require a long course of experiments to ascertain its value as compared with hay and other articles of food. The results of experiments of this kind are frequently unlike. They are affected by the age and breed of the animal, by the kind of food used in connection with the straw, by temperature and other circumstances. When animals are much exposed to cold it may be right to give them a considerable quantity of straw, and but little hay, in their food; but it does not follow that it would be right to give the same quantity and proportions, on removing the cattle to a warm house. We have already seen that when kept warm they require less carbonaceous food.

Straw is not sufficiently digestible and nutritious to be a desirable addition to the foud of young animals.

Having thus pointed out the known value of straw as an article of fcod, I now leave it to the reader to decide whether in his own particular case he cannot profitably convert more of it into meat.

Composition of Wheat-straw, air-dried. From MORTON'S "Cyclopædia." Nitrogenized, or muscle-producing substances...

Substances free from nitrogen, heat and fat producing substances....

Insoluble substances...

• Mineral substances..

Water....

1.85 26.34

41 22

4.59

26 00

100.00

Bean-straw. By WAY, "Royal Agricultural Society's Journal."

White Turnips, Swedes, Mangolds (by VOELCKER), and Carrots.

From the conflicting opinions of scientific men, based on chemical analysis, as to both the feeding and manuring value of straw, and the almost contradictory statements of other writers on this subject,-the large promises of direct profit held out by some from the combination of straw chaff with richer food in cattle feeding, contrasted with the assertions of others that however high may be the true theoretic value of straw for feeding, still it will not answer to buy rich food for the purpose of mixing with straw-chaff,--we turn with satisfaction to the practical good sense of the author of the present Essay.

The highest service which can be at present rendered to agriculture is, perhaps,

that of the practical man who, informing his mind, and shaping his observations by the light of scientific speculation, will address himself methodically t put things to the proof under his own eye; testing, measuring, and weighing, not estimating results, yet making due allowance for the influence which disturbing causes exercise on the average result as compared with the maximum effect which can be produced at some short and picked moment of time.

In this sense our author seems to be truly practical, and if he leans a little to the old-fashioned side, that is the safe side for him who is not unwilling to test. and try well recommended novelties. If his estimates differ from those of other recent writers, they may perhaps be found to square with a sober view of average results, when others are rashly generalizing from exceptional cases.

These pages are fully as valuable for the suggestions they offer as for the conclusions at which they arrive. Our author, indeed, gives us full means of estimating the amount of manure which may be made under a given course of feeding in boxes or in covered yards, in which respect his calculations may be of great service in aiding us to arrive at a standard for the composition and value of farmyard manure, a standard with which all other qualities of such manure must ultimately be compared and measured. But boxes and covered yards are hitherto the exception and not the rule. When, however, he comes to the point which most materially affects the majority of farmers, how far this problem is modified when the cattle are fed in open yards, or even when the litter is thrown out from stalls into such yards, our author does not venture to clench his statement; he has, however, at my suggestion, appended a note to his original Essay, in which he calculates approximately that the rainfall would add 464 tons of water to the 525 tons of manure on which it is supposed to fall.

This estimate is, however, subject to deductions; first, for overflow from the yards, and, secondly, from the effects of evaporation. It must, however, be borne in mind that the assumed dimensions of the yards are very small, such as are not often found except in connection with modern buildings, where waste from overflow is carefully guarded against. If the buildings were old-fashioned, the area of the yards would probably be much larger, and the drippings from the roof would add considerably to the direct rainfall; these two sources of an increased supply of water would probably compensate for the overflow. Very little is known as to the amount of evaporation arising from a bed of straw, the top of which is comparatively dry; but, as the surface exposed is but small, and the situation sheltered, the loss of moisture from this cause is probably not great, especially during the winter months. Taking Mr. Evershed's calculation as it stands, without abatement, 200 tons of litter would, in open yards, furnish 989, or, in round numbers, 1000 tons of manure. Considering, therefore, that he calculates the amount of rainfall for yards only of such moderate area as seem best adapted to improved modern practice, it may be reckoned that, in the larger old-fashioned yards, the weight of manure to be carted is doubled by the rainfall.*

The result will be the same if we allow for the employment of a smaller number of yards, and, consequently, fewer head of stock kept for a longer period. Four yards filled the whole

This conclusion will be confirmed by regarding the subject from another point of view; that of the quantity of manure commonly reckoned on as ready for use on a farm of a given size. If reference be m de either to the requirements of oldfashioned covenants when they prescribed the quantities of dung to be applied in the course of the rotation, or the estimates of practical men when they theorized on the quantity of manure proper to be applied to each crop, it will appear that, a liberal allowance being made for the bulk of straw grown per acre, that amount must be increased four-fold at least to supply the amount of dung required..

