¬ 
amination. 
The experiments were made substantially as 
follows: The animals were weighed at tho be¬ 
ginning of the experiments, and in some cases 
subjected to a preliminary feeding, to test the 
equality of their assimilative powers. The 
rations to be compared were then fed for a 
considerable length of time and the gain or 
loss of weight by the animals noted. The fod¬ 
ders were analyzed, and from the amounts 
consumed the quantities of digestible nutri¬ 
ents given per day and head, were calculated 
by means of tables of digestibility. In a few 
cases the fodders were not analyzed, but their 
composition estimated. 
For certain purposes and within certain 
limits such a method of experiment is capable 
of giving valuable information; but, never¬ 
theless, it contains important sources of error. 
As the same method was pursued in the ex¬ 
periments on which Prof. Sanborn bases bis 
third objection to the use of the German tables, 
it will be convenient to examine it under that 
head. 
This third objection is that “ the source of 
digestible food nutrients, alone or In combina¬ 
tions, greatly modifies their eflieacy.” That 
is, if I understand Prof. Sanborn correctly, a 
pound of digestible albuminoids obtained from 
st raw, for example, may have a greater nutri¬ 
tive value than a pound of digestible albumi¬ 
noids obtained from hay, etc., etc. Now I 
shall not undertake to deny that such may be 
the case. Our knowledge of the proximate 
Constituents of plants and of their relative nu¬ 
tritive valuo is very scanty, and it is not ouly 
possible but indeed probable, that such differ¬ 
ences do exist. I do deny, however, that Prof. 
Sanborn's experiments furnish any proof of 
the existence of such differences, and still less 
any proof that they are so large as to seriously 
impair the value of our feeding standards. 
To furnish such proof, or to test the correct¬ 
ness of a feeding standard, such as that, for 
maintenance given above, the experiments 
should inform us accurately in regard to at 
least two things: 1st. the exact amount of 
the several nutrients actually digested in the 
experiments; 2d. the exact nutritive effect 
produced. 
Neither of these- conditions is fulfilled by 
Prof. Sanborn's experiments. In the first 
place, they do not tell us how much of the 
various nutrients were actually assimilated. 
True, they give us a series of numbers profess¬ 
ing to show this, but the manner in which 
these numbers were obtained deprives them of 
all claim to be more than approximations. 
They were obtained by estimating the digesti- 
i ^ bility of the feeding-stuffs used from their 
chemical composition (real or supposed) by 
means of digestion coefficients. Now the di¬ 
gestibility of different samples of the same 
feeding-stuff is subject to considerable varia¬ 
tions, especially in coarse fodders, and to va¬ 
riations which do not always show any dis¬ 
tinct relation to the chemical composition. 
Furthermore, so far as I know, not a single 
American feeding-stuff has yet had its digesti¬ 
bility determined, with the exception of a few 
samples of cotton seed meal imported into 
Germany. Under such circumstances the cal¬ 
culated digestibility of a fodder can be only 
an approximation, sufficiently close to be used 
as a basis for the calculations of rations, but 
possessing not the remotest claim to the scien¬ 
tific accuracy required in the determination 
of such questions as those now under discus¬ 
sion. If Prof. Sanborn had interpreted his 
experiments as indicating a greater digesti¬ 
bility of American feeding-stuffs than the 
German coefficients would give them, no fault 
could have been found with such a conclusion; 
but a claim that they show the German stand¬ 
ard ration for maintenance to be too high, can¬ 
not be maintained. It may be too high, but 
these experiments do not show that it is. The 
nutrients of straw may be more valuable than 
those from hay, but it may be also, and most 
likely is the case, that Prof. Sanborn either 
assumed too great a digestibility for his hay 
or too low a digestibility for his straw. I say 
it may be; there is no certainty about the 
matter in either direction. Moreover, in the 
calculation of the digestibility, no account 
appears to have been taken of the fact that in 
one experiment at least, and presumably iu 
others, part of the coarse fodder was left un¬ 
eaten, and that, in all probability, the portion 
eaten was of better quality and more digesti¬ 
ble than tbe rest. 
