TheGreystone Turnipis a variety which has only quite recently been introduced. It is stated to be an uncommonly productive crop, usually yielding returns from 30 to 50 per cent. greater than those obtained from other varieties of the turnip. The composition of the Greystone turnip appears to be inferior, so that probably it is not, after all, a more economical plant than the ordinary kinds of turnips.
It was at one time the fashion—not yet become quite obsolete—to regard the proportion of nitrogen in the turnip as the measure of the nutritive value of the bulb; but the fallacy of this opinion has been shown by several late investigators, and more particularly by the results of one of the numerous series of feeding experiments conducted by Mr. Lawes. Many bulbs exceedingly rich in nitrogen are very deficient in nutritive power—partly from a deficiency in the other elements of nutrition—partly because most of their nitrogen is in so low a degree of elaboration as to be incapable of assimilation by animals. The value of a food-substance does not merely depend upon the amount and the relative proportion of its constituents, but also, and to a very great extent, upon their easy assimilability. There is but little doubt that the nutritive matters contained in the Swedish turnip when the bulb is fresh are very crude. By storing, certain chemical changes take place in the bulb, which render it more nutritious and palatable. A large proportion of the non-nitrogenous matters exist in the fresh root as pectin; but this substance, if the bulb be preserved for a couple of months, becomes in great part converted into sugar, which is one of the most palatable and fattening ingredients of cattle-food. By storing, too, the bulbs lose a portion of their excessive amount of water, and become less bulky, which is unquestionably a desideratum. These facts suggest the necessity for cultivating the earlier varieties of the turnip, for it may be fairly doubted if a late-grown crop, left for consumption in the field, ever,even under the most favorable circumstances, attains its perfect development. At the same time it must not be forgotten that turnipsfully maturedin the field rather deteriorate than otherwise after a few weeks' storage.
Many agriculturists consider that there is a strict relation between the specific gravity, or comparative weight of the bulb, and its nutritive value; others believe that a very large turnip must necessarily be inferior in feeding qualities to a small one; whilst not a few maintain that neither its size nor its specific gravity is an indication of its feeding qualities. Dr. Anderson, who has specially investigated a portion of this subject, states that "the specific gravity of the whole turnip cannot be accepted as indicating its real nutritive value, the proportion of air in the cells being the determining element in such results; that there is no constant relation between the specific gravity of, and the nitrogen compounds in, the bulb; and that such relation does exist between the specific gravity of the expressed juice and the nitrogen compounds and solid constituents." Dr. Anderson allows, however, that the best varieties of the turnip have the highest specific gravity; which admission—coupled with the fact admitted by all experimenters that the heavy roots store best—lead me to adopt the opinions of those who consider great specific gravity as one of the favorable indications of its nutritive value. With respect to size, I prefer bulbs of moderate dimensions; the monsters that win the prizes at our agricultural shows—and which, in general, areforced—are inferior in feeding qualities, are alwaysspongy, and almost invariably rot when stored.
The composition of the turnip is influenced not only by the nature of the soil on which it is grown, but also by that of the manure applied to it. The most reliable authorities are agreed that turnips raised on Peruvian guano are watery, and do not keep well; but that with a mixture of Peruvian guano and superphosphate of lime, with phospho-guano, or with farmyard manure supplemented with a moderate amount of guano, the most nutritious and firm bulbs are produced.
Turnip-tops have been analysed by Voelcker, with the following results:—
These figures apparently show that the tops of turnips are more valuable than their bulbs; but, in the absence of any feeding experiments made to determine the point, we believe they are less so, as a very large proportion of the solid matter in the tops of turnips is in too low a degree of elaboration to be assimilable. Their high proportions of nitrogen and mineral matter constitute them, however, a very useful manure—nearly twice as valuable as the bulbs; this fact should be borne in mind when turnips are sold off the land.
The Mangel-wurtzelis one of the most valuable of our green crops. Its root is more nutritious than the turnip, occupying a position in the scale of food equivalents midway between that bulb and the parsnip. Mangels, when fresh, possess a somewhat acrid taste, and act as a laxative when given to stock; but after a few months' storing they become sweet and palatable, and theirscouringproperty completely disappears.
Although the mangel is one of the most nutritious articles of food which can be given to cattle, yet it is stated on the best authority that sheep do not thrive upon it. Voelcker, who has investigated this subject, informs us that a lot of sheep which he fed on a limited quantity of hay and an unlimited quantity of mangels, did not, during a period of four months, increase in weight, whilst another lot of sheep supplied with a small quantity of hay, and Swedish turnipsad libitumincreasedon an average 2½ lbs. weekly. I believe the experience of the greater number of feeders agrees with the results of Dr. Voelcker's experiment.
The chemistry of the mangel-wurtzel has been thoroughly studied by Way and Ogston, Fromberg, Wolff, Anderson, and Voelcker. According to the last-named chemist, its average composition is as follows:—
It is difficult to accurately determine by a comparative trial the relative feeding properties of mangels and turnips, for the former are only in a fit state to be given to the animals when the latter are deteriorating. However, by comparing the composition of the two substances, and the results obtained from numerous feeding experiments, it would appear, that on the average 75 lbs. weight of mangels are equal to 100 lbs. weight of turnips. Of the different varieties of the mangel the long yellow appears to be the most nutritious, and the long red the least so.
