This subject is not one of my own selection: I have been asked by an esteemed friend to make a few remarks upon it for this number of the Agricultural Report. If anything I can say shall induce farmers more generally to practice stall-feeding, I shall esteem it a high honor.

It is a matter of surprise to all intelligent persons familiar with the facts, that 50 many cattle and sheep are sent to market in a half-fatted condition. Nothing can be more unwise—nothing more unprofitable. Large fortunes have been made by farmers living in the eastern counties of this State by purchasing half-fat cattle that had been sent from the west to the New York market at low rates, and after keeping them for a few months, until fat, selling them at good prices. Now, it would seem to be far better for all farmers of the west to fatten their cattle where corn is cheap, than to sell them in a lean condition. If it will pay the farmers in this State to purchase such animals for the purpose of fattening, then it certainly would pay the farmers in the west o make them fat before sending them to market. The cost of sending a fat animal from Chicago to New York is but little more than the cost of sending one that is only half-fat, while the one will bring nearly as much again as the other.

The farmers of the west, however, are improving in this respect. Better cattle are not only being rapidly introduced, but some attention is paid to fattening them; and it is becoming a serious question with the farmers of the eastern and middle States, how far they can compete with the west in producing beef, pork, mutton, and wool. The freight on a hundred dollars’ worth of these articles is far less than on a hundred dollars’ worth of grain, and the tendency of such a state of things is to force all farmers of the cast to turn their attention more to the production of grain, and leave the production of meat and wool to their brethren of the west. The high rates of freight on grain enables us successfully to compete with the west in the production of wheat and other grains; but as the freight, in proportion to value, is far less on beef, pork, &c., the competition in these articles is far greater.

But manure is becoming a matter of necessity in the eastern and middle States, and this can only be obtained by the purchase of artificial fertilizers or by feeding stock on the farm. It is a question of great importance, therefore, whether we can feed cattle and sheep at a profit.

In determining this question there are several things to be taken into consideration; but we shall confine our examination to the four principal points:
1. The value of the animals when put up to fatten. 2. The amount and value of the food consumed. 3. The value of the “animal when fat. 4. The value of the manure.

We need not here discuss the question of feeding animals on green food in summer, or what is generally known as “soiling.”  There may be sections of the country in which such a system is profitable; but, as a general rule, the advantages of the system are more than counterbalanced by the extra labor required to cut the food, attendance on the animals, &c.  There can be no doubt that such a system enables us to keep more stock on a given area of land, find that we can make more and richer manure; and where land is high and abor plenty, we can adopt the system, to some extent at least, with advantage; but where land is comparatively cheap and labor scarce and dear, it cannot be adopted with profit.

Confining, then, our attention to fattening cattle on ordinary winter food, the first question to determine is the amount of food required to produce one hundred pounds of beef. In some extensive experiments made under the direction of J. B. Lawes and Doctor Gilbert, by the late Duke of Bedford, at Woburn,¹ 44 Hereford and Devon bullocks consumed in fifty-three days 14,804 pounds of oil-cake, 36,097 pounds of clover hay, and 124,115 pounds of Swede turnips, (ruta bagas,) and increased 4,558 pounds. The mean weight of these animals was about 1,300 pounds. Mr. Lawes, from these and other experiments, concludes that fattening oxen fed liberally on good food, composed of a moderate proportion of cake or corn, some hay or straw chaff, with roots or other succulent food, and well managed, will, on the average, consume twelve or thirteen pounds of the dry substance of such mixed food per 100 pounds live weight per week, and should gain one pound of increase for twelve or thirteen pounds dry substance so consumed. In other words, a well-bred bullock, weighing say 800 pounds, would consume 100 pounds of dry substance of food per week, and would increase about eight pounds in the same time.

It is deemed better to present the statement in this form, as it is then easy to apply the figures to any food that may be used. It may be well to state that hay contains about eighty percent of dry substance, and Indian corn, oil-cake, &c., about eighty-five per cent., while ruta bagas and other roots contain only about twelve per cent.

30 pounds Indian corn or oil-cake would contain 25 pounds dry substance.
70 pounds hay would contain.............50 pounds dry substance.
150 pounds ruta dagas would contain 18 pounds dry substance.
250 pounds would contain.................. 100 pounds dry substance.

We may assume, therefore, that one bullock weighing 800 pounds will consume thirty pounds of Indian corn, seventy pounds of hay, and 150 pounds of roots per week, and increase eight pounds. If we omit the roots, we must increase the hay and corn; we must add, say, thirteen pounds of corn and twenty pounds of hay in place of the 150 pounds of roots.

