4b 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



[March, 



cause is be was not prepared to say, but the fact is 

 indisputable. He was inclined to attribute it to a 

 change in the seasons. But for all this we must not 

 do away with the apple orchard. An acre of orchard 

 is worth more than any other on the farm. Not in 

 the money value, perhaps, but in other ways. He 

 believed the warm dry summers are the reason we 

 have not large crops of apples for winter use. 



Ephraim H. Hoover thought the increase of in 

 sects had much to do with our poor apple crops and 

 their non-keeping qualities. When we put the crop 

 away it is imperfect, and therefore will not keep. 

 He has tried turning in hogs when the apples begin 

 to fall and keeping them there all the season. This 

 keeps down the insects and preserves the crop. In 

 sects are one of the causes that make our apples 

 poor keepers. We must dispose of the insects be- 

 fore we can hope to increase the quality of our ap- 

 ples. 



M. D. Kendig believed with the essayist in his 

 theory of planting native varieties. He thought it 

 was better and safer to buy either fruit or ornamen- 

 tal trees of home grown origin than to get them 

 elsewhere. 



C. L. Hunsecker spoke of tha fine apple crop of 

 1855; we have had none like it since. How long 

 will apple trees continue to bear; he gave some in- 

 formation on this subject. He mentioned a tree in 

 Maine that lived 130 years and bore good crops 

 yearly. He also believed that certain climatic 

 changes had something to do with the failure of our 

 apple crops. If trees could be protected against 

 high winds it might be beneticial. He believed the 

 insects had something to do with this, but we do not 

 take enough care of our orchards. 



Mr. Cooper said hot weather makes apples drop 

 prematurely. If the temperature in September and 

 October was not so high we would be able to grow 

 as much fruit as ever and as good. 



H. M. Engle concurred with nearly all the essayist 

 had said. The question is, Are there any remedies 

 to overcome the evils that are upon us? If we select 

 better varieties our chances will improve. An im- 

 portant matter is at the will of the orchardist. The 

 curculio and codling moth can be controled. But 

 this can best be done by co-operation. There are 

 good apple crops even when there are many insects, 

 but the following year is generally a failure, because 

 a large apple crop is the cause of a large crop of in- 

 sects. The codling moth is our greatest enemy ; it 

 does more damage than all the rest combined. But 

 wc can control this by using the banding system, 

 using straw, canvas, paper or any other article. By 

 selecting varieties adapted to the locality and attend- 

 ing to the moths we can do much to help along our 

 orchards. 



S. P. Eby thought there were some means at our 

 command we have not yet used. Plant orchards 

 where they can be irrigated ; plant shelter trees ; 

 leave the tree a large tap root when it is removed for 

 transplanting. Trees that spring up of themselves 

 and are grafted where they grow without removal 

 are less liable, perhaps, to diseases and failures. 



H. M. Engle also directed attention tothe fact that 

 orchards must have as much manure as other lields. 

 We expect full crops, but make no effort to secure 

 them by putting as much manure as we do when we 

 grow wheat or corn. The orchard must be fed. 

 Aliritude has much to do with full crops. He lately 

 saw a line crop of apples grown in Virginia, at an 

 elevation of 1,100 feet. They were northern varieties. 

 Is Sub-Soiling Beneficial ? 



John C. Linville said : 



When I was quite a small hoy my father made 

 himself a sub soil plow. The late Jesse Buell was at 

 that time editor of the Albany Cultivator, and intliat 

 excellent journal proved by irrelulable and convinc- 

 ing argument that the sure road to successful farm 

 ing lay through sub-soil ploughing. The tirst trial 

 of the new method was made in corn ground. The 

 surface plow turned the sod to the depth of about six 

 inches, and the sub soil plow followed in the bottom 

 of the lurrow and loosened up the clay from lour to 

 six inches deep. This plow did not throw the sub- 

 soil on top, but merely lifted it up two or three 

 inches and let it fall back toils former position. Two 

 teams were used— a span of horses to each plow. It 



made it very laborious for the lead horse of the sur- 

 face plow to walk in the loose furrow. The field of 

 ten acres was sub soiled in alternate strips, the 

 other strips left in the usual way. The sub soil in 

 this field is rather stiff, red clay, and the land is 

 limestone. 



1 do not know whether the season was wet or dry, 

 but there was no perceptible difference in the corn 

 nor in the succeeding crop of oats, wheat or grass. 

