166 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



April 



mand was quite limited at that low rate ! And 

 he imputed this entirely to the revulsion in busi- 

 ness! He enumerated other changes equally as 

 striking. 



In calling attention to the effects of this revul- 

 sion, our intention was to speak more directly 

 of our own affairs. We suppose the newspapers 

 of the country have not escaped entirely unscath- 

 ed ; indeed, we have heard that some of them 

 have been sadly diminished by the revulsion. We 

 deplore the error that leads to such results — for 

 no farmer, however intelligent and thrifty he may 

 be, can afford to be without at least one good ag- 

 ricultural paper. We receive it, therefore, as an 

 evidence of appreciation of our labors, that 

 throughout this fiery ordeal our list has decreased 

 only one or two hundred on our weekly edition, 

 and less than many other papers on our monthly 

 issue. This was unexpected, is encouraging, and 

 will stimulate to renewed efforts to return to the 

 reader with ample usury all we may receive from 

 him. 



For the Netc England Farmer. 

 ATfALrSIS OF SOIL. 



A few years since, we were encouraged to hope 

 that the philosopher's stone of culture, had been 

 found in these processes. I remember to have 

 heard a learned gentleman (professor I think he 

 styled himself, though I never could learn, where 

 or of what) say that he then had on hand more 

 than a hundred parcels of soils, from so many 

 different localities, to be analyzed, and that he 

 should be able to furnish certificates of their pe- 

 culiar productive qualities. I have since heard 

 it averred, that he was never known to make an 

 analysis of a single parcel himself — always trust- 

 ing these operations, to the young men mIio were 

 studying under his direction. I cannot speak as 

 to the truth of these assertions, though I suspect 

 there is much more reason to believe in his ig- 

 norance than in his wisdom. On one occasion I 

 heard him discourse at length, and my conclusion 

 was that he knew much less than he thought he 

 did. 



Of late, I have seen it intimated in journals of 

 character most reliable, that no reliance at all 

 can be placed on analysis, that can be matured in 

 a day or even in a week ; and that nine out of ten 

 of these pretended analyses were neither more nor 

 less than humbugs. If this be so, Mr. Editor, the 

 people should know it. Where is our Board of 

 Agriculture, witli its learned Secretary? don't 

 they know ? Where is the State essayer, with 

 his accumulated science ? We farmers want to 

 know whether science and scientific men can be 

 reli d on? If I do not mistake, you yourself 

 have occasionally hinted that "all is not gold 

 that glitters." IxutiKKR. 



Jan. '30, 1858. 



RemaiUvS. — Ay, ay, sir, we long ago learned 

 the truth of that homely old saying, — and it was 

 only at the recent session of the U. S. Agricul- 

 tural Society at Washington, that Ave heard the 



learned Dr. Antisele denounce in set terms all 

 pretensions, that a reliable analysis of any soil 

 can be made in a day, or a week, or at a cost of 

 five dollars only ! Before we left the room where 

 this was uttered, one of the most distinguished 

 chemists of the country stated to us that $25 

 would hardly pay for a soil analysis, and that 

 some six tveeks time would be necessary to make 

 it in a proper manner. 



For the Nezc England Farmer. 

 $81.10 INCOME PER COW. 



Mr. Editor : — Will you please insert the fol- 

 lowing statement of facts, and correct a wrong 

 impression made upon the minds of some of your 

 readers, by the last paragraph in your editorial 

 of Dec. 26, in regard to the amount of hay con- 

 sumed by my cows. I presume the calculation 

 there made was a mistake, (for even Editors some- 

 times do such things.) My attention was direct- 

 ed to it by the remarks of your correspondent, T. 

 A. S., in the last week's N. E. Farmer. 



I have weighed the hay, &c., used by my cows, 

 at different times, so that I know nearly how 

 much has been consumed. About one-half the 

 fodder used Avas corn stover and barley straw, 

 the other half, English hay, meadow hay and 

 rowen, all cut and mixed as stated in your paper, 

 the value of which would not exceed $10 per ton. 

 The price received for my milk last year was 22 

 cents per can, of eight quarts each, from April 

 1st to October 1st, and 32 cents per can the other 

 six months of the year. The milk was kept at 

 home at different times, equal to one month, ail 

 of which was valued at the lowest price. This 

 was made into butter and cheese and used in the 

 family. No account has been made of the milk 

 used in the family for ordinary purposes. The 

 amount, at those prices, was, for each of the seven 

 cows $81,10. 



Cost of keeping at my estimate, as follows : 



20 pounds of fodder per day for 213 days, at $10 per ton.. $21 ,30 

 6J cents worth of meal or shorts a day for the same time. ..13,32 



Roots, mostly ruta-bagas 10,00 



Pasturing and green corn fodder the other 152 days, 



valued at 75 cents per week 16,50 



Cost of keeping each cow $*il!l2 



Profit on each cow 19.98 



I should not have troubled you with this com- 

 munication, had it not been for the purpose o*f 

 correcting the inference drawn from your re- 

 marks, that my cows live and do well on twelve 

 pounds of hay per day. Eljier Brigiiam. 



Westhoro', Feb. 2, 1858. 



Remarks. — We wish all our errors could be 

 corrected as promptly and easily as this. We 

 cannot help thinking, however, that ive are near- 

 er what ought to be the /"act, than our correspond- 

 ent is. Twenty pounds of hay each day for a 

 cow, and meal beside ! Why, 'tis a mountain of 

 fodder ! Fourteen pounds of hay a day is all we 

 give a twelve-hundred horse, with a little meal, 

 and work him hard at that. We were in a stable 

 the other day, Avhere 400 horses are kept, and 

 they were in excellent condition, too, and all the 



