114 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



March 



For the New England Farmer. 

 "DOES FAKMIM-Q PATP" 



This question, which seems to have bothered 

 many of your correspondents, and to have raised 

 your friend Pinkham to a sort of newspaper im- 

 mortality, got itself incidentally into our State 

 Legislature the other day ; and the Solons there 

 appeared to know as little how to dispose of it, 

 as though they were agricultural editors. The 

 "crooked stick" was introduced in this wise : The 

 State Alms-house at Tewksbury had applied for, 

 and the Committee on Finance had reported, an 

 appropriation of some thirteen thousand dollars, 

 to meet the deficiencies in the account current of 

 that institution for the year 1861. Mr. Parsons, 

 of Brookhne, raised the question, whether the in- 

 stitution had been economically managed — more 

 particularly whether the farming department 

 thereof did not cost more than it came to ? This 

 called up Mr. Fostek, of Andover, (one of the 

 Trustees of the Alms-house,) who, in a very 

 straight-forward speech, explained that the expen- 

 ses of the institution beyond the estimates were 

 occasioned solely by the largely increased number 

 of paupers, and that the actual cost to the State 

 for each pauper sent to Tewksbury, (reckoning all 

 the expenses of the institution,) was only a frac- 

 tion over and above ninety-eight cents per week. 

 This, I think, establishes the fact that the Tewks- 

 bury concern is a pretty cheap boarding-house ; 

 and whatever difference of opinion may exist as to 

 the general utility of State alms-houses, a want of 

 economy cannot in fairness be charged to the case 

 in question. 



In the course of his remarks, Mr. Paksons held 

 that it was cheaper to purchase milk at four cents 

 per quart, than to jjroduce it by keeping cows at 

 the Alms-house. I understood him to base this 

 remark on the results of his own farming expe- 

 rience. iSIr. Foster replied, that the milk pro- 

 duced at the Alms-house cost the State but a frac- 

 tion over three cents per quart ; and when it is 

 considered that this milk was the product of cows 

 that shed rain, and that these cows must have 

 produced at the same time a large quantity of ma- 

 nure, the question of cheapness in the two cases 

 is pretty well disposed of. At any rate, from the 

 attention I have been able to give the subject, I 

 am satisfied that it is better for any person having 

 the means of keeping cows, to produce his own 

 milk, rather than purchase it at even two cents 

 per quart. 



Mr. Parsons also stated that it cost more to 

 purchase food to fatten swine, than to purchase 

 pork. This may be true, under certain circum- 

 stances, abstractly considered ; but practically, the 

 question stands in the same category with other 

 farming interests. When it is considered how 

 much about a farm, (and especially about a large 

 alms-house,) otherwise wasted, or of but little ac- 

 count, may be applied to the keejnng of swine, 

 and how much manure these animals may assist in 

 manufacturing, I undertake to say that no agricul- 

 turist can aftbrd to dispense with the raising of 

 his own pork. 



That farming does "pay," I think is fully estab- 

 lished by the fact that farmers seldom fail in busi- 

 ness, or depreciate in wealth. But I go further, 

 and maintain that every branch of farming "pays" 

 in the long run, if managed with good judgment 



and sound economy. Crops may fail, cattle may 

 die, pork may be low in the market, all sorts of 

 casualties may from time to time disappoint the 

 hopes of the tiller of the soil. These form a part 

 of the "accidents" Avhich, as Brownson says, man 

 is born to triumph over. Believing that any at- 

 tempt to detract from the profitableness of farm- 

 ing, whether made in the Legislature or out of it, 

 has a mischievous tendency ; and further, believ- 

 ing that giving agricultural employment to the 

 inmates of our alms-houses, whether considered 

 from an economical or sanitary point of view, is 

 one of the wisest and most philanthropic features 

 now attached to those institutions, I hereby enter 

 my protest against that flippant dogmatism which 

 seelis to dispose of grave questions by the results 

 of single cases of bad management, or by the les- 

 sons of inexperience. The great interest which 

 lies at the foundation of all others, ought not thus 

 to be made a foot-ball for amateurs in practical 

 science, or egotists in practical economy. 



A Looker on at the State" House. 



Remarks. — If reported correctly, Mr. Parsons' 

 views are unsound. From a life-long experience, 

 as well as from facts and figures, we know that he 

 cannot sustain the position he has assumed. 



Far the New England Farmer. 

 ■WHEAT BHAK AS A FEBTILIZEB. 



Mr. Editor : — I saw a communication from 

 "J. S. S." in the monthly Farmer for June, 1860, 

 saying he was using wheat bran as a fertilizer for 

 corn, and his method of applying it, and a request 

 that those who tried it, would note the result and 

 report — I suppose he meant — to the N. E. Farm- 

 er. I took it for granted that he Avould do what 

 he requested others to, and have been looking 

 with some degree of interest for his report, but 

 not having seen any from him, I have concluded 

 his success was not v/orth reporting. I was 

 pleased to see a statement from "T. G. H.," in a 

 late Farmer, of his experience with the bran for 

 corn ; that he found it to be nearly equal to super- 

 ])hosphate, and less expensive. That being the 

 fact, it stands all farmers in hand to make a liberal 

 use of it. But his experience does not correspond 

 with mine. I was induced, through the recom- 

 mendation of a friend, to make use of the bran for 

 potatoes. I applied it, a single handful to a hill, 

 and covered it with soil before applying, as direct- 

 ed. The truth was, I had but very little faith in 

 it, that it would be any better than the same quan- 

 tity of sawdust, and that sawdust was of little or 

 no value ; the result proved it to be so. I thought 

 if like would produce like, it must be good for 

 wheat. Accordingly I applied it broadcast at the 

 rate of 300 pounds per acre, and harrowed in with 

 my wheat ; the result about tlie same as with my 

 potatoes. I have concluded that tlie opinion of 

 my better half was correct, that I had better give 

 the bran to the cows, and let them comjoost it 

 before using it for manure. j. P. 



South Hampton, N. II., Jan. 24, 1862. 



Remarks. — Send the article you speak of in 

 your private note. 



