By Prof. G. E. Day, Agricultural College, Guelph. Everybody knows that the different parts of an animal must be built up from what enters the animal's stomach, and that in the animal's body we have different classes of materials, for instance, first, the bony skele ton; second, the muscles and the tendons, and a great many other products somewhat similar in composition, which all contain the element, nitrogen; and, third, the fats of the animal body, which contain no nitrogen. Only a part of the food the animal consumes can be utilized. A certain portion is digested and assimilated by the animal, and the remainder thrown off, and it is only that part which the animal digests and assimilates that can be of use to it, and therefore we shall deal simply with the digestible constituents of the food. These constituents may be divided into three, or, I might say, four, main classes; first, those which go to build up the muscle, a portion of the blood, a portion of the milk, part of the hair, horn, hoofs, etc. There are a large number of these compounds, differing more or less in composition, but similar in their effects on the animal's body, and they are all grouped under the general term, protein. Then we have another group of substances which are concerned in building up the fatty portions of the animal, and also in keeping up the heat of the body, or the energy of the animal. To this group belong such substances as starch and sugar, and many other substances somewhat similar in composition, and they are all grouped under the general term, carbo-hydrates. In all foods we also have substances similar in composition to fat; flax-seed, for instance, has a high percentage. In an analysis of a food, the substances that come under this head include other substances that are not true fats. Consequently the chemist usually employs another term for these. He calls them ether extracts-but we shall simply refer to them as fat. Then, we have another class of substances which comprise what is called "ash." These go to form bone. In the accompanying chart, an attempt has been made to represent the amount of digestible protein, carbo-hydrates, and fat in a number of our leading food stuffs, and of these I have endeavored to make a fairly representative selection. I have been unable to represent the amount of ash contained in these foods on a chart of this kind, because it exists in such small quantities. We have also included the water content. An animal requires all these constituents in order to thrive properly. Of course, it is possible to maintain some animals for a considerable time on a ration that is free from certain of these constituents, but if you took an animal and fed it on pure protein, you would soon sicken it; and the same is true of the other constituents. To do its best, an animal requires a certain amount of each. When we have a ration containing all these constituents in the most suitable proportion for a given purpose, we have what is called "balanced ration." A great deal of time and labor has been spent in investigating what constitutes a balanced ration for different classes of animals. We have as a result certain feeding standards put forth. Thus, the dairy cow requires per day, per thousand pounds live weight, so much protein, so much carbo-hydrates, and so much fat. a I should like to point out just here what seems to be rather an inconsistency, or a divergence of our practical experience from some of these feeding standards. The peculiarity about the dairy cow is that if you feed her a ration that is poor in protein, which is used in building up the case in in the milk, she will not give you milk that is poor in casein. She will give you milk of the same quality, or practically so, as you got from a ration rich in protein, but she will give you less milk. So that if you cut down the amount of protein in a cow's ration, if she is going to give you milk of the same quality, she must necessarily give you less of it. In the case of a dairy cow, the standard works out fairly well, but in the case of a fattening animal, there seems to be some divergence. In certain standards the amount of protein for a fattening animal is usually stated to be about equal to what is required for a cow, but we have found in our work that a steer which is fed a comparatively small amount of protein in proportion to carbohydrates, has given the most economical gain. Prof. Henry, in his book on "Feeds and Feeding," gives as an average amount of grain required for 100 lbs. of gain in the case of a fattening steer, to be 1,000 lbs. He makes this estimate from the results of experiments at experiment stations, and fron the experience of practical feeders. But if you study the methods followed generally in the United States in feeding steers, you will find that they feed exceedingly heavy meal rations. In our results we have had experiments with light and heavy rations, and when feeding what we call a heavy meal ration, we find that it requires about 565 pounds of grain for 100 pounds of gain, in addition to the bulky fodder. In our light ration experiments we obtained just about as large gains (in some cases quite as large), and it required only 310 pounds of grain for 100 lbs. of gain, which is less than a third of the amount given as the average amount in the United States. The experience of nearly all Our Canadian feeders at the present time, when the difference between the buying