juni U 
THE RURAL WEW-YORKER. 
and that is, breeding off the horns from the 
rams. Formerly ewes often carried horns, 
although not nearly so long and large as those 
of the rams. These were found to be very 
objectionable in flocks, and were gradually 
got rid of. Why not do the same with the 
horns of the rams ? About the year 1820 and 
subsequently, a large, fine flock of hornless 
Merinos was kept in the town of Norwich, 
Connecticut. Drafts from this flock were sent 
to Northern Ohio; but all in the course of time 
were suffered to run out, so far as I have 
heard. I have ever considered this a great 
misfortune to the country, and wondered that 
flock-masters could have allowed it to do so. 
It is contended by some that horned rams are 
more vigorous than polled. I see no reason 
for this, and doubt it; for those hornless Con¬ 
necticut rams, we are told, were as thrifty, 
hardy and vigorous as any of the horned ever 
bred there. 
Very advantageous American improve¬ 
ments have been made in mutton sheep by 
crossing the long-wooled English rams upon 
our small, thin-bodied, coarse-boned native 
ewes. The second cross of the English ram 
makes an excellent mutton carcass out of the 
poorest natives of Mexico and Texas; while a 
single cross on the grade Merino ewes of the 
Northern States gives an equally good result. 
Crossing the various breeds of Down rams as 
above, also makes excellent mutton sheep, 
especially those of the Oxford Down sort, 
in consequence of their being the largest and 
most inclined to fat. In mountainous dis¬ 
tricts and on short pastures the South Down 
ram, being smaller and more active than 
either of the above, his crosses would be the 
bast, for they would pick up a good living 
where the other-* would half starve. These 
and other modi flcations are to be duly con¬ 
sidered and bred for, smooth, rich pastures 
being required for large sheep, while poorer 
and rougher ones answer for the smaller sorts. 
In California a modification of the produce 
of Eastern sheep when taken there was found 
absolutely necessary, and this was, to breed 
off all the wool from their faces and legs, and 
have these left entirely bare to the skin. If 
wool were allowed to grow on these parts of 
the animal, it gathered the sharp, penetrating 
needles from the Mesquit Grass, and made 
the sheep blind and lame. This one modifica¬ 
tion in breeding sheep shows how necessary it 
is to study each particular district of the 
United States iu order to properly adapt its 
domestic animals to it. 
Merino sheep and their grades are the best 
and most profitable to keep on the Western 
plains, as they are the hardiest of all, and can 
run safely in large flocks, which renders it 
easier and cheaper to herd, care "for and feed 
them. 
farm (Cconomij, 
GERMAN TABLES AGAIN. 
PROFESSOR J. W. SANBORN. 
In the Rural of May 13, there appears, by 
Professor Armsby, what he pleases to term “A 
Searching Criticism” of my articles in oppo¬ 
sition to the “ German Tables.” It behooves 
me, in conjunction with the reader, to see 
what “ Stuff” this criticism by a scientific 
gentleman is made of. I do not mean these 
remarks to be disrespectful at all, but wel¬ 
come the review of Professor Armsby and ac¬ 
cept the criticisms as the view s of a competent 
scientific critic. I may say, for myself, that 
each and every objection raised has been 
again and again weighed by me, and I regal’d 
them now, as before, as utterly inadequate to 
account for the discrepancies between my 
work and the German tables of Wolff. Pro¬ 
fessor Armsby talks loosely about possibili¬ 
ties, but does not any where in his article by 
reasoning in detail show that it is within the 
range of remote probability that the radical 
differences are reconcilable. He contents him¬ 
self with the entirely useless task of urging 
that my work is not strictly seieutific. I 
never claimed that my experiments were car¬ 
ried to their ultimate possible extent; only 
that they were exact so far as they went, and 
so far competent witnesses. I wish to add 
that there never yet has been a strictly scien¬ 
tific experiment carried on in cattle feeding 
if we expect it to rise above the chance for 
scientific criticism. 
The trouble with the German tables is that 
the Germans began with a theory, which is 
all right, but they so arranged or interpreted 
their experiments as to make it appear that 
albuminoids are the main source of force 
and fat, and so they were led into the mistake 
of over-estimating the value of these. As I 
have already iu previous articles stated my 
positions, it remains for me to defend them, if 
defensible, against Professor Amisby’s objec¬ 
tions. I will follow him in detail. 