 It was observed, however, that the sub soil in the 

 strips that had been double ploughed retaiued its 

 mellowness the following season when broken for 

 oats anil wheat. Of course, sub soiling doubles the 

 cost of ploughing. This and its signal failure to in 

 crease the crops condemned the sub-soil plow, and it 

 lay for years in the lumber loft. 



At length there came another "boom" in sub-soil 

 ing. The lamented Prof. Mapes was at that time 

 editor of the Working Farmer, and showed by in- 

 vincible logic that a loose sub soil would let the sur- 

 plus water down in a wet season and be equally 

 beneficial to retain moisture in a dry one. The old 

 long-legged sub-soil plow was brought out out from 

 its long hiding place, the dust and cobwebs swept 

 off, and the share sharpened for action. The corn 

 Held was subsoiled in alternate strips, as on the 

 former occasion. The season was rather favorable 

 for corn and there was no perceptible difference in 

 favor of the subsoil ploughing either on the corn or 

 succeeding crops. The subsoil plough was again 

 consigned to the lumlier loft and oblivion, where it 

 remained until the sale of my father's personal 

 effects, when it was bought by an enterprising farmer 

 on the border of Chester county. I have no knowl- 

 edge of its subsequent history. 



These two cxiieriments do not prove anything. If 

 the seasons had been different or the soil different, 

 the results might have been other than they were. 

 Had the crops been roots, or vegetables, or orchard, 

 or nursery, the sub-soiling might have been bene 

 Seial. There is, however, one eonvincinsr argument 

 against sub-soiling. The system has been advo- 

 cated time and again for a great many years and yet 

 nobody uses the sub-soil plow now. If it has all, or 

 even a few of the advantages claimed for it, farmers 

 surely would not be so slow to discover its merits. 



H. .M. Engle has tried sub-soiling and has not de- 

 rived any benefit from it. Our soil does not seem to 

 require this method. 



Can We Dispense with Division Fences on 

 Farms .' 



Ephraim S. Hoover gave his views of this question 

 as follows : 



This is a question which at this time, when lum 

 ber is getting scarce and valuable, is well worth tlie 

 consideration of all who are owners of aralile land. 

 How may we avoid the expenses of division fences 

 profitably? This may, we think, be done by the 

 soiling system, which does away with inside or divi- 

 sion fences except a large cattle yard in front of the 

 barn surrounded with shade tree.", and well sujiplied 

 with an abundance of water for the use of stock. An 

 average of the whole farm land of the State shows 

 us that the fences cos; us at the rate of SI, 124.1^5 per 

 one hundred acres, and in some localities'where tim- 

 ber is scarce, the cost may be more. At this rate, 

 the interest on the amount invested per farm of one 

 hundred acres at six per cent, is $(r.45 annually, to 

 which add, as it is estimated that the repairs cost 

 $().'.'3 per lOU rods or $t)0.35 annually per one hun- 

 dred acres, making a total of $1'-I7.I^0 for fences 

 alone, not includins; the value of space occupied l)y 

 the feiices, which would be valuable in adding to the 

 land under cultivation. Besides the lo.-s of this 

 space of land occupied by fences, it creates a harbor 

 for weeiis, which would not e.xist if properly culti- 

 vated . 



From five to six months of the year our cattle in 

 this latitude are fed in stalls on products of the 

 farm anil are not allowed to roam over the fields of 

 the prudent farmer. Hence, we claim that in view 

 of the above facts it does not pay, all things being 

 considered, to fence a larm for grazing cattle the re- 

 maining six or seven nronths of the year, when it is 

 an admitted fact that cattle will sutisist on less acre- 

 age under the soiling system than under the present 

 system of grazing, where much pasture is trodden 

 down and becomes unfit as food for cattle. 



Another way of doing away with division fences is 

 to have portable fences sufficient to enclose a few 

 acres of pasture at one lime, which could be done at 

 a small expense and at such a time as not to inter- 

 fere much with the other operations of the larm. 

 The cost of such fences would be compai'atively 

 small and feed more stock than when allowed to run 

 over many acres at once. We were convinced of 

 this some years ago in our own experience, when a 

 field lying in permanent pasture, well supplied with 

 water, was divided into two parts by a temporary 

 fence, changing the stock from one to the other; we 

 found the same piece of ground fed more stock than 

 when the whole field was pastured at once. 