and selling price is SO small, is, that they must feed a light grain ration, or one comparatively low in protein and rich in carbo-hydrates, in order to make ends meet; and our best feeders here and elsewhere are feeding a light grain ration. I simply throw this out as a suggestion, and the matter is one which will bear further investigation. I know that the most expensive feeding we have ever had about this place was done by men who followed some of the old ideas, and dealt out the grain with a liberal hand. They all got gains in weight, and pretty large gains too, but when you came to reckon it out, you found that the animal had apparently not assimilated all its food, and that the gain in weight was expensive. So I say that, taking practical results and comparing them with the standards laid down, we are led to the conclusion that there must be something wrong. It seems to me that the case of the fattening steer is different from that of the dairy cow. In the former, the main thing we want is fat. We buy a steer that is pretty well grown, and practically all he requires is to have some fat put upon him, and, in producing fat, it stands to reason that a ration rich in carbo-hydrates should produce cheaper gains than one rich in protein, because the protein of the food is much more expensive to buy than the carbo-hydrates. I am fully convinced from practical results that there is something wrong about the standard laid down for fattening steers. Among the concentrated foods given on the chart, corn is at the head of the list of grains as a fat former, because I believe that as a single food there is no grain that equals corn as a fat producer. In an experiment last winter where we fed blood meal with corn, we got no result from feeding blood meal. Corn is rather low in protein as compared with barley, rye, and wheat, but it is rich in carbo-hydrates. It is rather poor in ash or bone-forming material, and is therefore not a satisfactory ration to feed largely to growing animals. Something else is required to supply the muscle and bone forming materials. Corn and cob meal is naturally a little lower in digestible matter, but the ground cob mixed with the corn has given satisfactory results in feeding. In many experiments it has given as good results as the pure corn meal. The explanation is this: the pure meal is of a heavy, close nature, and is a little more difficult to digest than when it is mixed with the more bulky material of the ground cob. In any case, I think a food like corn should be lightened up with something such as oats or bran, to overcome that objectionable feature. In all cereal grains there is a similarity of composition. Oats are rather low in carbo-hydrates, due to the fact that the hull contains much woody fibre. The amount of fat is comparatively high, higher than in wheat, rye, or barley. Rye comes between wheat and barely in feeding value; it is a little lower in carbo-hydrates, protein and fat than wheat, but a little higher in these constituents than barley. Peas are rich in protein and also fairly rich in carbo-hydrates. A good many are surprised at the small amount of fat in peas, and think there must be something wrong in the analysis. You can easily see the reason for it: it is not the fat alone that is concerned in fat production. but the carbo-hydrates also produce fats, and so does protein. Pasture grass is very nearly a balanced ration for a dairy cow. Flax seed is a food that is badly out of balance. If you compare it with cotton seed meal and oil cake, you will see that in all of them there is too much protein and fat, and too little carbo-hydrates. Consequently we have here suitable foods to mix with foods poor in protein. That is the reason why cotton seed meal is so valued by dairymen-because it brings up the protein content when mixed with ensilage, etc. It is a good food to combine with one that is poor in protein. Gluten meal is also rich in protein and fat. The term gluten meal is rather loosely employed. Gluten meal is a by-product from starch factories, but we have a by-product from those factories which is not true gluten meal. The true meal has all the bran of the corn removed, but the gluten meal from some of our factories contains the whole of the by-product from the corn, and should preferably be called gluten feed. It is a valuable food, but not so valuable as gluten meal. As a food to balance the ration of a dairy cow and increase the protein, bran is better than middlings, but for pigs, middlings forms a much more valuable food. Oat hulls are rather poor in digestible matter, but oat dust compares favorably with bran in this respect. The trouble with these products is to determine what they really contain. Take oat dust; you never know how many hulls you are getting mixed with it; it will vary so much with different mills. Q.: Is oat dust ordinarily known as black dust? Q. We have on the market a white dust and a black dust; the white seems to be a meal. Prof. Day: I have been unable to find any table giving digestible constituents of white oat dust. Q.: There is a difference in the market price, the black dust being $10 per ton, while the white is often over $20. Mr. Graham: We use white dust in the poultry department, costing about $1.30 per hundred. Prof. Day: As regards malt sprouts, the complaint is that it is not a very palatable food, and only a small amount can be used, otherwise it is a valuable food in