The leaves of the mangel—some of which are occasionally pulled and used for feeding purposes, during the growth of the bulb—are an excellent feeding substance: their composition indicates a nutritive value but little inferior to that of the root; but as their constituents cannot be in a highly elaborated condition, it is probable they are not more than equal to half their weight of the bulbs.
Onequestio vexataof the many which at present occupy the attention of the agricultural world is, whether or not the leaves of mangels may be removed with advantage during the latter part of the development of the plants. This practiceprevailed rather extensively a few years since, but latterly it has fallen somewhat into disuse.
Those who adopt this plan urge, as its advantages, that a large quantity of food is obtained at a time when it is urgently needed, and that instead of the removal of the leaves exercising an injurious influence on the development of the roots, the latter are actually increased in size.
In 1859 an experimental investigation was carried out at the Glasnevin Model Farm, with the view of throwing new light on the question. The outside leaves were very gradually removed on different occasions—from the 12th August to the 15th October. In this way five tons of leaves per statute acre were removed, and subsequently made use of for feeding purposes. The experiment was conducted on a field of four acres, of which the produce of 12 drills, each 200 yards in length, was left untouched. The result was that the produce of the roots of the untouched plants was only 40 tons 8 cwt. 6 qrs. per acre, whilst the roots of the plants which had been partly denuded of their leaves weighed at the rate of 45 tons 1 cwt. This experiment afforded results which are apparently favorable to the practice of stripping the leaves; but it is to be regretted that it was not rendered more complete by an analysis of the roots, as a great bulk of roots does not necessarily imply a great weight of dry food, and it is just possible, though not very probable, that the roots of the stripped mangels contained a larger proportion of water than those of the untouched plants.
The results of the experiments of Buckman, and of Professor Wolff, of the Royal Agricultural College at Hohenheim, are at direct variance with those obtained at Glasnevin. Both of these experimenters found that the removal of the leaves occasioned a diminution in the produce of the roots to the amount of 20 per cent. Nor was this the only loss, for it was found by the German professor that the roots of the untouched plants possessed a far higher nutritive value than those of the stripped mangels.
When doctors differ, who is to decide? Here we have high authorities in the agricultural world at direct variance on a matter of fact. The names of Buckman and Wolff are a sufficient guarantee that the experimental results which they announce are trustworthy, and I can testify, from observation, that no field experiments could be more carefully conducted than those carried out at the Albert Model Farm. We can only, then, under the circumstances, admit that both Mr. Boyle, on the one side, and Professors Buckman and Wolff on the other, are correct in their statements of fact; but as it is evident both cannot be right in the general inferences therefrom, it is desirable that the subject should be still further investigated, and the truth be placed beyond doubt. It is a question which appears so simple that one is at a loss to account for the discrepant opinions in relation to it which prevail. "Let nothing induce the growers," says Mr. Paget, in a paper on the cultivation of the mangel, "to strip the leaves from the plant before taking up the root. A series of careful experiments has convinced me that by so doing we borrow food at a most usurious interest." "Although," says Mr. Boyle, "the practice of stripping has been followed for many years on the farm without any perceptible injury to the crop, these results, showing so considerable an addition to the crop from taking off the leaves, were hardly anticipated." It certainly does appear somewhat at variance with our notion of the functions of the leaves of plants, that their partial removal could possibly cause an increase in the weight of the roots; but granting such to be the fact, it is not altogethertheoreticallyinexplicable. We know that highly nitrogenous manure has a tendency to increase the development of the leaves of turnips at theexpenseof the roots. Gardeners, too, not unfrequently remove some of the buds from their fruit trees, lest the excessive development of foliage should retard or check thegrowthof the fruit.Theoreticallyan excessive development of the leaves of the mangel may be inimical to the growth of the root. Probably, too, it may be urged, the outer leaves, whichsoon become partially disorganised and incapable of elaborating mineral matter into vegetable products, prevent the access of light to the more vigorous inner leaves. In conclusion, I may say of this subject that it is worthy of further elucidation; and I would suggest to my readers, and more especially to the managers of the various model farms, the desirability of fully testing the matter.
TheWhite Beetis a congener of the mangel. It is largely grown on the continent as a sugar-producing plant, but is seldom cultivated in these countries. It produces about 15 tons of roots per acre, and its roots on the average contain—
This plant is deserving of more extensive growth in Great Britain.
TheParsnipis, after the potato, the most valuable of roots. It differs from the turnip and the mangel in containing a high proportion of starch, and but little sugar; and its flesh-forming constituents are largely made up of casein, instead of, as in the case of the turnip, albumen.
The average composition of the parsnip is as follows:—
The parsnip is extensively grown in many foreign countries, on account of its valuable feeding properties. As a field-crop it is but little cultivated in Great Britain, and its use is—if weexcept the table—almost restricted to pigs. Its food equivalent is about double that of the turnip; that is, one pound of parsnips is equal to two pounds of turnips.
