1884.] FARM LABOR IN NEW ENGLAND. 103 



instance one or two of tlie ways in wMch we can succeed best by 

 following the good old way. 



There is, or there seems to me to be, a prevalent error in respect 

 to the production of material for fertilizing our farms. It is only 

 a few years since the introduction of commercial manures, and 

 many of us can remember the time when gypsum and lime were 

 about the only manures used upon the farm which it did not pro- 

 duce. Since that time many different fertilizers have been put in 

 the market, and now there are so many that are superior to all 

 others that an enumeration of them all would fill a volume as large 

 as the old family Bible. These all find a ready market, and hardly 

 a farmer can be found who does not use them. That many of 

 them are of great value to us there can be no question, and they 

 are, I believe, essential to our highest success. But that they can 

 profitably supersede our home-made manures I do not believe. 

 The readiness with which they can be obtained, and the facility 

 with v/hich they can be applied, have led very many into their use 

 as a substitute for the compost heap, which is becoming quite 

 unfashionable. The question of labor in handling the heavy, 

 bulky farm fertilizers has been decided against them, and the more 

 convenient article has, on this merit mainly, come into common 

 use. Now, the mistake is not in their use, but in the neglect of 

 the supply which every farm can easily and profitably be made to 

 produce. I submit that it is false economy to expend large sums 

 of hard-earned money in this way, when an equally valuable article 

 may be obtained at a much less cost, and even without feeling the 

 expense at all. It has been said, and so often repeated, that "time 

 is money," that it may seem like presumption to assert that on the 

 farm this is not always true, but there are "odd spells" of time 

 upon most farms which are not easily converted into cash, but 

 may be utilized in shutting this floodgate of expense by making 

 even the refuse of the farm a source of fertility and profit. The 

 excuse for not doing this is, often, want of time: but if it is the 

 true reason, then there is not sufficient labor employed. It is a 

 poor policy which seeks to employ the least possible amount of 

 labor to keep the farm running. Labor is, or should be made, the 

 farmer's capital, and a stingy investment is sure to result in small 

 dividends, or, more likely, in none at all. 



Let me suggest another serious error, as I think, into which 

 many have fallen in their desire to employ only the minimum 



