204 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



May 



a base line of operations ; then, with three scien- 

 tific assistants and seven boatmen and guides, ca- 

 noes, batteaux, camp-equipage, instruments and 

 stores, they started up the Penobscot River for 

 the wilderness. They followed the river and its 

 branch to its head waters, and through the lakes 

 across the portages into the St. John Avaters ; 

 meantime dividing into several parties, and re- 

 turning by different routes. Their re])orts, which 

 are now being pi"inted, show the discovery of stat- 

 uary marble, equal to the Italian ; immense beds 

 of marl, some of which contain phosphate of lime, 

 so valuable as a manure ; indications of tin, cop- 

 per, etc. Indeed, native copper has been found 

 in the town of Carrol, Penobscot county, where 

 they suggested its probable existence. The State 

 appropriation for this survey was only $3000. 



For the New England Farmer. 



CONCENTBATED MAWUTIES- 

 THEY PAY? 



-WILL 



Among all the certificates and reported experi- 

 n>ent3 with concentrated manures that have fallen 

 under my observation, I have yet seen none that 

 sliowed the first thing that a practical farmer 

 wants to know, viz., AVill it pay? All agree that 

 guano, Mapes' and Coe's phosphate, poudrette, 

 and many other kinds that might be named, make 

 vegetation grow rapidly and produce large crops, 

 but if those crops cost more than they are worth, 

 no one that farms it for profit, or a living, can 

 prudently invest in that kind of fertilizer. For 

 the dollar invested in any concentrated fertilizer 

 ia the spring, should, at least, pay back 100 cents 

 in the fall, in crops, or the investment had better 

 not have been made. This is presuming that it is 

 all exhausted the first season, Avhich is the fact, 

 judging from what experience and observation I 

 have had. 



I propose now to give the result of an experi- 

 ment on a small scale with Coe's superphosphate. 

 My experiment was on a piece of corn. The land 

 was planted the year before, and produced a fair 

 average crop for light pasture lands ; I should 

 judge about 35 bushels per acre. Last spring I 

 spread and plowed in shallow manure enough, as 

 I judge, to make the piece good for 40 or 43 bush- 

 els per acre ; planted the 18th day of May, putting 

 a large tablespoonful of Coe's superphosphate in 

 each hill, with the exception of four rows through 

 a level part of the piece, where I could see no ad- 

 vantage on either side. The frost injured my corn 

 the year before, and although I saved the best I 

 had, and thought it good, I found my mistake, for 

 it being cold, wet weather, not more than two- 

 thirds of it came up, which was an essential draw- 

 back on my crop. I put the phosphate in the hill, 

 mixed and covered it with the soil, and the corn 

 came just the same with it, as without it ; at least 

 1 could see no difference. Where I put the phos- 

 phate, the corn grew much the best in the first of 

 the season ; at the first hoeing I judged there was 

 near three times the heft of stalks, but after that 

 the weather grew warmer, and the difference grad- 

 ually diminished. At the first hoeing I put anoth- 

 er spoonful of phosphate to each hill, except four 

 i-ows on one side of the four unphosphated rows. 

 I watched the growth and progress with much in- 

 terest through the season, and could plainly see 



that the unphosphated was gradually gaining on 

 the other, and at harvest time, was satisfied that 

 the unphosphated had about the same corn as that 

 once phosphated, but rather less stalk, and that 

 either of them had less corn, and some but little 

 less stalk, than the four rows that were twice phos- 

 phated. But to be sure, and exact, I harvested 

 and kept all separate, dried thoroughly, shelled 

 and weighed cai-efully, all the corn that would dry 

 sound, making but one sort. I will here state 

 that I weighed the phosphate put on to the eight 

 rows, charged it at cost in the field, and charged a 

 fair price for the time or extra labor of planting 

 and hoeing, of which I kept a strict account, and 

 the result was as follows : 



None, 108 lbs., 5 ounces. 



Once, 110 lbs., 12 oz. — gain, 2 lbs., 7 oz.; ex- 

 tra cost, 31.i cts. ; extra corn cost about $7 per 

 bushel. 



Twice, 140 lbs., 14 oz. — gain, 32 lbs., 9 oz. ; ex- 

 tra cost, 49 cts. ; extra corn cost about 84 cts. per 

 bushel. 



I am rather surprised at the result of my exper- 

 iment. That ten pounds put in the hill at plant- 

 ing, should make no corn, or only 2^ pounds, and 

 that ten pounds put in at planting, and 6^ at first 

 hoeing, should make 32^, is a difference that I 

 cannot account for under the circumstances, the 

 manure being plowed in, and, as I supposed, would 

 carry the corn out through the last of the season. 

 If there had been no other manure, I should have 

 expected the phosphate to have been exhausted, 

 and left the corn starving just at the time it had 

 got out a large growth of stalk and needed it most. 

 But I am satisfied that to put phosphate in the hill 

 at planting, is money thrown away, unless there 

 is more put on at some later period to carr)' 

 through the earing and filling out of the corn. 



In conclusion, I will say that I am well satisfied 

 for the pains I have taken in experimenting thus 

 far, and intend to try it again next season, and 

 hope that many others will do the same, not only 

 with Coe's phosphate, but with all other kinds of 

 concentrated fertilizers, and give the result of their 

 experiments to the public through the medium of 

 the A^. E. Fanner. Thomas Ellis. 



Rochester, Mass., 1862. 



MOSS OH HOOPS. 



There is a barn near our farm with a shingle 

 roof fifty years old, and the shingles appear quite 

 as bright, and in as good order, as most shingle 

 roofs at the end of the first year. When built, it 

 was coated with a lime wash tinted Avith ochre, 

 and fully charged with glue and salt. This formed 

 an agi'eeable C(?}or, and lasted many years ; the 

 lime present entirely preventing the growth of 

 moss, and also the development of acetic acid from 

 any sappy portion of the shingles. About twenty 

 years since, it was again re-coated, with the lime 

 wash tinted with amber. This is now pretty gen- 

 erally removed, still leaving an even color to the 

 roof, and to the shingles a surprising freshness of 

 appearance. 



We suppose that lime alone put on as a white- 

 wash, would have answered all these purposes, 

 though not so agreeably to the eye, wliile the wash 

 tinted to resemble the color of the slungle, can 

 never be unsightly. — Working Farmer. 



