1847. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
331 
of Mr, Walker, of Ferrygate, in East Lothian. He 
selected in February six heifers that had been on tur* 
neps, and were advancing in condition, and divided 
them into two lots of three heifers each, and put one 
lot on raw food, and the other on steamed. The food 
consisted of as many swedes as they could eat, with 
3 lbs. of bruised beans, and 20 lbs. of potatoes, half a 
stone of straw, and 2 oz. of salt, to each beast. The 
three ingredients were cooked by steaming, and the 
bruised beans were given to the lot on raw food at noon, 
and one-half of the potatoes in the morning, and the 
other half in the afternoon. It was soon discovered 
that the lot on the cooked food consumed more turneps 
than the other, the consumption being exactly 37 cwt. 
16 lbs.; whilst, when eaten raw, it was only 25 cwt. 
1 qr. 14 lbs.—-the difference continued during the pro¬ 
gress of the experiment for three months. 
Stots [steers] were experimented on as well as hei¬ 
fers. there being two lots of two each. They also got 
as many Swedish turnips as they could eat ; but had 
30 lbs. of potatoes and 4| lbs. of bruised beans, 2 oz. 
of salt, and half a stone of straw each, every day. 
The cost of feeding each lot was as follows : 
Three heifers on 'Steamed food, for one week, £1 2s. 
lid., or 7s. 4|d. each. 
Three heifers, on raw food, for one week, 16s. 3d., 
or 5s. 5d. each. 
Two stots, on steamed food, for one week, 16s. id., 
or 8 s. 6 |d. each. 
Two stots, on raw food, for 1 week, 13s. 6 |d., or 6 s. 
9]d. each. 
The following is a statement of the comparative 
profits on cooked and raw food : 
Live weight of heifers when put to feed on £. s. d. 
steamed food, 74 st., equal to 42 st. 41bs. 
beef, at 5s. 6 d. per st., sinking offal.. . 11 12 7 
Cost of keep for 12 weeks 5 days, at 7s. 
4|d. per week. 4 19 0 
Total cost. 16 11 7 
Live weight of the same heifers when fin¬ 
ished feeding on steamed food, 90 st., 
equal to 50 st., 9 lbs., at 6 s. 6 d. per st., 
sinking offal. 16 9 13 
Loss on steamed food on each heifer.... 0 2 6 | 
Live weight of one heifer when up to feed 
on raw food, 74 st., equal to 42 st. 4 lbs. 
beef, at 5s. 6 d. per st., sinking offal... 11 12 7 
Cost of keep, 12 weeks 5 days, at 5s. 5d. 
per week... 3 8 10| 
Total cost. 15 1 5i 
Live weight of the same heifer when fin¬ 
ished feeding on raw food, 89 st. 3 lbs., 
equal to 50 st. 1 lb. of beef, at 6 s. 6 d. 
per st., sinking offal.. 16 5 5 h 
Profit on raw food on each heifer. 1 4 0 
Live weight of one stot when put up to 
feed on steamed food, 84 st., equal to 
50 st. 4 lbs., at 5s. 6 d. per st., sinking 
offal. 13 4 0 
Cost of keep for 12 weeks 5 days, at 8 s. 
6 |d. per week..... 5 8 4 
Total cost. 18 12 4 
Live weight of tne same stot after being 
fed on steamed food, 104 st. 7 lbs., equal 
to 56 st. 10 lbs., at 6 s. 6 d. per st., sink¬ 
ing offal. 18 8 7k 
Profit on each stot on steamed food. 0 3 83 
Live weight of one stot when put on raw 
food, 90 st., equal to 51 st. 6 lbs., at 5s. 
6 d. per st., sinking offal.. 14 2 10| 
Cost of keep for 12 weeks 5 days, at 6 s. 
9|d. per week. 4‘ 6 1 
V- ,-■- 
Total cost. 1 & • 8 11 | 
Live weight of the same stot after being 
fed on raw food, 106 st. f ibs., equal to 
58 st. 6 lbs., at 6 s. 6 d. per st., sinking 
offal..... 18 19 9| 
Profit on each stot on raw food. 0 10 10 
The following table shows the progress in condition 
made by the cattle experimented on : 
Cattle. 
Average live 
weight of three 
at commence¬ 
ment of feeding. 
Average live 
weight of 
three at end 
of feeding. 
Average in¬ 
crease of live 
weight in 
three months. 
Average dead 
weight of 
beef. 
Average 
weight of 
tallow. 
Average 
weight of 
hide. 
Average 
weight of 
offal. 
st. 
st. 
lbs. 
st. 
lbs. 
st. 
lbs. 
st. 
lbs. 
st. 
lbs. 
st. lbs. 
Heifers on steamed food. 
74 
90 
0 
16 
0 
50 
0 
7 
11 
3 
12 
26 9 
Heifers on raw food.... 
74 
89 
3 
15 
0 
50 
2 
8 
4 
4 
4 
26 10 
Stots on steamed food.. . 
84 
103 
4 
19 
0 
56 
19 
8 
11 
5 
12 
28 3 
Stots on raw food. 
• 
90 
106 
5 
15 
0 
58 
6 
8 
8 
5 
4 
30 4 
The conclusion which Mr. Walker draws from his 
experiments is the following : 
“We have no hesitation in saying that, in every re¬ 
spect, the advantage is in favor of feeding with raw 
food. But it is worthy of remark, that the difference 
in the consumption of food arises on turneps alone: we 
would therefore recommend every person wishing to 
feed cattle on steamed food, to use potatoes or any 
other food that would not lose bulk and weight in the 
steaming process; as there is no question but in doing 
so they would be brought much nearer to each other in 
the article of expense of keep. Upon the whole, we 
freely give it as our opinion, that steaming food for 
cattle will never be attended with beneficial results un¬ 
der any circumstances whatever, because it requires a 
more watchful and vigilant superintendence during the 
whole process than can ever be delegated to the com¬ 
mon run of servants, to bring the cattle on steamed 
food even upon a footing of equality, far less a superi¬ 
ority, to those fpd on raw food.”f 
Mr. Howd-en, of Lawhead, in East Lothian, ob¬ 
tained similar results from his experiments, which were 
conducted with a view of ascertaining whether cooked 
or uncooked food is the more profitable in the feeding 
of*cattle. He found the preparation of the food by 
steaming any thing but profitable. The cost of pre¬ 
paring the food in his case was, however, considerable, 
as an expense of about ten shillings each animal was 
incurred by the practice. A single horse load of coals, 
carriage included, cost ten shillings; and exactly six 
cart loads were required and used in preparing the food 
t Prize Essays of the Highland and Agricultural Society. 
