Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

430 GKIADIAG IIAV AM) STRAW FOR FEED. TJiis matter is beginning tube seriously deba ted in the system of advanced agriculture. Like other new things, it makes but slow progress in the agricultural mind at first, but the advance of the age in using steam-power on farms, points out the possibility, and indeed likelihood, of as great an advance in this as in any other direction Advocates of the system of grinding hay and straw for feed naturally argue in this way : —The nourishment in the fibre of hay and straw, is on ly attainable by the breaking down of the fibre of the material, and thus opening to the action of the stomach of the animal the cells of the plant, which contain the starch, the sugar, and the oily particles which have been carried into the stem of the dried plant by its natural growth. 1 liese broken cells are then acted on by the jui ces and liquids of the mouth and stomach, are dissolved and assimilated into tlie system of the animal. Hence, the more perfect the crashing and comminution of the stem, the more easily do the animal’s digestive organs take hold of the nourishment which the stem of hay and straw contains, and therefore, the more the fibres are so crushed and'divided, the more nourishment is obtained lrom them. Then again, in proof of this theory, they show that grass (which is only undried hay) is much more congenial to the ani mal than hay, that lie lives better on it, and fat tens quicker, and that therefore the consumption of grass is more profitable than that of hay.—- This, they afiiirm, is because the grass, being softer and more easily crushed, is more thorough ly broken down by the mastication of the animal than can be the case with the dried vegetable, and being altogether in a softer state, nearly, if not quite the whole of the nourishment it con tains is at once available, which is not the case with hay. To prove this, examine the excrement from a grass-feeding animal. Wash it in a fine sieve until all the colouring matter and the animal ad ditions which it lias received in the stomach of the beast are removed, and you will find it to have been ground infinitely finer and more com pletely than excrement from a hay or straw-eat ing animal treated in a similar manner. The fi bre from a grass fed animal is nearly as fine as the stuff from which they manufacture brown and coarse paper, while the fibre from tlie liay cating animal is quite as coarse as the material which the paper-makers use to make what is call, ed straw board. These are facts demonstrable SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR. any day by every farmer who chooses to try them, and they consequently cannot be denied. Admitting, therefore, for argument’s sake, that the finer the particles to which hay and straw can lie reduced before it is placed in the stomach of the animal, the more nourishment is derived from it, and consequently, the more profitable it becomes, we come to the consideration of the q .estion : Can this be more easily attained by the natural grinding and mastication of the ani mal, or by artificial means? Many will argue that mastication of cattle food is most natural, and therefore best. In reply to this, the answer is: True in many cases, but not in the fattening of cattle. In this operation we want to avail ourselves of every particle of fat tening matter in the food in the shortest possible time. Animals can assimilate more than they do in a natural state, and the farmer’s object is to make them do so. lie wants to reduce liis oper ations to certainty, not leaving them in any way to chance. Young animals grind their food quicker and more perfectly than old ones. Some animals, from greediness of disposition or other natural causes, swallow their food before it gets thoroughly masticated ; and although in the case of ruminants it is all brought to the mouth a sec ond time, and even oftener, and re-masticated, after having been softened in the stomach or paunch, yet it is of necessity only masticated in sufficiently fine particles to pass to the second stomach and other digestive organs, and it by no means follows, that even the ruminants grind the food as fine as the profits of the farmer re quire. His object is to make all feed alike. He pays as much for a beast which does not grind food well, as for one which does—for the lazy chewer as for the more active and industrious one. He wants all the beasts in liis byre finished off at one time, and that each and all shall have taken from the hay the last particle of fattening matter. And to make this certain, he applies tlie help of science in the construction of a machine, to break down and comminute the fibre of the dried plant, having recourse to steam for power necessary to effect that object. If this is the case with hay, how much more must it be with strawy wdiose fibre is harder and more intractable, and wdiose fattenning matters are more sparse and difficult to get at ? And if it be true with respect to ruminants, it is of ten times more force with horses, tlie object in feed ing which is to spare tlie animal all the labour possible, and give him tlie greatest amount of