1860. 



NEW ENGLAKD FARMER. 



317 



out the year, but it is often owing to improper at- 

 tention to their business, or from their being locat- 

 ed on stubborn or worn-out farms. But any farmer 

 who has a hundred acres of New England soil at 

 his command, need have no fears of finding a 

 pauper's grave, if he but attends to his business ; 

 and if he is not free from debt, ho may soon be, 

 if he manages properly, and is industrious. 



Let us now look at the figures Mr. Pinkham 

 has given us in reference to the cost of raising 

 calves. Here (I do not speak of elsewhere) the 

 hide of a very young calf is worth nothing, for it 

 cannot be sold, except rarely to a "tin peddler," 

 %Tho will pay twenty-five cents "in trade ;" but 

 generally a young calf of the native herds will 

 bring one dollar for fattening, or to raise, if a 

 buyer can be found. But 62 9-i for tending a calf 

 during the first eight weeks of its existence, five 

 and one-fourth cents a day, seems an enormous 

 charge ; and then I can hardly conceive how so 

 young a calf can dispose of a buslicl and a half of 

 meal in the same time, about a quart a day, upon 

 an average, for the first two months. He may 

 possibly bo made to eat it, but it is much more 

 than is for his good, in connection with its milk. 

 I am raising a calf that is now two weeks old, and 

 I find that the attention he requires, does not oc- 

 cupy more than five minutes a day of any jierson's 

 time. The milk, I acknowledge, Mr. P. puts down 

 at a very low figure. "To eighteen weeks at grass, 

 at ten cents per week, $1 80." In this part of 

 the country, pasturage can be obtained for year- 

 lings, in their second summer, for eight to ten 

 cents a week ; and calves in their first summer, 

 of course, do not consume so much food. "To 

 twenty-six weeks' keeping in barn, at fifty cents 

 per week, .$13." This charge, I think, any farmer 

 who has hired stock kept in v^inter, or has taken 

 stock to keep, will consider much too high. I 

 have known full grown cows, when not in milk, 

 kept for that price. So I think it will not bo too 

 much to deduct one-half from Mr. P.'s estimate, 

 which leaves not a high price for a good yearling. 

 But I must confess I do not regard the raising of 

 stock, except under peculiar circumstances, as 

 profitable as many other branches of farming, and 

 think that generally there is but little to be made 

 from it, directly. 



In other departments of agriculture, at least in 

 this part of the Connecticut Valley, a "handsome 

 profit, is realized by the farmers, and I know of 

 instances in which they are slowly but surely be- 

 coming "before-handed," as it is termed, simply 

 by cultivating farm products. 



A gentleman, not very distantly related to the 

 writer, bought a piece of new land, containing 

 fifteen acres, for 816-3, a few years since, from 

 which pine timber had been cut the previous win- 

 ter. It was broken up and sowed to rye, yielding 

 two hundred and sixty-four bushels, which was 

 sold at one dollar per bushel, and with the straw, 

 gave a clear profit exceeding considerably the 

 original cost of the land. It was planted the fol- 

 lowing year with corn, though in an unfavorable 

 condition for a corn crop, and also suffered much 

 from the drought, yielding a fine profit above the 

 cost of the work in raising. I might give other 

 instances, with plenty of vouchers for their truth. 



The same farmer, when he commenced business 

 as an agriculturist, ran in debt for his land to the 

 extent of several hundred dollars, some twenty 



years since, and though having a family to sup- 

 port, has cleared himself of debt, and made ex- 

 tensive improvements in fences, buildings, &c., 

 besides adding, by purchase, some forty acres 

 more to his farm, all of which is now free from 

 debt, with several dollars in surplus funds ; and 

 all obtained from the land by the raising of crops, 

 no "outside successes" having been met with, 

 notwithstanding the unprofitableness of farming. 



I find that Mr. Pinkham and myself have ar- 

 rived at very difi'ercnt conclusions in regard to 

 the consequences of farming, while we both may 

 think we have based them upon reliable premises. 

 For my own part, I have endeavored to give cor- 

 rect siatements, and for that end have consulted 

 other farmers on many points. 



I might extend these remarks much farther, yet 

 I must say, I did not find an answer to the ques- 

 tion, "Ilovvf is it, then, that farmers get along?" 

 which Mr. P. propounds, perceiving it to arise 

 from the view of the matter he has presented, and 

 claims he "can very easily answer," but I have 

 thus far looked in vain for a proper answer. 



This subject is one of great importance to the 

 farmer, and it would be interesting to compare 

 facts and opinions in relation to it from diff'erent 

 parts of the country. J. A. A. 



Springfield, 1860. 



For tlte New England Farmer. 



IKE POTATO ROT NOT CAUSED BY 

 INSECTS. 



'Mr.. Editor: — When I wrote the article upon 

 this subject, which is now causing so much anxie- 

 ty and trouble in a certain quarter, I did not 

 know that Mr. Lyman Reed had laid claim to the 

 $10,000 avi'ard off'cred by the State of Massachu- 

 setts to the discoverer of the cause and remedy of 

 the potato rot ; nor did I know that he had ob- 

 tained a patent right for his pretended discovery, 

 backed up by a certificate from seventeen mem- 

 bers of Congress, who "devoted one whole day in 

 the Agricultural Committee Rooms of the Capi- 

 tol" in examining into the subject, but who can- 

 not be supposed to know half as much about the 

 subject as seventeen plain, shrewd, common sense 

 Yankee farmers, who have been carefully and crit- 

 ically examining into the subject for the last ten 

 or fifteen years ; but I did know that ^Ir. Alex- 

 ander Henderson, of New York, had attempted 

 to show that the potato rot was caused by insects. 

 It was not, therefore, against Mr. Lyman Reed's 

 claims and interests that I off"ered the seven rea- 

 sons to prove that the potato rot was not, and 

 could not be caused !)y insects. These seven rea- 

 sons were the result of careful observation and 

 long experience, and were stated so clearly and 

 forcibly, that even Mr. Reed himself seems to 

 quail before them. Why, otherwise, does he charge 

 me with using "vague generalities" and "hypo- 

 thetical theories ?" I used no vague, or ambigu- 

 ous expressions, indulged in no new fancies, hy- 

 potheses or theories, Init stated the simple, naked 

 truth in seven propositions or reasons, which it 

 becomes Mr. Reed as a gentleman and scholar, 

 fairly to meet, and logically to answer. If he feels 

 himself competent to do this, the quicker he does 

 it the lietter for himself, and for his claims upon 

 the public. John Goldsbury. 



Wanoicli, May 14, 1860. 