According to these figures, therefore, a bullock weighing 800 pounds would consume forty-three pounds of corn and ninety pounds of hay per week, and increase eight pounds.

Better results than these are not unfrequently obtained with individual animals; but if a lot of cattle, when fed for three or four months, come up to these figures, the farmer may be satisfied.  If one bushel of corn and 100 pounds of hay produce ten pounds of beef, it will be fully as much as is obtained under the best systems of feeding.

Will such feeding pay?  Manifestly, in the eastern and middle States it will not if the value of the manure is not taken into consideration.

What is the value of the manure? There is no better way of deciding this question than to determine what substances the manure contains, and then ascertain the cost of these substances in the cheapest form in which they can be purchased in the market. It may be objected to this method, that it does not show the real value of the manure to the farmer—that it does not show the effect of such manure on the land. This is true:  that point cannot be determined in any way that shall be applicable in all cases. A ton of manure may have a far greater effect on one farm than on another. But this does not affect the real value of the manure.  We may safely assume that the majority of our farms need manure, and that it is an object to increase the supply. In such a case, what will the manure cost? What can it be purchased for in the cheapest form? What will those who have it sell it for? at can it be purchased for in the city? What can the substances which the manure contains be obtained for?  The value of the manure would be determined by the answer to these questions, just as the value of a bushel of wheat is determined by its price in the market.

Now, if we ascertain the value of these substances, we determine the value of a ton of manure. A bushel of unleached wood ashes, ten pounds of common salt, six pounds of bone dust, and two pounds of plaster, contain as much potash, soda and lime, magnesia, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid and chlorine, as one on of ordinary barn-yard manure. These substances can be purchased for about fifteen cents.² Now, these are all the substances in the manure, except the silica or sand, oxide of iron and alumina, carbonaceous matter, water, and nitrogen. The silica, (sand,) oxide of iron, and alumina, (clay,) and the water may be left out of the calculation. All we have left, therefore, is the carbonaceous matter and nitrogen. The 272 pounds of carbonaceous matter cannot be estimated at over five cents, as muck, peat, straw, and other substances afford a large and ready supply of it. We may, therefore, say that all the constituents of a ton of ordinary barn-yard manure, except the nitrogen, can be purchased for twenty cents. All that we have to determine, therefore, is the value of the remaining eight pounds of nitrogen. It cannot be purchased in any available form for less than twelve and a half cents per pound, and we do not know of any source at the present time where it can be obtained at go low a figure. The eight pounds of nitrogen, therefore, are worth one dollar a ton of ordinary manure; therefore it is worth one dollar and twenty cents delivered on the farm.
[This analysis fails to factor in the value of the microbes in the manure and those humus-forming soil bacteria that use manure as a prebiotic. The author can partially be forgiven of this oversight because the field of microbiology was rudimentary compared to today (2021). -ASC]

We say ordinary barn-yard manure. Some manure contains twice or three times as much of the valuable constituents of manures as others, and consequently is twice or three times as valuable. There are those who think manure is manure, no matter from what it is produced. This is not the case, A ton of manure made from clover hay is worth twice as much as a ton made from straw. As a general rule, the better the animal is fed, the richer and better will be the manure. From numerous analyses and from actual experiments, J. B. Lawes, of England, estimates the manure made by the consumption of a ton of food as follows:

That these figures indicate the relative value of manures made from these different foods correctly there can be no doubt. In other words, if the manure made by animals eating a ton of wheat straw is worth $2 68, that made from hay is worth $6 43, and that from a ton of clover hay is worth $9 64. We do not claim that the manure is actually worth these sums. All that is claimed is, that these figures indicate the comparative value of the manures.  There are many sections of the country in which manures are not as valuable as here estimated; but throughout the Atlantic States, where manure is much needed, there is mo general source from which fertilizing matter can be obtained at a cheap rate. Many farmers in the eastern and middle States are now purchasing artificial manures, such as guano, fish manure, poudrette, &c., and certainly they pay for the substances which these manures contain fully as high rates as the above estimates.

How, then, stands the question in regard to the profits of stall-feeding?  Assume that a bullock eats a hundred pounds of hay and a bushel of corn per week, and increases 10 pounds, he would in 20 weeks eat one ton of hay and 20 bushels of corn, and have gained 200 pounds. Estimate the ton of hay at $10, and the corn at 60 cents per bushel, the food would cost: hay, $10; corn, $12; total, $22. In return for this $22 we have 200 pounds of beef, worth, say eight cents per pound, or $16, and manure worth, according to the above table, $10 25.³  This would give a total of $26 25 for the $22 worth of food eaten by the animals. In other words, we gain $4 25 to pay for attendance.