TheCarrotbears a close resemblance to the parsnip, from which, however, it differs, containing no starch, and being somewhat inferior in nutritive value. According to Voelcker, its average composition is as follows:—
As carrots contain a high proportion of fat-forming matters, and a low per-centage of flesh-forming substances, they are better adapted for fattening purposes. Dairy stock greedily eat them; and they are given with great advantage to horses out of condition.
Kohl-Rabi.—This plant, though early introduced into the agriculture of these countries, has made but little progress in the estimation of the farmer. It belongs to the order and genus which include the turnip, but differs widely from that plant in its mode of growth. Its bulb—which is formed by an enormous development of the overground stem—is, according to some authorities, less liable than the turnip to injury from frost. It is subject to no diseases, save anbury and clubbing; and, owing to its position above the soil, it can be readily eaten off by sheep. The bulbs store better than Swedes, and, according to some farmers, keep even better than mangels. With respect to the flavor of this bulb, there is some difference of opinion. Professor Wilson, of Edinburgh, quotes several eminent feeders to prove that "whether in the fold for sheep, in the yard for cattle, or in the stables for horses, it will generally be preferred to the other descriptions of homegrown keep." Mr. Baldwin, on the contrary, states that although good food for sheep, it is too hard-fleshed for oldewes, and that carrots are better food for horses, and Swedish turnips for cattle.
An accurately conducted comparative trial to test the nutritive value of the Kohl-rabi, was conducted at the Glasnevin Model Farm, under the direction of Mr. Baldwin. The experiment was commenced in January, 1863. Four oxen were selected, and divided into two lots. Nos. 1 and 2 (Lot 1) were fed on Kohl-rabi, oil-cake, and hay, and Nos. 3 and 4 (Lot 2) on Swedish turnips, oil-cake, and hay. As the animals supplied with the Kohl-rabi did not appear to relish it, and as it was desirable to gradually accustom them to the change of food, the experiment did not really commence till the 12th January. On that date the weights of the animals were as follows:—
The lots, therefore, counterpoised each other pretty fairly. From the 12th to the 28th January they received the following quantities of food per diem:—
The animals fed upon the Kohl-rabi evinced from the first a disinclination to it, but they nevertheless ate it before their meal of oil-cake was supplied to them. On the morning of the 28th January they were put upon the dietary shown in the table, and which induced them to eat the Kohl-rabi more quickly.
On the 11th February the cattle were again weighed, when their increase was found to be as follows:—
The results of this experiment show that the animals fed upon Swedish turnips, hay, and oil-cake, increased in weight at a rate more than 100 per cent. greater than the lot supplied with equal quantities of Kohl-rabi, hay, and oil-cake. The superiority of the Swedish turnips was rendered more evident by the results of subsequent experiments. Nos. 1 and 4 were not tried after the 11th February; but Nos. 2 and 3 were kept under experiment. No. 2 was put on Swedes, and No. 3 on mangel-wurtzel, and after an interval of a fortnight No. 2 had increased much more than they had done on Kohl-rabi.
Specimens of the Kohl-rabi and Swedish turnips employed in this experiment were submitted to me for analysis by Mr. Baldwin, and yielded the following results:—
These results show a slight superiority of the Kohl-rabi over the Swedish turnip; the great difference in their nutritive power, as shown by Mr. Baldwin's experimental results, musttherefore be due to the superior flavor and digestibility of the turnip.
Dr. Anderson's analysis of Kohl-rabi afforded results more favorable to the highly nutritive character assigned by some feeders to that bulb than those arrived at by me. The bulbs, it should however be remarked, were grown, no doubt with great care, by Messrs. Lawson and Son, the well-known seedsmen:—
TheRadishis a plant which deserves a place amongst our field crops, though hitherto its cultivation has been restricted to the garden. At one time its leaves were boiled and eaten, but in these latter days they are subjected to neither of these processes. The root, however, in its raw state, is, as every one is aware, considered one of the dainties of the table.
Many of those who devote themselves to the important study of dietetics, consider the use of raw vegetables to be objectionable; but be their objections groundless, or the reverse, it is certain that a vegetable which, like the radish, may be eaten raw with apparently good results, cannot be otherwise than a good article of food when cooked. I once tried the experiment of eating matured radishes, not as a salad, but cooked like any other boiled vegetable, and I must say that I found their flavor rather agreeable than otherwise. Boiled radishes—roots and tops—form excellent feeding for pigs. How could it be otherwise? for what is good for the family of man must surely be a luxury to the swine tribe. I have known horses to eat radishes greedily, and I am certain that they would prove acceptable to all the animals of the farm. But itmay be asked, why it is that I recommend the use of radishes as food for stock, when there are already so many more nutritious roots at our disposal—turnips, mangels, and potatoes. Simply for this reason:—Between the departure of the roots and the advent of the grasses, there is a kind of interregnum.32Now we want a good tuberous, bulbous, or tap-rooted plant to fill up this interregnum. Such a plant we have in the radish. The root is certainly a small one, but then it grows so rapidly that a good supply can be had within thirty days from the sowing of the seed, and a crop can be matured before the time for sowing turnips. Two crops may be easily obtained from land under potatoes—one before the tops cover the ground, the other after the tubers have been dug out. The yield of radishes, judging from the produce in the garden, would be at least six tons of roots and three tons of tops. I would suggest, then, that the radish should at once get a fair chance as a stolen crop. If it succeed as such, it will not be the first gift of the gardener to the husbandman. Was not the mangel-wurtzel once known only as the produce of the garden?