balancing a ration. Brewers' grains, dry, are also rich in digestible matter. The wet grains have a large proportion of protein to carbo-hydrates, but also a large amount of water, and I assume that the reason they have given such good results in milk production is due to the fact that, where fed in considerable quantities, they help to balance the ration, as they contain so much protein in proportion to carbo-hydrates. One difficulty with them is that they tend to ferment in the mangers, and therefore cause an unsanitary condition in the stable. The Soy bean is exceedingly rich in protein, about the same as oil cake, and richer in fat than oil cake. It is a very concentrated, rich food, and where it can be grown advantageously, would be a most valuable food in balancing a ration. As regards the bulky foods, you will observe that fodder corn dried in the field is very similar in protein content to timothy hay, and is somewhat similar in general composition. Oat straw has a considerably higher feeding value than wheat straw. Barley straw comes between the two. Pea straw of good quality is rich in protein, and contains more digestible matter than oat straw. Mangels, turnips and sugar beets are practically the same in protein content. In feeding dairy cows, in two experiments here, we got just as good results from mangels as from sugar beets, but for fattening purposes we should expect better results from sugar beets, as they contain more carbo-hydrates. While the chart shows turnips to contain more dry matter than mangels, I may say that this is very variable, depending very much on the season. Artichokes are higher in feeding value than potatoes, and Mr. Brethour, whom I see is present, has had excellent results from them as a food for hogs. Pumpkins have about the same protein content as turnips and mangels, and are of somewhat similar feeding value. Rape, compared with green clover and blue grass, contains more water. The total amount of food it produces per acre is very considerable. If you compare Kentucky blue grass with the ordinary mixed grasses, you will see why it is so highly esteemed for fattening cattle where cattle are fattened on pastures --because it contains a higher percentage of digestible matter for a green food. Last year in our experiments we used tankage and blood meal. Our Canadian houses sell these products as fertilizers, but they are not prepared for feeding purposes. That which we obtained from Swift & Co., of Chicago, had been put through a special process to purify it, and hogs are very fond of it. As you will see, it has a very high food value, and I think it is a pity that our packers sell this material for fertilizing purposes. We conducted several experiments with blood meal and tankage in feeding hogs. One lot of hogs fed on blood meal, barley, and middlings, the blood meal being valued at $45 per ton, and the grain at $20, made gains at a cost of $4.16 per hundred pounds. Another lot was fed tankage (valued at $30 per ton), with grain, and made 100 pounds of gain, at a cost of $4.24. A second lot fed the same ration made gains in weight at a cost of $4.05 per hundredweight. In comparison with this, we fed two lots of hogs grain and skim milk, the latter being valued at 10 cents per hundredweight. These lots cost $5.40 and $4.78 respectively for one hundred pounds of gain. I think these are most valuable foods for young pigs, especially where skim milk is not available, and we intend to conduct further experiments in this direction. Q.: Have you not placed a low value on skim milk? Prof. Day: Yes, I wanted to give it a low valuation, but even when valuing it at only ten cents per cwt.. the cost of gain ran a good deal higher than in the other groups. Q.: Was it a summer experiment? Prof. Day: Yes; and the packer's report stated that all the pigs were first class as regards firmness. They had been fed a little green food, grass, etc., every day, by way of variety, but not enough to count in the results. J. H. Grisdale, B.S.A., Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa: Alfalfa is a crop that is being neglected somewhat in this country. It may be grown almost anywhere in Ontario, and in many parts of the other Provinces. We have grown it successfully at Ottawa, and it has given excellent results as a food for cattle, sheep, and swine. The trouble in the past has been to get a good catch. That may be overcome by careful seeding and preparation of the land beforehand. One must not think that because it is one of the clovers, it may be grown in any kind of a field without proper preparation. On the contrary, it requires very careful preparation. Once it has been made to catch. it will stand for some time, and leave the soil in much better condition. Prof. Day did not refer to the value of sugar beets in feeding hogs. They are of great value for that purpose. They must be fed judiciously, however, or they may cause soft bacon. In our experiments we have had exceptionally good results with them. No food we have used for hogs has given such good results as rape. I think it should be fed more extensively, and fed to different classes of cattle than at present. For beef production, or for young cattle, it cannot be surpassed, especially in the fall, when it may be grown to great advantage, as it may be sown upon stubble after the grain is harvested, and will yield a good crop under fair climatic conditions, furnishing pasture |