If, instead of meadow hay, clover hay was fed, the manure would be worth $3 21 more, and increase the profits accordingly. [You may very well increase costs significantly as well to produce clover instead of meadow hay. -ASC]

It will be seen that the profits of stall-feeding cattle are not large, if we depend solely on the increase of beef and the value of the manure. As a matter of fact, however, this is not all that those who are in the habit of fattening cattle in winter depend upon for profit. They aim to buy cheap and sell dear.  In this way large profits are frequently realized. Lean or half-fat cattle in the fall are usually not worth nearly as much per pound as they are when fat in the winter or early spring months, and the profit of feeding is much more dependent on the increased value of the cattle per pound than on the increase of the animal during the fattening period. Here is an instance in point: A farmer in this section had two heifers, for which he was offered, November 1, 1862, $45, and this was all they would bring in the market. He concluded to keep them, and gave them a few roots, some cornstalks, a little hay and corn meal, until the 24th of January, 1863, (twelve weeks,) and then sold them for $92 50.

I do not know how much food the two heifers consumed; but assuming that they ate what was equivalent to 2,400 pounds of hay, and 24 bushels of corn, worth (hay at $10 per ton, and corn at 60 cents per bushel) $26 40, we have a profit of $21 10, besides the manure. This is a very handsome profit, and nothing could pay the farmer better; but the reason of this large profit is not owing to the increase of the animal, but to the advance in the price of beef.

In England there are three different methods of stall-feeding cattle: first, in stalls; second, in loose boxes: third, in sheds. Colonel McDonald, of Logan, Scotland, a gentleman of large experience, made some experiments to determine which of the three modes was the most profitable. He took twelve head of Galloway bullocks, two and a half years old, and divided them into three lots, four being placed in loose houses or boxes, four in stalls, and four in sheds.  All three lots had the same kind of food. They were fed from the 22d of December to the 16th of April. For the first fifty-seven days each bullock was allowed one hundred and sixteen pounds of Swede turnips per day, divided into three feeds, and four pounds of bean meal daily, along with the noonday meal; and for the remaining fifty-seven days, fifty-eight pounds of Swede turnips per day, given morning and evening, and three pounds of cut straw, boiled with four pounds of bean meal, for the mid-day feed. All the cattle consumed four and a half pounds of fodder per day, three-fourths of the time oat straw, and one-fourth wheat.

Of the three plans of feeding that in boxes gives the best results, in sheds next, and in stalls the least. There are two drawbacks to feeding in boxes, The loose boxes cost more than stalls, and more straw is also needed for litter. Colonel McDonald states that each stall-fed animal uses about one ton of straw for litter during the six months of feeding, while each box-fed animal required nearly three tons. Where straw is valued as an article of food the two tons saved on each animal by the system of feeding in stalls gives it a manifest superiority over the loose boxes.

In regard to feeding in sheds, it must be remembered that the weather was very wet; and though the open sheds and yard were in a sheltered situation, it is quite possible that in our drier climate the results would not be so much against the practice of feeding in open sheds. The labor of attending to cattle in open sheds is less than in boxes or stalls. Colonel McD., estimates the expense of attendance in the two latter at twenty-five cents per month, and in sheds at eighteen cents per head per month.

The fact that the animals gained the most in the loose boxes, where they move about more or less, but are at the same time kept warm and dry, shows that too close confinement, as in stalls, is to be guarded against.  Colonel McDonald says: “With an annual experience of fattening upwards of two hundred and fifty cattle in stalls and boxes, we find that from eighty to one hundred pounds of cut Swedes (ruta bagas) per day, given in two feeds, morning and afternoon, and a cooked feed at noon, is quite sufficient to fatten cattle of from forty to fifty stones imperial. The substitution of the cooked mid-day meal has enabled us to increase our fattening cattle by one-third in number, leaving a proportionately small return per acre for turnips consumed, and a great increase of valuable manure. Economy in feeding is the first secret of success in making the turnip crop pay. A certain effect must not only be produced in a given time, but it must be produced at a given cost. As yet we have found nothing equally nutritive and so cheap as two feeds of raw Swedes per day, and four pounds of bean meal cooked, with an equal weight of cut straw, given as the mid-day feed.”