The composition of the radish indicates a nutritive value less than that of the white turnip. I have analysed both the root and the tops, and obtained the following results:—
TheJerusalem Artichokehas long been cultivated as a field-crop on the Continent, and in certain localities the breadthoccupied by it is very considerable. The French term the tuberous root of this plantpoitre de terre, ortopin ambour; and although they expose it for sale in the markets, it is not much relished by our lively neighbours, who are so remarkable for theircuisiniere. As food for cattle, however, the French agricultural writers state it to be excellent. It is much relished by horses, dairy cows, and pigs; store horned-stock also eat it when seasoned with a little salt, and appear to enjoy it amazingly when permitted to pull up the roots from the soil. The green tops are also given to sheep and cattle, and, it is stated, are readily eaten by those animals.
The Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus Tuberoses) differs from its half namesake, the common artichoke, and resembles the potato in being valuable chiefly for its tubers. It is perennial, and attains on the Continent a height varying from 7 to 10 feet. In this country its dimensions are less. The stem is erect, thick, coarse, and covered with hairs. It is a native of Mexico, and although introduced 200 years ago into Europe, it can hardly be said to be acclimatised, since it very seldom flowers, and never develops seed. The plant is therefore propagated by cuttings from its tubers, each containing one or two eyes; or if the tubers be very small, which is often the case, a whole one is planted. The tubers possess great vitality, and remain in the ground during the most severe frosts, without sustaining the slightest injury. For this reason it is usual to devote a corner of the garden to the cultivation of the Jerusalem artichoke; for, no matter how completely the crop may appear to have been removed from the soil, portions of the tubers will remain and shoot up into plants during the following season. This peculiarity of the plant it is likely may prove an obstacle to its having a place assigned to it in the rotation system.
The question now presents itself—What are the peculiar advantages which the crop possesses which should commend it to the notice of the British farmer? I shall try to answer the question.
1st. No green crop (except furze) can be grown in so great a variety of soils; except marshy or wet lands, there is no soil in which it refuses to grow.
2nd. It does not suffer from disease, is very little affected by the ravages of insects, is completely beyond the influence of cold, and may remain either above or below ground for a long time without undergoing any injurious changes in composition.
3rd. It gives a good return, when we consider that it requires very little manure, and but little labor in its management.
At Bechelbronn, the farm of the celebrated Boussingault, the average yield is nearly eleven tons per acre, but occasionally over fourteen tons is obtained. Donoil, a farmer of Bailiere, in the department of Haut-loire, states that he fed sheep exclusively on the tops and tubers of this plant, and that he estimated his profits at £23 per hectare (£9 3s. 4d. per acre). The soil was very inferior. Donoil terms it third-rate, and it does not appear to have been manured even once during the fifteen years it was under Jerusalem artichoke. I fear our artificial manure manufacturers will hardly look with a favorable eye on the advent of a crop into our agriculture which can get on so well without the intervention of any fertilising agents. Indeed, several of the French writers state that little or no manure is necessary for this plant. But this can hardly be the case; for it is evident that a crop which, according to Way and Ogston, removes 35 lbs. of mineral matter per ton from the soil, or three times as much potash as turnips do, must certainly be greatly benefited by the application of manure. And I have no doubt but that the Jerusalem artichoke, if well manured and grown in moderately fertile soil, would produce a much heavier crop than our Continental neighbors appear to get from it.
4th. The Jerusalem artichoke may be cultivated with advantage in places where ordinary root-crops either fail or thrive badly. In such cases the ground should be permanently devoted to this crop. Kade gives an instance where a piece of indifferent ground had for thirty-three years produced heavycrops of this plant, although during that time neither manure nor labor had been applied to it. In Ireland the potato has been grown under similar circumstances.
The nutritive constituents of tubers of the Jerusalem artichoke bear a close resemblance in every respect, save one, to those of the potato. Both contain about 75 per cent. of water, about 2 per cent. of flesh-forming substances, and 20 per cent. of non-nitrogenous, or fat-forming and heat-giving elements. In one respect there is a great difference—namely, that sugar makes up from 8 to 12 per cent. of the Jerusalem artichoke, whilst there is but a small proportion of that substance in the potato.
The large quantity of sugar contained in this root is no doubt the cause of its remarkable keeping properties in winter, and it also readily accounts for the avidity with which most of the domesticated animals eat it.
On the whole, then, I think that the facts I have brought forward relative to the advantages which the Jerusalem artichoke presents as a farm crop, justify the recommendation that it should get a fair trial from the British farmer, who is now so much interested in the production of suitable forage for stock.
