ter. Notwithstanding this, oats and barley meal are much better adapted to fattening beasts than peas or bean-meal.

In feeding experiments with sheep, fed in conjunction with bulky food upon lentils and upon oats, I found oats to produce a much more considerable increase in the life-weight of the sheep than an equal weight of lentils. These, and other actual feeding experiments, have convinced me that the increase in life-weight of the animals is much more regulated by the supply of easily digested starchy or fat-producing food than by the supply of the muscle-forming constituents of food, provided the latter are furnished in the food in moderate quantities.

Beans, peas and lentils, given to fattening beasts in moderate quantities, along with some bulky food, such as chaff, hay, or roots, I believe constitute a valuable addition to such food. Beyond a certain degree, however, the supply of beans or bean-meal cannot be increased with advantage; for the well-known binding and heating effects of peas and beanmeal show plainly that the organism of cattle requires for its healthy condition a more bulky and less concentrated food.

On the other hand, working horses cannot be fed with a more economic or better food than with beans a fact which is well known to every farmer. The high feeding value of beans, when given to working horses, is readily explained by the great waste of muscle to which working horses are subject, which waste is readily and cheaply supplied in beans, a food very rich in flesh-forming constituents.

FENUGREEK-SEED.-Fenugreek is the seed of Trigonella foenugræcum -a plant which is much grown in the east, on account of the leguminous seed which it furnishes. This seed has a peculiar aromatic smell, and a slightly bitter aromatic taste. Ground into a powder it is frequently em ployed by veterinary surgeons to promote the appetite of horses, and also enters into the composition of curry-powder. Fenugreek seed is used occasionally in England for feeding purposes, and is described by those who have tried it as an excellent food for fattening sheep. A sample of the seed forwarded to me by E. Holland, Esq., of Dumbleton, on analysis, yielding the following results:

It will be observed that, like all leguminous seeds, fenugreek contains a large amount of flesh-forming constituents: it resembles thus in composition peas, beans, and lentils, but it is distinguished from these seeds by a much larger amount of fatty matters. This fully explains its high value as a feeding material. I am informed by Mr. Holland, that sheep to which it was given got fat in a remarkably short time. But a curious circumstance connected with the use of this seed was brought to light, which showed that notwithstanding its highly nutritious qualities, it is unavailable for practical purposes. It was found, namely, that it imparted a peculiar disagreeable flavour to the mutton. This flavour no doubt arose from the essential oil contained in the seed. An interesting example is thus presented to us in fenugreek-seed, which illustrates that purely practical considerations will often guide the feeder of stock in the rejection of food, and that it is impossible to predict by analysis, or even by actual feeding experiments, the economic value of an article of food.

4. CEREAL GRAINS (Wheat, Oats, Barley, Indian Corn.)-The average composition of the cereal grains generally employed in England for feeding purposes is stated in the following table:

It deserves to be noticed likewise, that wheat and barley contain but a small proportion of ready-made fatty matters (about 2 per cent.,) whereas oats contain on an average of 6 per cent. of oil, and Indian corn from 8 to 9 per cent.

In these analysis the indigestible fibre has been determined separately, and thus a much better opinion of the real nutritive value of grain can be formed than would have been possible, had the determination of this important point been neglected. In explanation of these results, it must be stated that the proportion of woody fibre does not vary much in different samples of wheat, but that exceedingly great differences in the amount of woody fibre are observed in barley, and especially in oats.

I am inclined to attribute to this circumstance the diversity of opinion which is entertained by practical feeders respecting the feeding properties of

barley and oats. There can indeed be no doubt that in some localities of England, where the soil is peculiarly well adapted to the growth of barley, this farinaceous grain is superior in nutritive power to oats; and on the other hand, a district remarkable for good and plump oats may well produce more nutritious oats than barley. We are thus not entitled to say in a general way that oats are more nutritious than barley, or vice versa. Both opinions may be perfectly true in special instances. In Scotland, celebrated for excellent oats, farmers are much more in the habit of giving oats to fattening beasts than the English farmer, who prefers barley-meal to oatmeal for that purpose. There are good grounds for this choice of food, for English oats, I believe, are generally inferior in nutritive power to Scottish oats. On the other hand, the soil and climate of Scotland appear to be much less favorable to the production of fine samples of barley than the rich barley soils which abound in several counties of England. The examination of several samples of English barley, of Scottish and of English oats, has indeed shown me that the predilection for oats by the farmers of Scotland, and that for barley by the English feeder of stock, is not merely a whim, but is founded on strictly scientific principles. Thus I found good English barley quite as rich in nutritive substances as Scottish oats, and a marked difference in the oats produced by the two countries. To mention only one instance, I would observe that, in the analysis of two samples of oats, one grown in England, the other in Scotland, I found about one per cent. more flesh-forming substances in the Scottish oatmeal than in the English. The white Scottish oats, moreover, weighed 42 lbs. per bushel, and yielded, per 100 lbs., 714 lbs. of fine oatmeal, and 28 lbs. of husk; while the black English oats weighed only 37 lbs. per bushel, and yielded 664 lbs. of oatmeal and 334 lbs. of husk. The superior oats were sold 4s. 6d. dearer per bushel; but notwithstanding this higher price, a careful calculation, of which I need not here mention the particulars, has led me to the conclusion that it is more economical to pay 4s. 6d. more per bushel for Scottish oats than for the English. This example thus affords a direct proof of the correctness of the prevailing opinion that Scottish oats are better than English, and I have no doubt that in those counties of England where barley or barley-meal is preferred to oats or oatmeal by the farmer, the former will be found in reality superior to the oats grown in the district. It likewise shows that a practice generally followed by good farmers in one locality ought not to be lightly discarded, and that apparent practical differences of opinion often may be reconciled by judicious scientific inquiry.