In other words, Colonel McD. is not in favor of feeding such an excessive quantity of roots as is generally practiced in England and Scotland. With us, however, there is no danger of running into this error: we feed too few rather than too many roots.

In regard to the best roots for cattle, we may mention that, from Colonel McDonald’s experiments, it was found that the increase of animals, after deducting the cost of the artificial food in each case, left five and a quarter pence per hundred weight for mangold wurzel, four and a half for white carrots, and three and three-quarters pence for Swede turnips, or ruta bagas. In commenting on these facts the late Philip Pusey says: “It is as easy to grow thirty tons of mangold wurzel as it is to grow twenty tons of Swedes to the acre. Assuming Colonel McDonald’s results to be such as would ordinarily take place, the superior profits of mangolds over Swedes is very great, for the money returns will stand as follows: Mangolds, £13 2s. 6d.; Swedes, £6 5s. The money return for the mangolds, therefore, appears to more than double that for the Swedes.”

In the drier climate of the United States there can be no doubt that mangold wurzels have several advantages over Swedes. They are sown earlier, and are not so liable to injury from hot, dry weather, or from insects. They produce more per acre, and are much more nutritious. The only drawback is that they " eed higher cultivation, and are not ripe enough fo feed until the middle of winter. On the other hand, they will keep later in the spring.

If we use the term stall-feeding in its strictest sense, it is not applicable to the plans usually adopted in fattening sheep. In England, it is true, sheep are now extensively fed under cover, on narrow boards, with interstices of an inch or 50 between them for the droppings to fall through. In this way the sheep are always dry and clean, no straw being used. The boards are about two and a half inches wide, and are placed about two and a half feet from the ground.  The droppings are scraped away from under the floor on the back side of the shed. In fattening sheep in winter, in this country, we meet with the same state of facts as in regard to fattening cattle. The mere increase of the animals certainly will not pay for the food consumed; and even if we add the value of the manure the profits are not large, if any. But if lean sheep are purchased at the ordinary prices at which they are sold in the fall, and judicious fattened till February or March, and sold at the advanced price which fat sheep then usually command, no system of agriculture can be more profitable. How long such a state of facts will continue it is impossible to tell.  It would seem, when the farmers ascertain how profitable the system can be made, that there will not be found so many who are willing to dispose of their lean sheep in the fall at low figures, and that, consequently, the profits of fattening will be much less.

In England lean sheep generally bring as high a price per pound in the fall as they bring per pound in the spring, when fat; and the farmer has to depend for his profit on the value of the manure and the simple increase of the animal in return for the food consumed.

The profits of fattening sheep the present winter (1862-'63) have been unusually great. It is always said to be the case when grain brings a high price. Last October sheep brought a full average price, but this was due solely to the high price of wool. Pelts in New York sold for $1 43 each. Deducting this from the price paid for the sheep, and the price paid for the mutton was low, indeed. In fact, it is stated that mutton was sold by the carcase, in New York, in the middle of October, for two cents per pound. At the present time (February, 1863) it is worth eight cents per pound. Pelts, too, have advanced to $3 25 on an average; many bring higher.

This, it will be said, is a state of things quite out of the ordinary course.  This is true; but, taking the average of the past few years, sheep are always sufficiently higher in the spring, as compared with the price in the fall, to afford a good profit on winter feeding. We may safely assume that a lean sheep, worth three cents per pound in the fall, live weight, will be worth five cents per pound, live weight, when fat, in February or March.

Let us take as an illustration a sheep that weighs seventy pounds the middle of October; at three cents per pound he is worth $2 10.  Feed such a sheep sixteen weeks, or till the middle of February, and if he gains twenty pounds, (one and a fourth pound per week,) he will then weigh ninety pounds, and will be worth, at five cents per pound, $4 50; this will leave $2 40 to pay for the food consumed. Such a sheep will eat two hundred and seventy-five pounds of hay, or its equivalent, in the sixteen weeks, or about two and a half pounds per day; in other words, we get $2 40 for two hundred and seventy-five pounds of hay, or $17 45 per ton. This is leaving the manure out of the question, The manure from a ton of clover hay is, as we have stated before, worth $9 64, The manure, therefore, from the two hundred and seventy-five pounds of clover hay eaten by a sheep in sixteen weeks, is worth $1 32; this, added to the increased value of the sheep, would make the entire return for the two hundred and seventy-five pounds of clover hay $3 72, or $27 per ton.

The present season the profits have been far greater. Instead of five cents per pound, good sheep are now selling at eight cents per pound, live weight.