Prof. Sanborn’s experiments, then, do not 
show us tbe exact amount of the several nu¬ 
trients actually digested. Neither do they 
show us the exact nutritive effect produced. 
The effect of the feeding was judged of by the 
live weight. Assuming this to have been ob¬ 
tained with the greatest possible accuracy, it 
is, nevertheless, by itself an entirely insuffi¬ 
cient criterion of the nutritive effect of a ra¬ 
tion. An increase of the live weight may in¬ 
dicate an actual gain of flesh and fat, or it 
may show a gain of water or of the contents 
of stomach and intestines. Stobmann gives 
the following example of the way in which 
the live weight of an animal may vary, even 
when determined as accurately as possible: 
An ox weighed Slay 23. 
•• 24. 
•• 80.. 
June 3. 
■* 4. 
12 . 
1293.3 lbs. 
1242 4 " 
1269.8 •• 
1271.1 “ 
1210.7 “ 
1294.2 ** 
If the weight of June 4th had been taken as 
correct, the conclusion would have been that 
the animal bad lost, while the weight on June 
12 would have shown that the feed was very 
nearly sufficient for maintenance. 
The fact is, that though the live weight, in 
connection with the general appearance of an 
animal, enables us to judge with sufficient ac¬ 
curacy in practice whether a certain ration 
is sufficient for its purpose, it is far too uncer¬ 
tain to serve as the basis of any exact scientific 
conclusion. 
To solve such questions as those which Prof. 
Sanborn has raised, we need to know how 
much the animal gained or lost of flesh (mus¬ 
cular substance) of fat, of water, and of mine¬ 
ral matters. This can be found, but only 
by refined and complicated methods, and not 
by those which Prof. Sanborn has used. The 
question of the relative value of nutrients 
bearing the same uame but drawn fro indiffer¬ 
ent sources, is a very important one, and pre¬ 
sents an almost untrodden field to the investi¬ 
gator, but one which demands both great ex¬ 
perimental skill and great acuteness, patience 
and caution on the part of h im who would 
successfully occupy it. I have no wish to dis¬ 
parage Prof. Sanborn’s work. He has used 
faithfully such facilities as were at his dispo¬ 
sal, and has done much to stimulate an inter¬ 
est in the study of cattle feeding, and such a 
course is worthy of imitation ; but neither 
good intentions nor faithful use of opportuni¬ 
ties can supply the lack of scientifically accu¬ 
rate methods in the 6tudy of scientific ques¬ 
tions. 
If now, Prof. Sanborn's experiments neither 
inform us how much nutritive matter his 
cattle actually received nor exactly what they 
did with it, it follows that his conclusions 
based on those experiments, are not proved. 
It does not, of course, follow from this that 
they are necessarily incorrect, or that the Ger¬ 
man standards and tables are correct. Mv 
aim has been simply to present my reasons for 
believing that Prof. Sanborn's conclusions 
concerning them are unwarranted. The Gor¬ 
man investigators themselves do not claim 
perfection for their results. In fact, they are 
working more diligently than ever to correct 
and extend their present knowledge and to 
put it in a shape more available to practical 
farmers. Their tables and standards contain 
confessedly umny imperfections and uncer¬ 
tainties, and the best methods of fodder analy¬ 
ses that we possess are crude and unsatisfac¬ 
tory. But notwithstanding all this, the results 
of the German and other foreign investigators 
are the best guide we now have to a rational 
method of feeding, and if used with a knowl¬ 
edge of these defects are capable of rendering 
valuable aid to tho feeder, though neither this 
nor any conceivable system can dispense with 
judgment and experience on tho part of the 
feeder or furnish him infallible recipes, ac¬ 
cording to which he may put fodder into an 
animal as one would feed corn into a mill. 