Another way by which we can in part do away 

 with division fences is to remove division fences be- 

 tween certain fields so situated that they may be 

 formed in pairs, or we may very much decrease the 



amount of fences by altering the shape of a field or 

 fields. If our farm is of such a nature that we can 

 turn a portion of it into permanent pasture land, we 

 believe this system to work well. 



The object of every farmer should be to have as 

 few fences as practicable, and of this every owner of 

 a farm should he the best judge— in other words, he 

 should adapt himself to natural advantages, such as 

 water, soil, locality, etc.; whether best' adapted to 

 grain growing or grazing— ail of which must be 

 taken into consideration, for while some particular 

 system would do very well for some localities, it 

 would not be practicable in some others. But, in short, 

 to have the least capital invested in fences possible, 

 and yet to be so arranged as to bring the best re- 

 sults, should be the object c f every wideawake and 

 progressive farmer. 



Remarks. 



J. C. Linville thought there was no doubt we 

 could dispose with most of our division fences, and 

 will have to do so before long, fie has found no. 

 thing so good for temporary fencing as barbed wire 

 fencing. He used only one wire, and it was suffi- 

 cient, although the cattle were very tame. Such a 

 fence is cheap and lasts a long time. The wire used 

 was about three feet from the ground. Unless the 

 barbs are close together they will not turn sheep, no 

 matter how close the wires are. 



Mr. Eby thought the fence question was a very 

 important one. The law as it is at present is imper- 

 fect. VVe must make fences to keep out our neigh- 

 bors' cattle. If we could have a cattle law passed 

 for this county it would be advantageous, and he 

 suggested that the members should make an effort to 

 this cfi'ect. 



Casper Hiller had no doubt it was possible to dis- 

 pense with division fences. The expense of keeping 

 them up was greater than to hire a man to look 

 after the cattle. We are, however, so wedded to old 

 customs that it would be difficult to bring about a 

 change. He did not see how we could get around 

 this question. 



H. M. Engle thought by showing the farmers that 

 it was putting money into their pockets, they could 

 be induced to make the desired change. The law 

 should make every man take care of his ovu cattle, 

 instead of compelling him to protect himself against 

 those of his neighbors. He was in favor of a law 

 that would change the present cumbersome law. 



H. M. Engle made a motion that a committee be 

 appointed to examine into this question and report 

 at the next meeting. 



The Chair appointed S. P. Eby, Esq., Calvin 

 Cooper and F. 11. DilfenderH'er as the committee. 

 When is the Best Time to Sow Clover Seed ? 



E. H. Weaver responded in answer that no par- 

 ticular day or week can be specified as the best time 

 to sow clover seed, lor that depends upon the weather 

 and condition of the s(jil. From tlic middle of .March 

 to the first of April might be set down as the |n'oper 

 pei'iod, the farmer exercising judirrnent in selecting 

 the best time in this interval. Earlier sowing is 

 useless and attended with risk. VVhen sown on 

 fi'ozen ground, as some do in February, a sudden 

 thaw or heavy rain Hood may wash the seeds from 

 the slopes into the low lauds, or a warm spell may 

 spi'Out the seed and a following cold snap may freeze 

 the germs, which has been tlie experience of some 

 farmers. If the wheat ground is not previously 

 harrowed, comparatively early sowing is best, as al- 

 ternate freezing and thawing will more effectually 

 cover the seed. The farmer cannot afford to run auy 

 known I'isk in sowing clover seed. A failure of the 

 the crop is a serious loss to him and his land, as it is 

 the great restorer of exhausted soil. The Hon. Geo. 

 Geddes reports a field on his farm upon which bad 

 been grown crops of wheat, corn, oats, barley and 

 grass, which has had no oilier manure but clover for 

 seventy-four years, and the land shows no diminu- 

 tion of fertility. 



S. P. Eby believed late sowing of cloverseed was, 

 all things considered, the best. 



H. M. Engle said there was a difference of opinion 

 on this question. Many believe it cannot be sowed 

 too early. Tliere is much in having a good start. 

 More About Apples. 



An answer to the question, " Should we encourage 

 new varieties of apples?" was sent in by Levi S. 

 Keist, who was not present. It was read. Whether 

 we should encourage new varieties depended on cir- 

 cumstances to a great extent ; but the referee would 

 at least recommend the cultivation of Smith's Cider, 

 Imperial, Dominie, VVine Sap, Seek no Farther, 

 Sheepnose, Baldwin and others. 



