1870. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



359 



arrests chemical change if malaria is a putres- 

 cing material. Carbolic acid is a powerful 

 poison. Every one has known that creosote 

 is poisonous, and carbolic acid is only a new 

 name for an old, well-known material, only 

 less crude. Creosote will do all that is 

 claimed for carbolic acid. 



It is an active poison, acting directly on the 

 nervous system, and may cause death ; indeed, 

 death has eubued from its application to an 

 aching tooth. In the Glasgow Royal Infirm- 

 ary the records show that when dressings in 

 amputations and compound fractures con- 

 tained no carbolic acid, cne case in four and a 

 (juaiter died, with carbolic acid in the dress- 

 ings, one in three died ; showing that the use 

 of carbolic acid was positively injurious. It 

 coagulates the vital fluids of the body and of 

 course stops vital action. In the hands of 

 skilful physicians, carbolic acid is susceptible 

 of important uses ; but for family use it is no 

 more appropriate than arsenic or corrosive 

 sublimate. 



Its application, when not very much diluted, 

 produces effects very similar to that of burns, 

 blistering the skin and producing a sore that 

 can be cured by the treatment that would 

 cure a burn. It is offered the public in all 

 forms, as soaps, washes, salves and also as a 

 medicine for various diseases, empirics taking 

 advantage of its popularity to render it availa- 

 ble for their profit. That it is for many 

 purposes very useful, is not to be denied ; but 

 it is very evident that it shoald be used with 

 caution and care. We have used these car- 

 bolic soaps upon our own hands and face, and 

 carbolic acid for disinfecting purposes, and 

 recommend it. Our article is not designed to 

 deter any one from its use as a disinfecting 

 agent, but to give people who use it the 

 knowledge of its properties they ought to 

 possess. 



CAK"ADA THISTLES. 



I have been amused at the great amount of 

 anxiety shown by some of your correspon- 

 dents in regard to the extinction of the Canada 

 thistle. I have worked at farming all my life, 

 and am still on the young side, and I hold that 

 any farmer that cannot extirpate Canada this- 

 tles is not worthy of the name. I have killed 

 them in so many different ways that it would be 

 tedious to specify them all. Good summer-fiil- 

 lowing in a dry season will kill them. On pea 

 ground, immediately after the peas have been 

 harvested, if the ground is dry and loose, plough 

 the land two furiows deep, one plough follow- 

 ing the other ; then, as soon as ploughed, cul- 

 tivate and harrow effectually, and continue 

 doing so, at intervals of a few days, as long as 

 the land remains in a fit state to work. Ma- 

 nure on the surface, plough again in spring, 

 sow with spring wheat or barley, and seed 

 with clover (ten or twelve pounds to the acre, 

 if more all the better,) cut the first crop of 



clover about the end of June, and as soon as 

 the second crop is a foot high, plough it under ; 

 cultivate and harrow as after the peas, and if 

 properly tilled afterwards, you have done with 

 Canada thistles on that piece of land. 



I have bought and partially cleaned two of 

 the worst farms v/ith thistles I ever saw ; and 

 I do not want any better recommendation of a 

 farm than that it is able to produce a Canada 

 thistle four or five feet high and an inch in 

 diameter at the root. Such land, when prop- 

 erly tilled, will produce the best of crops. — 

 Cor. Canada Farmer. 



ESTKACTS AlfD KEPLIES. 



CLAM AND OTSTER SHELLS. 



Editors New England Farmer : — I do not ques- 

 tion the good intentions of yoar correspondents, 

 W. H. Y., Mr. Phineas Pratt and others, who are 

 writing about the great fertilizing value of clam 

 and oyster shells. However honest they may be, 

 it is certain that they are confusing the minds of 

 farmers, and thereby doing much injury to the 

 interests of agriculture. Some months ago I 

 stated in your journal thf.t clam and oyster shells 

 were not manurial agents ; that they were com- 

 posed of carbonate of lime, which is valueless. 



This simple truth, which it would seem every 

 intelligent New England farmer ought to under- 

 stand, has caused this excessive literary activity 

 among some of your patrons. The trouble with 

 your correspondents is that they do not clearly 

 understand the matters they are discussing. No 

 one of your intelligent readers will expect me to 

 make any formal reply to what has been written, 

 as the views presented are too preposterous to be 

 taken into serious consideration. 



Mr. Pratt evidently regards oyster shells, and 

 bones, of equal fertilizing value. " He does not un- 

 derstand the difference between a carboiude and a 

 phosphate of lime. He says, "where oyster shell 

 beds are, or where bone dust is used, cabbages 

 grow twenty years in succession," &c. He does 

 not know the chemical difference between hydrate 

 and carbonate of lime, or between oxide of cal- 

 cium, (caustic lime) and carbonate. Again, he 

 says, "New Jersey owes half its fertility to burn- 

 itig their rocks and liming their lands once in 

 seven years." As a statement, this is very ab- 

 surd. Lime rock and oyster shells are no longer 

 carbonate of lime after being burned. The carbonic 

 acid is driven off by heat, and oxide of calcium is 

 formed. This is a different agent entirely. The 

 remarkthat "lime is the great thing wanting to 

 bring back the fertility of the soil," is not true, 

 but It may be noted as showing that Mr. Pratt re- 

 gards lime (oxide of calcium) and oyster shells 

 (carbonate of lime) as identical. It is certain that 

 Mr. P. is not an authority in matters of agriculture 

 involving chemical principles. 



W. H. Y. falls into the same errors, and fails to 

 understand the views of the writers he quotes. 

 Neither Liebig, Stockhardt, Johnston, Way, JBous- 

 singaulf , or otuer chemist of any repute, ever stated 

 that clam and oyster shells are manurial agents. 

 The quotations made from two or three of the 

 above named writers, regarding the fertilizing 

 value of lirne, has no bearing whatever upon the 

 question at issue. 



Let it be understood by soil cultivators everj'- 

 wbere, once for all, that clam and oyster shells 

 are nut manurial agents, in any proper sense; that 

 they should receive no consideratiuu at their hand, 

 as substances to be bought at any unce. Writers 