But not to refer to bygone estimates, I will only note that Mr. Morton, in his recent article, vol. xix. of Journal, p. 464, speaking of the horse labor performed on Whitfield farm, speaks of 1200 tons of dung being carted where only 120 acres of corn are grown. This would give 10 tons of dung as the produce of one acre of straw; or, supposing the litter, as assumed above, to contribute one-fifth of the bulk, and no straw at all to be consumed otherwise than as litter, we should require for this result an average yield of 2 tons of straw to the acre on autumn and spring corn alike,-assuredly a very high average. I think, therefore, that I may safely infer that in open yards the rainfall nearly doubles the bulk of the manure: the excrements, liquid and solid, representing 6 cwt. in round numbers,

It is noteworthy that by using covered yards we do not so much diminish the quantity of manure which a farm can produce as alter the proportions of its constituent elements: in this latter case the litter furnishes less than one-fourth of the bulk, so that 200 tons of litter would provide for 850 tons of manure; whilst on the other hand the amount of the excrements, liquid and solid, would be doubled to attain this result, and the rain-water removed.

It may be interesting to consider what the size of a farm must commonly be which can furnish 200 tons of straw for litter, after other demands have been satisfied. The following calculations are made mainly for a light land, farm, under the four-course system, as it is chiefly on such soils that a great breadth of straw is grown; and certainly for such the worth of straw, whether as fodder or litter, has a special importance. On these soils 200 acres of corn would probably be required to furnish 200 tons of straw for litter; nor, if we attempt to strike an average for the whole kingdom, will these proportions be much changed. For first, as to wheat straw, Stephens, vol. i. 1991, cites 1 ton 7 cwt. as Arthur Young's estimate, no account being taken of the weaker soils. He then quotes Scotch authorities, giving 1 ton 5 cwt. and 1 ton 76 lbs. per imperial acre as the results of their experience; and concludes by expressing his own opinion that 1 ton per imperial acre is too high an average for Scotland.

year round would, of course, give the same result as eight used only during six months. Practically, some modification will be made for the sake of economizing buildings, if not labor; but, theoretically, it is easiest to carry out these calculations on the author's original hypothesis.

Mr. Morton, in one of his latest papers on the forces used in agriculture, has estimated an acre of a good wheat crop, tied in sheaves, at 5 000 lbs., which seems to be a well-considered and just estimate. Now if of this there be of grain 8 sacks, weighing 18. st. each, the corn alone would weigh 18 cwts. or 2,000 lbs. nearly, leaving 3,000 lbs. as the weight of the straw, or nearly 1 ton 7 cwt.; a result coinciding exactly with that of Arthur Young.*

With respect to barley and oat straw, Stephens's estimates place them at about two-thirds and three-fourths, respectively, of the bulk of wheat straw grown per acre, or 18 cwt. and 204 cwt. respectively.

We

may therfore safely assume on the average, that one acre of wheat and one acre of spring corn together will not yield more than 2 tons 10 cwt. of straw, or 250 tons from 200 acres of corn.

I come now to the consideration of the other sources of demand upon the strawstack besides that of litter.

First we have cart horses, consuming cut chaff:-our author speaks of 10 such horses; this would not be an adequate number for the extent of arable land we are contemplating: 13 would probably be required on an easy-working light soil -but if beasts on the average consume as much straw in the shape of fodder as horses, the result will be the same for 10 horses and 40 beasts as it would be for 13 horses and 37 beasts.

I find upon inquiry that in my cart stables there was consumed, besides corn and a moderate allowance of hay, by the young horses 10 lbs. per day, and by some older mares 15 lbs. of cut wheat straw and barley chaff.

In winter the allowance of hay would be occasionally diminished, and considerably more straw eaten in consequence; on the other hand, the short stuff from the barley-thrashing contributes considerably to the subsistence of the horses, and spares cut chaff, whether it may have been taken into account in the bulk of the barley crop, or not.

Now if 10 horses consumed 10 lbs. a-piece of chaff daily during say 8 months of 30 days (240 days), they would consume 10 tons 14 cwt. in all. I calculate therefore that they consume at least 1 ton of straw a-piece in the course of the year as cut chaff.

Next, in the case of cow stock, when these are economically fed, in those parts of England where the proportion of arable land is large, not less than 1 ton per head of straw should be assigned to them as food; for a cow having little else to live upon will consume nearly 40 lbs. a-day of straw. Growing steers or heifers, moderately supplied with corn or cake (say 3 or 4 lbs.) and roots without hay, would probably consume half this quantity of straw. Our author speaks of 14 and 18 lbs. of half hay half straw chaff as consumed by fatting oxen under cover, or

* It is not clearly stated whe her reaped or mown sheaves are intended, but this, though important in itself, does not so inmediately affect the object now in view as might at first sight appe, because if the form has not an ample supply of "haulm" for storing roots and other purpo es, a greater deduction wili have to be made from the total supply of straw to meet these demands.