1872 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
19 
The Effect of Steaming Food on the 
Productiveness of Cows. 
So much attention is now being given to the 
question of steaming food for cattle, that any 
facts concerning it are especially interesting. It 
is often asked: “Do the farmers of England, 
the best cattle feeders and the best farmers in 
the world, steam their food to any considerable 
extent ? ” So far as we know, no very encour¬ 
aging affirmative reply can be made to this 
question. But then circumstances alter cases, 
and we are veiiy differently situated from Eng¬ 
lish farmers, in that our winters are very much 
colder, and that—owing chiefly to the scarcity 
of labor—we can not compete with them in the 
production of root crops; roots being less im¬ 
proved by steaming than any other winter food. 
. Yet while, from their less necessity for cooking, 
the English give less attention to it than we do, 
it is to an Euglish farmer that we must go for 
the most conclusive evidence in favor of cook¬ 
ing that we have yet seen—evidence so conclu¬ 
sive that we give it more space than we like to 
devote to a single subject. 
Mr. Thomas Horsfall, of Yorkshire, England, 
is very high authority in dairy matters. In one 
of his elaborate reports to the Royal Society, he 
describes an experiment undertaken to show 
the comparative effect of feeding cooked and 
uncooked food. The experiment commenced 
January 1st. He selected one of his own cows, 
one of Mr. Smith’s, and one of Mr. Pawson’s 
(neighbors), thinking that if he changed some 
of his own stock from his steamed food to dry 
hay, they would not do so well on it as would 
cows that had been kept in the ordinary way. 
Mr.'Smith’s cow was small, but a noted milker. 
She had been in good condition at calving (her 
third calf), but fell away sensibly during three 
weeks thereafter. She was fed on hay only— 
.eating 28 lbs. per day. Mr. Pawson’s was a 
heifer three years old, with her first <calf. She, 
too, fell away very much in her condition. 
Un-til late in November she was grazed during 
the day and housed (with turnips) at night. 
From that time until Feb. her food was (per 
day): inferior meadow hay, 18 lbs.; Swede 
turnips, 45 lbs.; ground oats, 9 lbs. After the 
first week in Feb. the oats were discontinued, 
and hay given ad libitum. Mr. Horsfall’s cow 
was of small size, but a large milker. She was 
in good condition at calving, and gained flesh 
on her diet. She was fed on “steamed mix¬ 
ture,” aud li lbs. bean-meal, fed raw—the mix¬ 
ture consisting, for each day’s rations, of 5 lbs. 
rape-cake, li lbs. bran, and'li lbs. malt combs, 
mixed with enough bean-straw, oat-straw, and 
shells of oats, in equal proportions, to give three 
times a day as much as she would eat. After 
each feed she received 3 lbs. of dry hay. 
• The following table shows the condition and 
performance of each animal: 
When calved 
Yield at 
January 1st. 
March 5th. 
Calving 
Weight. 
Yield. 
Weight. 
Yield. 
Smith’s, 
Nov. 12th. 
17 qts. 
0S0 lbs. 
15>4 qts. 
896 lbs. 
9 1 / qts. 
Pawson’s, 
Oct. 6th. 
16 “ 
840 “ 
12 “ 
812 “ 
654 “ 
Horsfall’s, 
Oct, 8th. 
18 “ 
1092 “ 
15 Vi “ 
1148 “ 
12/* “ 
Mr. Smith’s cow lost 84 lbs. in nine weeks, 
with an average yield of 12 i quarts per day. 
Mr. Pawson’s lost 28 lbs., but nearly her whole 
loss of both flesh and milk occurred after Feb. 
'8th, when her oats were stopped. At that time 
she still weighed 840 lbs., and gave 11 quarts 
of milk per day. Mr. Horsfall’s cow, on the 
other hand, gained an average of 61 lbs. per 
week, with an average yield of 14 quarts. She 
gave, Jan. 1st, 15i qts., Feb. 4th, 14 qts., and 
March 4th, 121 qts. 
Computed at the local prices, the average 
profit and loss in each case per week was: 
Mr. Smith’s cow.— 
Milk.S3.G4 
Deduct for loss in flesh.$1.10 
“ .hay.. 1.75 2.01 
Weekly profit.73 
Mr. Pawson’s cow (average of weeks before oats were 
stopped).— 
Milk.$3.35 
Deduct for hay.$0.75 
“ “ oats.. 1.16 
“ “ turnips.37 2.2S 
Weekly profit. $1.07 
Mr. Horsfall’s cow.— 
Milk.$4-08 
Add for gain-in flesh.7S 
$4.S6 
Deduct for hay, straw, and oats. $1.13 
“ “ rape-cake, bran, etc.,. 1.00 2.13 
Weekly profit.$2.73 
The richer quality of the manure compen¬ 
sated Mr. H. for the extra cost of attendance. 
So much for the experiment to March 5tli. 
On March 12th, Mr. Horsfall bought Mr. 