The analysis mentioned above show that the cereal grains have an analagous composition, and contain a large amount of fat-producing substances. This general character distinguishes them from the leguminous seed, containing a large proportion of flesh-forming principles, and therefore not so well adapted to fattening purposes as oat or barely meal. Indian corn, in addition to much starch, which in the animal system is readily transformed into fat, contains more ready-made fatty matter than any other cereal grain. For this reason, Indian corn is superior in fattening properties to oats and barley, and deserves to be employed as a food for fattening beasts much more extensively than it is at present. It also has been found a most useful fattening material when given to pigs.

As it may be interesting to compare the composition of wheaten flour and oatmeal with that of the whole grain, I append the following tabular statements. The results represent the composition of wheaten flour and oatmeal used as human food. In the best fine Scottish oatmeal as much as 18 per cent. of muscle-producing substances has been detected, whereas in the finest wheaten flour the proportion of these substances hardly amounts to 9 per cent. The more thoroughly the husk is removed by sifting from oatmeal, the more nutritious it becomes, but the contrary holds good in the case of wheaten flour. Hence it follows that bread made of the whole grain of wheat is more nutritious than bread made of the finest flour.

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF WHEATEN FLOUR AND OATMEAL.

5. REFUSE GRAIN, &c. (Bran, Malt-dust, Barley-dust, Oat-dust, Ricedust, Brosemeal Brock, Pea-hulls, Distillery refuse, Brewer's Grains).— The above materials are the more important refuse substances from vari ous grains, which are now and then employed for feeding purposes."

BRAN. It is worthy of observation, that bran contains a larger amount of fatty matters and flesh-forming constituents than the whole grain of wheat, and for these reasons it constitutes a valuable refuse. It is mostly given to horses, but may also be given with advantage to milking-cows and to pigs. Bran contains much less woody fibre than most of the above

enumerated refuse materials, and with the exception of malt-dust, is decidedly the most nutritious of the substances in that list.

MALT-DUST is obtained in the preparation of malt from barley. The small rootlets or radicles which protrude from sprouted barley, after being kiln-dried, constitute the commercial malt-dust, which of course can only be obtained in limited quantity. It is used principally as food for sheep, which like it, and get on upon it very well, if it is supplied to them along with some hay and turnips. Malt-dust, it will be observed, contains a very large amount of flesh-forming constituents, and ought therefore to possess a very high nutritive value. However, I believe its practical value as an article of food, though by no means distinctly ascertained, is much smaller than from its composition might be expected.

BARLEY-DUST is used to some extent in feeding cattle, as well as pigs. Now and then it can be obtained at a price, which renders it a much more economical food than barley-meal, from which it is distinguished principally by a larger amount of woody fibre.

OAT-DUST.-Mixed with chaff and thoroughly saturated with water, this refuse is extensively employed, either alone or with roots, in feeding cattle. It ought not to be given to cattle in a dry state, for it is very slowly moistened, and therefore apt to form dust balls in the stomach. When given to dairy cows it is found to increase the yield of butter.

BROSE-MEAL BROCK is the refuse obtained in making peas-meal. Brosemeal brock contains about as much muscle-substance as barley-meal, but too much indigestible fibre, and too little starch and fat-producing substances. It is employed in feeding, as a cheap substitue for bean-meal, and used like it.

PEA-HULLS FROM MAPLE PEAS.-In making split peas, the outer skins of the pea are removed and sold under the name of pea-hulls, as another cheap substitute for bean-meal. Pea-hulls, however, do not possess much value as a feeding substance, and ought therefore not to be employed unless they can be got at a very cheap rate.

RICE-DUST OR RICE-MEAL, is a refuse obtained in cleaning rice for our market, and consists of the husks and external layers of rice, together with fragments of the grain itself, with some accidental foreign impurities. In Liverpool it is produced in large quanties, and often sold much above its real value. Rice-dust is said to increase the yield of milk, and is employed therefore to some extent by Cheshire farmers for feeding milk cows. It has also been found to be a good food for fattening pigs.