ThePotato, regarded from every point of view, is by far the most important of the plants which are cultivated for the sake of their roots. Its tubers form the chief—almost sole—pabulum of many millions of men, enter more or less into the dietary of most civilised peoples, and constitute a large proportion of the food of the domesticated animals. The great importance of this plant, arising from its enormous consumption,has caused its composition to be very minutely studied by many British, Continental, and American chemists. With respect to its nutritive properties, the least favorable results were obtained by the American chemists, Hardy and Henry, and the most by the European chemists.
The flesh-forming principles vary from 1 per cent., as found by Hardy, to 2·41 per cent., the mean results of the analyses of Krocker and Horsford. The proportion of starch in different varieties of the potato also varies, but not to the same degree as the nitrogenous principles. In new potatoes, only 5 per cent. has been found; in ash-leaved kidneys, 9·50 per cent.; and in different kinds of cups, from 15 to 24 per cent. The amount of starch is also influenced by the soil, the manure, the climate, and the various other conditions under which the plant is developed. The proportion of starch increases during the growth, and diminishes during the storage of the tubers.
Dr. Anderson is the most recent investigator into the composition of the potato; the chief results of his inquiries are given in the following table:—
The potato is relatively deficient in flesh-forming matters, and contains the respiratory elements in exceedingly high proportions; hence it is well adapted for fattening purposes, and in this respect is equal to double its weight of the best kind of turnips. When used as food for man, it should be supplemented by some more fatty or nitrogenous substance—such,for example, as flesh, oatmeal, or peas. Buttermilk, a fluid which is rich in nitrogen, is an excellent supplement to potatoes, and compensates to a great extent for the deficiency of those tubers in muscle-forming matters. If, then, the potato is destined to retain its place as the "national esculent" of the Irish, I trust their national beverage may be—so far at least as the masses of the people are concerned—buttermilk, andnotwhiskey.
Potatoes so far diseased as to be unsuited for use as food for man, may be given with advantage to stock. They may be used either in a raw or uncooked state, but the latter is the preferable form. Sheep do not like them at first, but on being deprived of turnips they acquire a taste for them; on a daily allowance, composed of 1 lb. of oil-cake or corn, and an unlimited quantity of potatoes, they fatten rapidly. Cattle thrive well on a diet composed of equal parts of turnips and diseased potatoes, and do not require oil-cake. The evening feed of horses may advantageously be composed of potatoes and turnips. If raw, the potatoes should be given in a very limited quantity—four or five pounds; in the cooked state, however, they may be given in abundance, but the animals should not, after their meal, be permitted to drink water for some hours. As a feeding substance, diseased potatoes, unless they be very much injured, are equal to twice their weight of white turnips; it is certain that they do not injure the health or impair the condition of the animals which feed upon them.
In seeds the elements of nutrition exist not only in the most highly elaborated, but also in the most concentrated state; hence their nutritive value is greater than that of any other class of food substances.
Wheat Grainis the most valuable of seeds, as it contains, in admirably adjusted proportions, the bone, the fat, and the muscle-forming principles. In the form of bread, it has been, not inaptly, termed the "staff of life," for no other grain is so well adapted,per se, for the sustenance of man; and many millions of human beings subsist almost exclusively on it. The lower animals are in general fed upon the grain of oats, of barley, and of the leguminous plants, and the use of wheat is almost completely restricted to the human family.
Wheat grain, by the processes of grinding and sifting, is resolvable into two distinct parts—bran and flour. In twenty-four analyses made by Boussingault, the proportion of the bran was from 13·2 to 38·5 per cent. and that of the flour from 61·5 to 86·8 per cent. The floury part is of very complex structure; it includes starch, gluten, albumen, oil, gum, gummo-gelatinous matter, sugar,33and various saline matters. The gluten and albumen constitute the nitrogenous, or flesh-forming principles of flour, and make up from 16 to 20 per cent. of that substance; the non-nitrogenous, or fat-forming elements, such as starch and gum, form from 74 to 82 per cent. According to Payen, the proportion of gluten diminishes towards the centre of the seed, from which it follows that the part of the grain nearest the husk is the most nutritious—so far at least as muscle-making is concerned. The desire on the part of the public for very white bread has led to thefinedressing of Wheat-grain, and consequently to the separation from that substance of a very large proportion of one of its most nutritious constituents. Crude gluten may be obtained by kneading the dough of flour in a muslin bag under a small current of water; the starch, or fecula, and the gum, are carried away by the water, and the gluten in an impure form remains as an elastic viscous substance, which on drying becomes hard and brittle. It is to the gluten of flour that itsproperty of panification, or bread-making, is due. On the addition of a ferment, a portion of the starch is converted into sugar and carbonic acid gas, and the latter causes the gluten to expand into the little cells, or vesicles, which confer upon baked bread its light, spongy texture.
Over-ripening of Grain.—The final act of vegetation is the production of seed, after the performance of which function many plants, having accomplished their destined purpose, perish. The grasses (which include the cereals) areannuals, or plants which have but a year's existence, consequently their development ceases so soon as they have produced their seed. When wheat, oats, and the other cereals, attain to this final point in their growth, the circulation of their sap ceases, their color changes from green to yellow, and they undergo certain changes which destroy their power of assimilating mineral matter, and consequently render them no longer capable of increasing their weight.
