It is eaten in less time than an equal quantity of hay. For old horses, having bad teeth, and for those that work all day, it is desirable that the food be easily eaten, in order that they may have as much rest as possible. When the hay is given long, the horse has to do with his teeth all that is done by the machine when it is made into chaff. The time and labor saved to him is not a great deal; perhaps half an hour, or, at the most, a whole hour, makes all the difference, supposing the hay easily taken from the rack, and all so good that the horse need lose no time in selection. Horses having bad teeth, particularly heavy draught-horses, seldom eat a large allowance of fodder. Their teeth are so ineffective that the jaws tire before the horse is satisfied, These, under all circumstances, except when out of work, should have both grain and fodder broken down.

But for horses that perform their daily work in two hours, and perhaps in less time, it is not an advantage to have the food easily and quickly eaten. From the long time they stand in the stable, these horses require something to engag8 their attention. They are apt to get troublesome, pawing the ground, breaking loose, eating the woodwork and the litter, and teazing their neighbors. A little hay, in a close-sparred back, gives them something to do. As they have plenty of spare time it is needless to cut their food, merely to save their time. To give chaff for the purpose of insuring mastication of the grain, is another affair; all horses should have sufficient for this purpose.

Accurate Distribution Obtained

Chaff is easily weighed or measured. The allotted quantity can be served to within an ounce. Hay also can be given quite as exactly, but it is not so easy. The difference is so insignificant, and there are so very few cases in which a very accurate distribution of fodder is neeessary, that it would be folly to cut it merely for this purpose.

The Mixture Preferred

It has been said, that after horses have been accustomed to feeding on grain and chaff mixed, they prefer it to oats or beans without chaff. This is untrue. He who said it must have been misinformed.

Objections To Chaff

It has been urged that the cost of converting the hay into chaff is greater than the grain; that some horses will not thrive without an allowance of rack fod der; that the horse must be often fed, otherwise the chaff will be wasted as much as hay.

The first of these objections may have some truth in it, but the assertion requires limitation. The cost of the cutting machine is always spoken of as a great matter itself. It varies in price from three to six or more pounds. In a small establishment, containing, perhaps, twenty horses, the grain that would be saved by mixing it with chaff, would soon pay the cost of a small machine; and as it is not necessary to bruise the grain, the cost of that process is avoided. The saving of grain, therefore, pays the machine, and the cost of that article should not be included, except where only one or two horses are kept.

But to cut all the fodder may, in many cases, be too costly a practice. Heavy draught-horses consume a great deal. Some may be saved by cutting it, yet, perhaps, not sufficient to pay the cost of cutting. Much depends upon the care of the stablemen. If they will give the hay often, and in such quantities that none will be wasted, there is no need to cut more than enough to mingle with the grain. In such a case it would be a loss to cut all the fodder. But such care can not always be obtained.

The cost of cutting may be calculated. If it be twenty shillings per week, the owner has only to inquire whether good hay to that amount be wasted. He can easily ascertain how long a certain quantity serves a certain number of horses.

The allowance for horses of different kinds varies from eight to twenty pounds per day. Some will eat more, but others will eat less. Taking the whole, he will find how much more hay is consumed than the horses should eat. When it is not necessary to employ additional men to cut the hay, that makes a difference; some portion of it is always saved by converting it into chaff, but the quantity will depend upon the disposition of the horses to waste, and the care of the stableman in preventing waste. The cost of cutting that which is to mingle with the grain is not great. There is always some one about the place having half an hour to spare for this purpose.

Some horses will not thrive without an allowance of rack fodder. This is positively asserted by men who have tried cutting very extensively. It may be so; but I have never met with any very clear proof of it. They say that horses will leave the chaff before them, to devour the same hay uncut, and I have seen them do so, though I can not understand it. The chaff ought to be as acceptable as the hay. Perhaps the circumstance might be attributed to the use of damaged hay When cut into chaff the horse may refuse it, and yet seem to eat it uncut. He takes the good and rejects the bad. With chaff he has no choice. With horses, unaccustomed to this mode of feeding, and long used to the other, the habit of tearing hay from the rack, and selecting the most esteemed portions, may perhaps have become a source of gratification. If there be any, however, who will not thrive as well upon chaff as upon hay, the number must be very small. At first, the horse may not feed so heartily, but, in general, this happens for only a short time.

When the fodder is all cut, the horse must be often fed. If he gets more than he is disposed to eat, he soon learns to shake it up and turn it over till he extracts all the grain. In doing so he soils the chaff, makes it wet, and the moisture spoils it in two or three hours. The horse will not eat this. At next feeding hour another allowance is added to that which was left; and a horse is induced to feed, but he does not feed heartily. The only remedy lies either in giving less at a time, or in giving none at the next feeding hour, when it is found that the preceding allowance has not been finished; or, after the horse is done feeding, that which he leaves may be taken away. All this care is seldom bestowed, especially by strappers. Chaff-feeding does require almost or quite as much care to prevent waste as hay-feeding. This is not denied even by the strongest advocates of the system. Without care the chaff mixture is wasted, and the horses are cloyed, thrown off their feed; having com always before them, they never obtain a sharp appetite.

Then, to sum up this matter,.which seems to be very ill understood, it appears.

That, where the stablemen are careful, waste of fodder is diminished, though not prevented.

That where the racks are good, careful stablemen may prevent nearly all waste of fodder, without cutting it.

That an accurate distribution of fodder is not a very important object.

That no horse seems to like his corn the better for being mingled with chaff.

That, among half-starved horses, chaff-cutting promotes the consumption of damaged fodder.

That full-fed horses, rather than eat the mixture of sound and unsound, will reject the whole, or eat less than their work demands.

That chaff is more easily eaten than hay; that this is an advantage to old horses, and others working all day; a disadvantage when the horses stand long in the stable.

That chaff ensures complete mastication and deliberate ingestion of the grain; that it is of considerable and of most importance in this respect; that all the fodder need not be mingled with the grain, one pound of chaff being sufficient to insure the mastication and slow ingestion of four pounds of grain.

That the cost of cutting all the fodder, especially for heavy horses, is repaid only where the hay is dear, and wasted in large quantities.

That, among hard-working horses, bad fodder should never be cut.