I have endeavored to avoid anything like a 
captious criticism of Prof. Sanborn’s experi¬ 
ments which have evidently cost much care 
and labor, and been made solely with a 
view to elucidating the truth. Feeling the 
imperfections of our present knowledge on 
the subject of feeding, I am ready to welcome 
new light from any quarter. But an unwar¬ 
ranted impeachment of that knowledge can 
only tend to bring undeserved discredit on all 
efforts to furnish a scientific basis for cattle 
feeding and to hinder the advancement of 
sound knowledge concerning its principles. 
Therefore, when views like those of Prof. 
Sanborn are publicly 6et forth in a leading 
agricultural paper, it is imperative that they 
should be subjected to a fair but searching 
criticism, to the end that, if false they may be 
rejected, and if true that our present beliefs 
may be modified accordingly. We can reach 
sound and enduring knowledge only by follow¬ 
ing the inspired advice, “Prove all things; 
hold fast that which is good.” 
Storrs Agricultural School, Mansfield, Ct. 
farm (Topics. 
THE TRUTH ABOUT IT. 
I The object of articles under this heading Is not so 
much to deal wtth “humbugs" as with the many un¬ 
conscious errors that creep Into the methods of daily 
country routine life_ Eds.] 
THE DISHONESTY OF BEING 
SWINDLED. 
W. I. CHAMBERLAIN. 
Notwithstanding the fine print in brackets 
that regularly stands at the head of this col¬ 
umn, I should like to say a few things on 
“ humbugs” orswindles; and for two reasons— 
First, because I think our isolation as farmers 
makes us less up to these tricks; for we on 
our farms lack that daily, hourly contact with 
all sorts of men, that sharpens the wits and 
puts one always ou the defensive. And, sec¬ 
ond, because I think there is an underlying 
thought or principle that may help us. That 
thought is that the victim is usually swindled 
either through his own dishonesty or his own 
overweaning avarice. 
There are, let us say, two general classes of 
“confidencegames” or swindles. In the first 
the appeal is made to our desire to get money 
dishonestly; in the second, to make it more 
rapidly than in the ordinary ways. In the 
first the appeal is to our rascality; in the sec¬ 
ond, simply to our avarice. In the first, the 
victim is just as dishonest (though not so sharp) 
as the swindler; in the second, he is simply 
overreached in his eager desire to muke an ex¬ 
tra “soft thing." To the first class of swin¬ 
dles beloug, for example, “three card monte” 
and the famous “soap crick." When you bet 
ten dollars on a certain card in the “ monte” 
game, what are you trying to do? To swindle 
the man out of the dollars, are you not?—to 
get value without returning any equivalent. 
There is no quid pro quo in such transac¬ 
tions. For, if the card turns up as you say, 
you get his ten dollars for nothing; and if it 
turns up as he says (as it certainly will), he 
simply gets your ten dollars for nothing. You 
are just as dishonest in intention as he, for the 
time being at least. You try to cheat him and 
he tries to cheat you, and you have no right 
to "squeal” or whimper or call him a rascal 
or want him arrested if he beats you at the 
game you were both playing. 
Or, take the famous “ soup trick” that may 
always be seen in the wake of any well regu¬ 
lated circus! Many a good Presbyterian 
brother has seen it when he went to the circus 
to show his children tho wild animals 1 The 
naan has a lot of little boxes of fancy soap be¬ 
fore him. He holds up a twenty dollar bill. 
He even lets tbe crowd handle it to make sure 
that it is good money. When the bill comes 
back from this scrutiny, he folds it neatly, 
opens one of bis little soap boxes, slips the bill 
in, before your very eyes, puts on the cover, 
holds up the box and says, “Now, gentlemen, 
lookout that you don't get cheated! I pro¬ 
pose to sell this box of soap, box and all, soap 
and all, twenty dollar bill and all (if it’s in 
there), all for one dollar! Do I hear one dol¬ 
lar ?” Of course he “ hears one dollar ” from 
thac green boy or that young man of sixty, 
who is enjoying what the Psalmist calls a 
green old age! You know the bill is in the 