The proper time for cutting wheat and the other cereals is immediately after their grain has been fully matured. When the green color of the straw just below the ears changes to yellow, the grain, be it ripe or unripe at the time, cannot afterwards be more fully developed. This is rendered impossible in consequence of the disorganisation of the upper part of the stem—indicated by, but not the result of, its altered hue—whichcuts off the supply of sap to the ears, and the latter do not possess the power of absorbing nutriment from the air.
When the vital processes which are incessantly going on in the growing plants are brought to a close, the purely chemical forces come into operation. If the seed be perfectly matured and allowed to remain ungathered, it is attacked in wet weather by the oxygen of the air, a portion of its carbon is burned off, some of its starch is converted into sugar, and in extreme cases it germinates and becomesmalty. But not only is the seed liable to injury from the elements; it is also exposed to the ravages of the feathered tribe, and no matter how well a field of corn may be watched, or how great the number ofscarecrowserected in it, there is always a certain diurnal loss, occasioned by the ravages of birds.
It is not only necessary that ripe corn should be cut as soon as possible, but it is sometimes desirable to reap it before it becomes fully matured. When the grain is intended for consumption as food, the less bran it contains the better. Now the bran, as is well known, forms the integument, or covering of the vital constituents of the seed; and it is the last part of the organ to be perfected. The growth of the seed for several days before its perfect development, is confined to thetestaor covering. Now as this is the least valuable part of the article, its increase is matter of but little moment; and when it is excessive it renders the grain less valuable in the eyes of the miller. That the cutting of the grain before it is perfectly ripe is attended with a good result, is clearly proved by the results of an experiment recorded in Johnston's "Agricultural Chemistry." A crop of wheat was selected; one-third was cut twenty days before it was ripe; another third ten days afterwards; and the remaining portion when its grain had been fully matured. The relative produce in grain of the three portions taken, as stated above, was as 1, 1·325, and 1·260. The following table exhibits the relative proportions of their constituents:—
The results of this experiment, and of the general experience of intelligent growers, show that grain cut a week or ten days before it is perfectly ripe contains more flour, and of a better quality, too, than is found in either ripe or very unripe seed. But this is not the only advantage, for the straw of the green, or rather of the greenish-yellow corn, is fully twice as valuable for feeding purposes as that of the over-ripe cereals. There is an extraordinary decrease in the amount of the albuminous constituents of the stems of the cereals during the last two or three weeks of their maturation, and as there is not a corresponding increase of those materials in the seed, they must be evolved in some form or other from the plants.
There can be only one object attained by allowing the seed to fully ripen itself, and that is the insurance of its more perfect adaptability to the purpose of reproduction. When thetestais thick it best protects the germ of the future plant enclosed in it from the ordinary atmospheric influences until it is placed under the proper conditions for its germination.
Wheat, a costly food.—It occasionally happens that the wheat harvest is so abundant, that many feeders give large quantities of this grain to their stock. Now, as Indian corn is at least 25 per cent. cheaper than wheat, even when the price of the latter is at itsminimum, I believe that it is always more economical to sell the wheat raised on the farm, and to purchase with the proceeds of its sale an equivalent of Indian corn, which is a more fattening kind of food.
Branis, with perhaps the exception of malt-dust, the most nutritious of the refuse portions of grains. It is usually given to horses, and owing to its high proportion of nitrogen, is,perhaps, better expended in the bodies of those hard-working animals, than in those of pigs and cows—animals that occasionally come in for a share of this valuable feeding-stuff. It should be borne in mind that bran commonly acts as a slight laxative, and that it is less digestible than flour, a large portion of it usually passing through the animal's body unchanged. This drawback to the use of bran may be obviated by either cooking or fermenting the article, or by combining it with beans or some other kind of binding food.
Barleyis inferior in composition to wheat. As a feeding stuff, the English farmers assign to it a higher, and the Scotch farmers a lower, place than oats, which, perhaps, merely proves that in Scotland the oat thrives better than the barley, and in England the barley better than the oat. Barley-meal is extensively used by the English feeders, and with excellent results. Wherebarley-dustcan be obtained it is a far cheaper feeding stuff than the meal. Barley husks should never be given to animals unless in a cooked or fermented state.
Oat Grainis, perhaps, the most valuable of the concentrated foods which are given to fattening stock. When it is cheap it will be found a more economical feeding stuff than linseed-cake, and, unlike that substance, can be used without the fear of adulteration. Oats are equal to wheat in their amount of flesh-forming matters; but their very high proportion of indigestible woody fibre detracts from their nutritive value. Oat-meal is more nutritious than wheat-meal; and oat-flour,especially if finely dressed, greatly excels wheat-flour in its nutrimental properties, because, unlike the latter, the finer it is the greater is its amount of flesh-formers. Bread made of oat-flour is very heavy, and is far less palatable than the bread of wheat. Oat-meal has been found to contain nearly 20 per cent. of nitrogenous matters. The white oat is more nutritious than the black, and the greatest amount of aliment is found in the grain which has not been allowed to over-ripen in the field. Oat husk is very inferior to the bran of wheat. Toppings are seldom worth the price at which they are sold.