He says of me : “It would appear that he 
has confused the money value and agricul¬ 
tural value of feeding stuffs much in the same 
way that many do the corresponding values 
of fertilizers.” I beg to say that it would be 
impossible for me to hold so light a view of 
this question. I deny that you can fix a com¬ 
mercial value ou albuminoids. The nitrogen, 
phosphoric acid and potash of our fertilizer 
stufi's occur independent of each other and 
have a commercial rate. The carbohydrates, 
fats, albuminoids occur all in one food as fed, 
and in various foods these materials are not 
entirely the same, nor is it probable that they 
have the same feeding value. Any rule that 
fixes the value of albuminoids in cents per 
pound, is founded, not on market rates, but 
on a purely arbitrary basis—the basis of sup¬ 
posed importance. Why say that albumi¬ 
noids are four-and a-half cents, and carbohy¬ 
drates two-thirds of a eefit ? Will Professor 
Armsby be so kind as to say what is the val¬ 
ue of albuminoids for this country ? If he 
cannot, will he withdraw his criticism farther 
along, that these values are made for Ger¬ 
many and not for America. No man under 
the sun, or set of men, can find the market 
rates of albuminoids. In fact, Professor 
Armsby gives the case away by saying that 
in Germany land it is after years of use) they 
are thinking of changing the old values, and I 
may add they propose to cut down the value 
of albuminoids, as before expressed. Has 
the price of albuminous foods been lowered ? 
No. What then is the trouble ? Simply what 
I claim—faulty tables. They should change 
money values with a sponge for the present. 
But Professor Armsby does worse than quote 
the German dissatisfaction with the table; ho 
says, “In Bhort, the agricultural value of a 
feeding stuff depends on so many circum¬ 
stances that any attempt to represent it 
numerically can only result in failure.” 
Many of these “ circumstances ” are such that 
the sam9 commercial value fixed for food 
nutrients would be, of course, misleading. 
Take au illustration in albuminoids: Many 
of our foods contain a heavy per cent of what 
passes under the term albuminoids in form of 
amides—materials that certainly have not the 
full functions of albuminoids. How vital this 
point is may bo seen when I say that I fed 
carrots whose nitrogen was nearly all amide 
nitrogen or at least non-albuminoid nitrogen, 
while corn-meal holds almost all of its nitrogen 
as albuminoid nitrogen. This affects its real 
money value, yet in the past in making up 
German tablas all have been classed under 
albuminoids. Their feeding rations were made 
up materially from foods containing amide 
nitrogen in large quantity,and this fact forms 
a valid objection against their tables in 
general. 
But this is not all: who shall say that wax 
and fat have the same nutritive value? The 
term carbohydrates covers several materials 
that vary in their relative proportions in 
various foods The probability is that in each 
of these classes each has a variation of nutri¬ 
tive value from its diverse muke-up, iu various 
foods. If so, commercial value is but a trick 
upon the buyer as arbitrarily fixed, one price 
for all sources in a digestible form. 
Further on Professor Armsby says I have 
not shown but what they have one feeding 
value. It is enough to cover the scope of his 
argument to say that the Germans have not 
shown that they have one nutritive value, and 
this they are bound to do before claiming 
their tables scientific or even accurate. But 
I have not to rest on a negative argument; I 
have shown, in my previous articles, that 
wide differences in feeding values of a given 
amount of nutrients are found from diverse 
sources. Iu his reply, Professor Armsby 
seems to have been blind to my positive figures 
of trials, and states further on that I assume 
it. 
But this is not all: with the knowledge that 
my critic is familiar with German works, I 
assert that their trials continuously show this 
same difference and that they are most 
strangely blind to their own results as well as 
are their American supporters. Will Pro¬ 
fessor Armsby look the ground over and show 
some of this nice scientific agreement in results 
from nutrients from diverse foods? Until the 
facts I have glveu of my own and German 
work are answered, I need add no more from 
similar matters at hand. 
Without affectation, I may say that I am 
fairly surprised at the following by my critic, 
in regard to food of support: “ Now, it is well 
known that the average of a series of experi¬ 
ments is much more likely to be nearer the 
truth than a single experiment, and hence we 
should do well to take this average as the basis 
of our feeding staudard instead of arbitrarily 
choosing either the highest or lowest.” “Se¬ 
ries” here is a big word for a few trials. On 
what like foods with diverse amounts of nu¬ 
trients? Not a bit, but on diverse foods, and 
the lowest was 0.41 pound of albuminoids, 
and this gave a gain, and the highest 0.84 
pound, and this gave a Joss of weight and the 
average struck, and 15 per cent, added, to over¬ 
come a probable lower temperature. Iu the 
execution of the trial as well as in the conclu¬ 
sions drawn, it is woefully lacking in concep¬ 
tion and interpretation. The only conclusion 
that can bo drawn from it is that 0.41 pound 
of albuminoids is sufficient to make a gain, as 
far as this material is concerned, and that di¬ 
verse foods have diverse feeding values so fur 
as their digestible nutrients are concerned. 