Smith’s cow for the purpose of trying her on 
steamed food. At that t ime her yield had fallen 
to 8 quarts per day. March 31st—four weeks 
from the former weighing, and after 19 days of 
steamed food —licr milk had increased to 9i qts., 
and she had gained 28 lbs. in iceight. Mr. Paw¬ 
son’s cow, with no change of food, had fallen 
off to 5 qts. per day, without change of weight. 
Mr. Horsfall’s cow at this date gave 12 qts., 
aud had gained 28 lbs. 
Mr. Horsfall mentions another cow that had 
given at her flush 13 qts. of milk. Fed on 22 
lbs. hay and 35 lbs. mangels, she fell off in eight 
weeks to 9 qts. She was then, April 20th, put 
on the steamed mixture. Soon after this her 
yield increased to 11 qts., at which point it re¬ 
mained until May 16th, when she had gained 
14 lbs. in weight, ne says, in concluding one 
section of his report: 
“These results are important,aud completely 
establish the conclusions I had previously 
formed, that the quantity and quality of butter 
depend essentially on the food and treatment; 
and that by suitable means you can produce as 
much and as rich butter in winter as in summer," 
The point of greatest value in tbe experiments 
described above is the improved condition of 
Mr. Smith’s cow when she was put upon 
steamed food. But for this there would have 
remained the possibility that Mr. Horsfall’s cow 
was intrinsically much the best of the three. 
Another point to consider is that both Mr. 
Smith and Mr. Pawson had their cows in their 
own keeping, and that each probably did his 
best to prove the superiority of his own system. 
What are Artificial Manures ? 
There does not seem to be a clear understand¬ 
ing as to what are natural and what are arti¬ 
ficial manures. Many farmers have a preju¬ 
dice against what are called chemical manures, 
probably for the reason that they can not see 
the connection which exists between a product 
of a chemical manufactory and the needs of the 
vegetable products of their soil. Such manures, 
therefore, as nitrate of potash, nitrate of soda, 
chloride of sodium (salt), sulphate of lime 
(plaster), etc., are looked upon as either use¬ 
less or of doubtful advantage. But there are 
many so-called artificial manures which are 
really as much the natural product of the farm 
as the manure from the stables or liog-pen. 
For instance, bone-dust and superphosphate of 
lime return to the soil precisely the same ele¬ 
ments which they derived from it. So with 
many articles manufactured from blood, refuse 
flesh, waste of tanneries and soap-works. If 
these are not adulterated with useless foreign 
articles they but bring back to the soil what was 
originally taken from it. For this reason, if 
these manures can be procured at their actual 
value, their use should become as regular a part 
of the farm economy as that of barn-yard ma¬ 
nure. Every calf, hog, or sheep sold off the 
farm creates a demand for the return of a por¬ 
tion of one or another of these incorrectly 
called artificial manures, as much so as the feed¬ 
ing of an animal calls for the return of its waste. 
-— -» « —-- 
How to Catch an Owl. 
One of our associates who had lost some of 
his poultry by the depredations of owls, gave 
in March last an article with the above heading. 
This has called out letters from several corre¬ 
spondents, some of whom protest against catch¬ 
ing owls at all, as they do much good in destroy¬ 
ing mice, and say that owls do not trouble poul- 
try, especially if they are shut up. There are 
altogether in North America some forty species 
of owls, and while some of these confine their 
attention to small game, like mice, others are 
destructive to the farmer’s poultry—young tur¬ 
keys, which seldom will roost undercover, being 
especially apt to fall a prey to the owls. Among 
the advice given as to catching owls, one is 
founded on the belief that if the owl has killed 
a bird without carrying it off it will soon re¬ 
turn for it, and the writer advises to put a part¬ 
ridge trap over the dead fowl, which should 
be fastened to the trigger, and await the 
return of the bird of prey, which may be 
after an interval of several days. The plan of 
several others is founded upon the fact that an 
owl or hawk will perch upon any elevated 
point to take an observation before darting 
upon its prey, and proposes the use of steel 
traps attached to a small platform elevated upon 
a pole, which may stand by itself or be thrust 
up through the tree-tops, and, project above 
them, Tbe trap needs no bait, as it is intended 
to serve only as an alighting place or observa¬ 
tory for the owl or hawk. The trap should of 
course be fastened in such a manner that the 
bird can not fly off with it. Sometimes the owl, 
whpn caught, will remain quiet and pretend 
that nothing is the matter, and it is only when 
disturbed that its capture is ascertained. 
How to Improve our Stock. 
It is a matter of certainty, and we never yet 
met a farmer who did not admit it, that stock- 
raising is the most important branch of a farm¬ 
er’s business. It is the life-blood of the farm. 
Then it is a great point to have stock that will 
bring in the most money at least cost. This can 
only be done by improving the common native 
stock by the means of pure-blood male animals. 
These cost money, and few farmers have suffi¬ 
cient stock to need for their own use the entire 
services of such an animal. But five, eight, or 
ten farmers, jointly, may purchase an animal, 
or a set of them, as bull, boar, and ram, for say 
$1,000, whose services will repay the cost in a 
single year, and raise in a few years the character 
of the stock in a whole township. We know 