There is no better fodder for sheep than clover hay cut into chaff, but it is not desirable to feed them exclusively on this food; they should have a little grain or oil-cake, and on farms where straw is abundant it will be cheaper to feed more grain and less hay, allowing the sheep all the straw they will eat.

There are few questions of more importance in agriculture than the nutritive value of straw. Unfortunately, we have few experimental data on which to base a satisfactory opinion on the point.  If we consult British authorities, we shall come to the conclusion that straw was not of much value as food for fattening cattle or sheep. The opinion of farmers in this country would be more favorable. It is certainly a fact that American farmers place more reliance on straw, to enable them to carry their animals through the winter, than English farmers. Probably the truth lies between the two extremes; in England straw is not sufficiently esteemed, while with us it is too often over estimated. We know farmers who depend almost entirely on straw and cornstalks to carry their stock through the winter; but we apprehend that if the animals so fed were weighed in the fall and again in the spring, they would be found to have lost rather than gained in weight. An intelligent farmer in this vicinity recently remarked to us that he did not expect his sheep to gain anything during the winter; he depended solely on the advance in the price of mutton to pay for their keeping. This farmer fed his sheep on wheat straw, with a little corn meal in very cold weather.

This may be considered an “economical" way of wintering sheep; but we very much doubt if it is true economy. Animals require a large amount of food to sustain their vital functions merely, and fat is produced only from food given in excess of that amount. To allow them to consume so much food merely to keep them alive, when a little more would enable them to lay on fat and flesh, is a most wasteful practice.  What should we say of a miller who furnished his engine only with fuel enough to generate steam to turn the stones, but not enough to enable them to grind any flour, and should keep the stones running empty night and day for four months, when a little more fuel would produce force enough to grind the wheat? We admit that it is not strictly a parallel case; the animals are worth more in the spring, even if they have not gained in weight. But even admitting that the flour mill would be worth more because it had been kept going for four months, it does not follow that it would not have been more profitable to have increased the amount of fuel sufficiently to have enabled it fo grind the wheat, rather than only enough to turn the machinery.

High feeding is one reason of the great advancement of English agriculture during the last twenty-five years. It has enabled the farmer to keep more stock on a given amount of land, and thus to make manure. It is still an open question with them, however, whether it is profitable to feed the high-priced cereal grains, Their main dependence is the turnip crop, with clover hay, beans, peas, oil-cake, &c., as the dry food. The cereal grains, such as barley and oats, are produced only at considerable expense to the fertility of the soil, while the consumption does not improve the manure as much as peas, beans, and oil-cake. In fact, the manure from barley, oats, and corn is worth but little mote than that from good clover hay.

In fattening cattle and sheep it is a question of the first importance, what food is produced at least expense to the fertilizing elements in the soil. One great object in feeding animals is to enrich the land, and it is important to know what food can be produced that will injure the land the least and enrich the manure-heap the most. When the crop is favorable, there is no crop so valuable in this twofold variety as the turnip. It is cultivated in rows which admit the use of the horse-hoe, and the plants are thinned out by the hand-hoe, about a foot apart; the land, therefore, is made very clean. It is essential, indeed, to the success of the crop, that the land should be made very mellow and kept scrupulously free from weeds during its growth. It takes the place, indeed, of the old-fashioned summer fallow, and for this reason is called a fallow-crop. Then a large amount of food is produced on an acre at comparatively little cost to the soil, and the consumption of this food produces a large quantity of excellent manure.

Next to the turnip, red clover is the most enriching crop; it is far better suited to our climate than the turnip; in fact, there is no country in the world where red clover flourishes better than throughout a large section of the United States. It is pre-eminently the renovating crop of the country. It is almost impossible to grow too much of it, provided it is consumed on the farm. It makes the best of all hay for sheep, and, as we have before said, the manure from it is nearly as valuable as that from corn; far more valuable than that from ordinary hay.

Peas and beans are also renovating crops. They impoverish the soil but little, and make richer manure than any other crop.

Rape has been tried but little as yet, but, if found adapted to the climate, deserves a high place among our renovating crops. The same may be said of lupins and spurry. They are eminently worthy of a trial.

The great aim, then, of every farmer should be to grow such crops as food for stock as impoverish the soil the least, and make the richest manure.  These, as we have said, are turnips, clover, peas, and beans. The more we grow of these crops, and the more stock we keep, the richer will our land become. We shall sow less land to wheat and other cereals, but from the richness of the soil shall get larger crops.