Again, my scientific critic gives this strange 
turn to science in table making. After stating 
Wolff’s nutrients of support, he reasons thus 
for Wolff: “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.” Good enough! 
a scientific standard of support for a working 
basis for science, etc., by guesses ! It is what 
I claim to be au arbitrary creation, full of fine 
office calculations about albuminoids, source 
of fat, force, and this, that and the other, and 
merits the contempt that Dr, Lawes has for 
it. Now I repeat, “It is child like.” 
From this point Professor Armsby begins 
his criticism of my experiments. “They 
do not tell us how much of the various 
nutrients were actually assimilated.” No, 
nor was it at all necessary to slow how 
much was assimilated. I have shown that 
on much less than the German standard 
of support my steers grew for a long period, 
and were growing to the last, and that 
this growth was water Professor Armsby will 
not maintain. And again Iadd.neitherhavethe 
Germans shown how much was assimilated. 
In a good, easy way some one may assume it, 
but will Professor Armsby claim they have 
Again, he says I used the German digestion 
experiments, and “the digestibility of-different 
samples of the same feeding stuffs is subject 
to considerable variation.” This is precisely 
what I am trying to teach, and so tables are 
useless. “ American foods have not been tested 
for digestibility,” he says. Very good; then, 
if it may so vary my trials as to invalidate 
them, pray, why try find foist these tables on 
the American market ? But Professor Armsby 
should have noticed, in my table of results* 
that the total organic matter used was much 
less than the Germans claim to be needed for 
support (mine had less than 20 pounds per 
1,700—pounds steer) while they gained. This 
makes his argument useless. 
Agaiu it is entirely beyond the I’ange of 
probability that nearly nine pounds were 
digested per 1,000 pounds of steer, and, be¬ 
sides, quite a gain was made. He says I did 
not have the uneaten food analyzed. This is 
time in those reported, blit not' true of some 
unpublished results, and is so small a factor as 
to be insignificant as compared with the l’adical 
differences noted. That my trials do not show 
how much was actually digested is true. They 
were figured from German tables of digestion 
which are really the best work they have doue 
and valuable but open to objection; but Pro¬ 
fessor Armsby strikes a blow at them, for by 
his argument the stover of this country may 
not agree with that of Germany, and I may 
state that it will not of two neighboring 
faiuns of Germany and especially of discon¬ 
nected portions with unlike soils and climatic 
conditions. But my critic should not have 
foi’gotten that I am arguing against these 
tables for this couutry, and, in many of their 
features, for Germany. I am glad of his cor 
x’oborating testimony. 
Oue more point deserves consideration. He 
quotes Stohmann as showing the possible 
variation of cattle under nice conditions of 
weighing daily. I am almost sorry that he 
quotes him, for it increases my distrust of 
German work, and will increase that of others, 
and leads me to infer that Professor Arrasby’s 
experience in feeding trials is limited. He 
quotes a variation of 88 pounds in the line of 
decrease within five days, and 84 pounds in 
one day. If this is a sample of nice German 
conditions I trust we may be preserved from 
much more of such trials. I have weighed 
cattle constantly and frequently for years. 
I have carried weighed water daily to steel's 
and cows, and assert that no man ever 
weighed under fair conditions cattle that 
approached this variation, and, furthermore, 
that the statement is ridiculous. 1 cau easily 
make this variation by intention, but not 
fairly. Such class of criticisms I am free to 
say is unfair and unpleasant to be bothered 
with, although undoubtedly given in good 
faith, for I have a high opinion of Professor 
Armsby and his works. 
Now let me describe a series of experiments 
as I carry them on. First, cattle of the same 
age, weights and breed are selected that have 
been fed alike for a previous period. They are 
fed recorded rations and always weighed before 
watering, as I find less variations from day to 
day occur at that time in the morning. They 
are weighed frequently through a period of 
often 1U0 days of feeding, and I find in my 
experience a continuous progression as a whole 
for years of oue tenor, and this makes Armsby’s 
water criticism seem trilling to me. Some¬ 
times I have changed sets to see whether the 
food or the steex-s were responsible for the re¬ 
sults noted. Sometimes I have kept the pas¬ 
ture growth of lots diversely fed in Winter 
to note the effect of the peculiar Winter food 
on after growth, and I have had six lots fed 
for four months, nearly, on diverse food 
dressed and weighed, to note the shrinkage of 
each lot and the effect on character of the 
increase. 