Indian Cornhas been highly extolled as a fattening food for stock, and its chemical composition would seem to justify the high opinion which practical men have formed of its relative nutritive value. In the United States, the feeding of horses on Indian corn and hay has been found very successful; but in these countries oats will be found a more economical food. For fattening purposes Indian corn appears exceedingly well adapted, as it contains more ready-formed fat—4·5 per cent.—than is found in most of the other grains, and, on an average, 70 per cent. of starch. Pigs thrive well on this grain. The Galatz round yellow grain is somewhat superior to the American flat yellow seed.
Ryeis not extensively cultivated in this country, but on the Continent it is raised in large quantities. In the north of Europe it forms a considerable proportion of the food of both man and the domesticated animals. In Holland it is commonly consumed by horses, but in England there has always been a prejudice against the use of this grain as food for the equine tribe. It has been highly recommended for dairy stock, five pounds of rye-meal, with a sufficiency of cut straw, constituting, it is stated, a dietary on which cows yield a maximum supply of milk. Irish-grown rye contains less starch, and more flesh-formers and oil, than the Black Sea grain.
Rice, although it forms the chief pabulum of nearly one-third of the human family, is the least nutritious of the common food grains. Rice-dust, an article obtained in cleaning ricefor European consumption, is said to promote the flow of milk when given to cows. It is sold in large quantities in Liverpool, where, according to Voelcker, it often commands a higher price than it is worth.
Buckwheatis chiefly used as a food for game and poultry.
Malted Corn.—During a late session of Parliament a Bill was passed to exempt from duty malt intended to be used as food for cattle. As feeders may now become their own maltsters, it may be of some use to them to have here arésuméof this Bill:—
1. Any person giving security and taking out a licence may make malt in a malt-house approved by the Excise for the purpose; and all malt so made and mixed with linseed-cake or linseed-meal as directed, shall be free from duty.
2. The security required is a bond to Her Majesty, with sureties to the satisfaction of the Excise, not to take from any such malt-house any malt except duly mixed with material prescribed by the Act.
3. The malt-house must be properly named upon its door.
4. All malt made in it shall be deposited in a store-room, and shall be conveyed to and from the room upon such notice as the officer of Excise shall appoint.
5. The maltster shall provide secure rooms in his malt-house, to be approved in writing by the supervisor, for grinding the malt made by him in such malt-house, and mixing and storing the same when mixed; and all such rooms shall be properly secured and kept locked by the proper officer of Excise.
6. All malt before removal from the malt-house shall be ground and thoroughly mixed with one-tenth part at least of its weight of ground linseed-cake or linseed-meal, and ground to such a degree of fineness and in such manner as the commissioners shall approve, and mixed together in a quantity not less than forty bushels at a time in the presence of an officer of Excise.
7. The maltster shall keep account of the quantity of all malt mixed as aforesaid which he shall from time to time send out or deliver from his malt-house, with the dates and addresses of the person for whom such mixed malt shall be so sent or delivered.
8. If any person shall attempt to separate any malt from any material with which the same shall have been mixed as aforesaid, or shall use this malt for the brewing of beer or distilling of spirits, he shall forfeit the sum of £200.
9 and 10. The penalties of existing Acts are recited.
11. This Act shall continue and be in force for five years.
Some samples of malt and barley examined in May, 1865, by Dr. Voelcker for the Central Anti-Malt Tax Association, afforded the following results:—
A great deal has been said and written in favor of malt as a feeding stuff, but I greatly doubt its alleged decided superiority over barley; and until the results of accurately conducted comparative experiments made with those articles incontestably prove that superiority, I think it is somewhat a waste of nutriment to convert barley into malt for feeding purposes. The gentlemen who verbally, or in writing, refer so favorably to malt, acknowledge, with one or two exceptions, that their experience of the article is limited. Mr. John Hudson, of Brandon, states that he made a comparative experiment, the results of which proved the superiority of malt. But, in fact, the only properly-conducted experiments to determine the relative values of malt and barley were those made some years ago by Dr. Thompson, of Glasgow, by the direction of the Government, and those recently performed by Mr. Lawes, both producing results unfavorable to the malt. The issue of Dr. Thompson's investigations proved that milch cows fed on barley yielded more milk and butter than when supplied with an equal weight of malt.
I do not deny the probability that malt, owing to its agreeable flavor and easy solubility, may be a somewhat betterfeeding stuff than barley; and that, weight for weight, it may produce a somewhat greater increase in the weight of the animals fed upon it: but although a pound-weight of malt may be better than a pound-weight of barley, I am quite satisfied that a pound's worth of barley will put up more flesh than a pound's worth of malt. Barley-seeds consist of water, starch, nitrogenous substances—such as gluten and albumen—fatty substances, and saline matter. The amount of starch is considerable, being sometimes about 70 per cent. In the process of malting (which is simply the germination of the seed under peculiar conditions), a portion of the starch is converted into sugar and gum, the grain increases in size and becomes friable when dried, and the internal structure of the seed is completely broken up. During these changes a partial decomposition of the solid matter of the seeds takes place, and a large amount of nutriment is dissipated, chiefly in the form of carbonic acid gas. From the results of the experience of the maltster, and of special experiments made by scientific men, it would appear that a ton of barley will produce only 16 cwt. of malt. Allowance must, however, be made for the difference between the amount of water contained in barley and in malt, the latter being much drier. According to Mr. E. Holden, the centesimal loss sustained in malting may be stated thus:—
Dr. Thompson34sets down the loss of nutriment (exclusive of that occasioned by kiln-drying), as follows:—
We may say, then, that by the malting of barley we lose at least 2½ cwt. of solid nutriment out of every ton of the article, and this loss falls heaviest on the nitrogenous, or flesh-forming constituents of the grain. When there are added to this loss the expense of carting the grain to and from the malt-house, and the maltster's charge for operating upon it (I presume in this case that the feeder is not his own maltster), it will be found that two tons of malt will cost the farmer nearly as much as three tons of barley; and he will then have to solve the problem—Whether or not malt is 40 or 50 per cent. more valuable as a feeding-stuff than barley.
The difference in value between barley and malt is generally 14s. per barrel; but it is sometimes more or less, according to the supply and demand. Barley, well malted, will lose on the average 25 per cent. of its weight, the loss depending, to some extent, upon the degree to which the process is carried, and on the germinating properties of the barley. Barley malted for roasters ought not to lose more than 21 per cent. of its original weight—53 lbs. to the barrel. The heavier the barley the less it loses in malting; a barrel of 224 lbs., and value from 15s. to 16s., ought to produce a barrel of malt of 196 lbs., value 29s. to 30s.
If we deduct from the cost of a barrel of malt the amount of duty at present levyable upon it, the price of the article will be still nearly 50 per cent. greater than that of an equal weight of barley. The cheaper barley is the greater will be the relative cost of malt. The maltster's charge for converting a barrel of barley into malt is about 4s.; so that if the price of the grain be so low as 12s. per barrel, which it sometimes is, the cost of malting it would amount to 33 per cent. of its price. Then, the diminution in the weight of, and the cost of carting the grain, must be taken into account; and when the whole expense attendant upon the process of malting is ascertained, it will be found that I have not exaggerated in stating that a ton of malt costs as much as a ton and a half of barley.
If the consumer of malt germinate the seeds himself, hemay probably, if he require large quantities of the article, produce it at a somewhat cheaper rate than if he bought it from the maltster; but few persons who have the slightest knowledge of the vexatious restrictions of the Inland Revenue authorities would be likely to place his premises under theespionageof an excise officer.
As the superiority of malt over barley (if such be really the case) must be chiefly due to the looseness of its texture, which allows the juices of the stomach to act readily upon it, barley in a cooked state might be found quite as nutritious: It would not be fair to institute comparisons between dense hard barley-seeds and the easily soluble malted grains. During the cooking of barley a portion of the starch is changed into sugar, but in this case with only an inappreciable waste of nutriment. When the cooking process is continued for a few hours, a considerable amount of sugar is formed, and the barley acquires a very sweet flavor.
When the malt for cattle question was under discussion, I made a little experiment in relation to it, the results of which are perhaps of sufficient interest to mention:—Two pounds weight of barley-meal were moistened with warm water; after standing for three hours more water was added, and sufficient heat applied to cause the fluid to boil. After fifteen minutes' ebullition, a few ounces of the pasty-like mass which was produced were removed, thoroughly dried, and on being submitted to analysis yielded six per cent. of sugar. The addition of a small quantity of malt to barley undergoing the process of cooking will rapidly convert the starch into sugar.
Barley is naturally a well-flavored grain, and all kinds of stock eat it with avidity. It may be rendered still more agreeable if properly cooked, and this process will, by disintegrating its hard, fibrous structure, set free its stores of nutriment. I incline strongly to the opinion that barley, when well boiled, is almost, if not quite, as digestible as malt.
A serious disadvantage in the use of malt is, that it must be consumed, it is said, in combination with 10 per cent. ofits weight of linseed-meal or cake. Now, malt is a very laxative food, and so is linseed; and if the diet of stock were largely made up of these articles the animals would, sooner or later, suffer from diarrhœa. In such case, then, the addition of bean-meal, or of some other binding food, would become necessary, and the compound of malt, linseed, and bean-meal thereby formed would certainly prove anything but an economical diet.
Malt Combs.—I should mention that a portion of the nutriment which the barley loses in malting passes into the radicles, or young roots, which project from the seeds, and are technically known by the term "combs," "combings," or "dust." At present these combs are separated from the malt, but if the latter be intended for feeding purposes this separation is unnecessary, and in such case the barley will not be so much deteriorated. The combs, which constitute about 4 per cent. of the weight of the malt, are sometimes employed as a feeding stuff. I have made an analysis of malt-combings for the County of Kildare Agricultural Society, and have obtained the following results:—