Appreciating the full force of Professor 
Armsby’s objections regarding assimilation 
and digestive co-efficients, I am confident that 
a yearly series of trials, carried on for six 
years, are quite competent to throw light on 
the questions that I have tested. With care¬ 
ful attention I am not quite sure but that they 
are as safe as the assimilation and digestive 
methods of the Germans that cover but 
short periods; for there are errors in the sys¬ 
tem, and if errors are shown, we cannot meas¬ 
ure as yet their foroe. Whether my methods 
are quite as accurate we will let pass, as the 
differences are not reconcilable, and we have 
the more complete work of Dr Lawes, that 
Professor Armsby prudently abstained from 
attacking. Dr. Lawes went one step further 
than I did. After finding the dressed weight 
he divided the carcass iuto fat, flesh, etc., and 
I should qnite as soon trust his method as one 
where amides are thrown off as urea and 
then reputed to represent assimilated albumi¬ 
noids. I did use German digestion lesults, 
and in this respect find myself in company 
with Professor Johnson, who has used them in 
some work for the Connecticut Experiment 
Station, according to his last report. I accept 
the criticism for more than it was intended, 
and say that digestion by no means represents 
the amount actually assimilated, and fall back 
on the total organic matter fed, and find the 
antagonism of my results to German results 
the more prominent from this staud-point: 
hay ration of 30 pounds of organic matter 
gave 1.43 pound of gain : a straw ration, with 
3 pounds of cotton seed meal for each steer, 
or a total of 33.20 pounds of organic matter, 
gave 3.75 pounds of gain. 
With more work and fuller on hand than 
yet published I reaffirm all that I have here¬ 
tofore said. I assume that it is now satisfac¬ 
torily shown that carbohydrates are, or may 
be, the source of both fat and force; thus tho 
German tables will fall without these trials, 
I had designed to enforce my positions by ad¬ 
ditional experiment matter, but find this article 
already too lengthy and will be content to call 
attention to the following facts : The Germans 
assume that the albuminoids necessary to make, 
iu round numbers,one pound of growth perday 
for a 100 pound pig is 1.04 pound ; yet on 
analyzed food, where all the albuminoids were 
assumed as digestible, a growth of .58 lbs. was 
made on only .15 pound, or only 14 per cent, of 
the Germaa claim. Now these pigs made a 
continuous gain for G5 day’s, when the trial 
closed. If Professor Armsby feels called upou 
to write again, will he please to explain how 
it is that for months a lot of steers with me 
gain substantially as much on but about one- 
half the orgauie matter from certain sources 
that a similar lot whose growing capacity is 
found similar to that of the first lot by pre¬ 
vious trial, does on other sources of food; and 
will he explain this case of my pigs as against 
the German claims ? And will he be specific, 
and not so general that I shall lose the value 
of his scientific opiuious ? I may say that I 
have been engaged for some time in searching 
for a consistent explanation of the first ques¬ 
tion, and think I find something better than a 
general “ guess it may not be right.” In con¬ 
clusion, I may say that I am not so zealous to 
break down German deductions as I hope I am 
to aid our farmers. A continuous experience 
of the necessity of economical farm methods fur 
Eastern farmers impels me to state from what 
I have deemed ample experience, the belief 
that the German tables are not applicable to 
economical farm feeding. That my experience 
does not include respiration apparatus is due 
to the fact that the work is volunteer work, 
prosecuted without funds iu behalf of our col¬ 
lege, yet they are competent to detect the wide 
errors of German tables. 
Hanover, N. H. 
SAVING GOOD SEED CORN. 
With the experience of this year, I think it 
would be an easy matter to convince farmers 
of the necessity of taking more pains to secure 
or save good sound seed corn that would not 
fail to germinate. Last year, of course, was 
a bad year in which to select good sound seed 
corn, but those who were wise enough to take 
th9 pains when shucking out their corn to 
save the best there was, are happy this 
Spring. 
Generally last year corn was cut up and 
shucked very early, and a good deal of it 
heated and mildewed in the shock ; I found 
that this would not germinate, so iu saving my 
seed I selected only that on the inside of the 
shock, taking, of course, only the best and 
soundest ears. I was satisfied by experiment 
that it would germinate well, and this Spring 
when I came to plant, 1 shelled it off the ear 
and planted, and I never had a better stand; 
nearly every hill came up well, 
