1871. 



NEW ENGLAOT) FAEIVIER. 



667 



tention than anything else, it will not be fair 

 to set it down as an evidence of the increased 

 fertility of soil in that locality. 



Now let us examine this statement for one 

 moment. I am ignorant of the way the milk 

 was disposed of in the case referred to, but 

 will suppose it to have been sold at the door, 

 as the most profitable way of turning it into 

 money. I base my calculation on the price of 

 milk and feed hereabouts, within four or five 

 miles of the cities of Salem and Lj-nn, where 

 hay is worth thirty-five or forty dollars per 

 ton, and milk four to five cents a quart at the 

 door. Well, then, in order to get an income 

 of one hundred dollars per cow, with milk at 

 five cents, he must get an average of five and 

 a half quarts per day from each cow through 

 the year. This amount of milk might be ob- 

 tained with a new set of cows for the first 

 year, but I hardly think it could be kept up 

 the second year. Now I suppose Mr. Hyde 

 looked upon these cows as machines to work 

 up the raw material raised on the farm and 

 condense it into a more convenient form to be 

 turned into mooey. Mr. Hyde, it seems, has 

 made no allowance for keeping the cows. If 

 ■we take English hay as our basis and calculate 

 that twenty-five pounds per day, or its value 

 in other kinds of feed per cow, we shall find 

 that it will cost 41^ cents a day for the feed 

 of a cow, or as I will call it 42 cents to get 

 rid of the fraction. If the cows are stabled 

 from Nov. 1st to May 20th, as is the custom 

 here usually, it will be 201 days, at a cost of 

 $5.52 per day, or $1772.82 for the 201 days. 

 If we add $1 a day for attention, we have an 

 aggregate of $1'J73.82 as the cost of keeping 

 the twenty-one cows through the winter, to 

 say nothing about the summer keep. Deduct- 

 ing this from the income, leaves $126.18 as 

 the nett profit on the cows, over the cost of 

 wintering. 



Now I don't for one moment question the 

 truth of Mr. Hyde's statement, but I do say 

 that in my opinion it proves nothing at all in 

 regard to. profits of farming. I think that the 

 only true waj- to get at the real facts in the 

 case is to do as all other men do if they are 

 shrewd, where capital is invested, and that is 

 to charge interest on the capital stock, allow 

 for attention and depreciation, and give credit 

 for betterments, and then strike the balance, 

 and see whether there has been a gain or loss. 

 Tried by this standard, I believe that farming, 

 as a general thing, will prove not very remu- 

 nerating. 



I said above, that there should be an allow- 

 ance for attention ; by this 1 mean that the 

 farmer and his wife should be allowed a fair 

 compensation for their services. I see no rea- 

 son why tliey should work from "early morn 

 to dewy eve" for only a bare living, and not 

 lay by anything to make them comfortable 

 when old age takes them in a measure from 

 the active duties connected with the manage- 

 ment of the farm. 



Mr. Hyde's remarks on the subsoil are not 

 perhaps very guarded. He says "If of the 

 same mineral constitution as thfe surface soil, 

 then by a little care it can be made just as avail- 

 able for the production of cro{)s." The ques- 

 tion might be asked, if it is of the same min- 

 eral constituents as the surface soil what is the 

 use of turning it up as it will not change the 

 character of the soil ? 



The remarks upon drainage, it seems to me 

 are expressed in too broad terms altogether. 

 While I believe draining might be made use- 

 ful to a much greater extent than it is, yet to 

 assert the principle that it lays at the founda- 

 tion of successful farming in New England, 

 is overstepping the mark altogether. Far- 

 mers have been taught to believe that manure 

 lay at the foundation ; in fact, is the top and 

 bottom of all successful farming. Mr. Hyde 

 says, No, it is drainage. An opinion which a 

 large majority of practical farmers will be 

 slow to adopt. The future of New England 

 farming looks gloomy enough, with compe- 

 tition bearing down upon it from every quar- 

 ter. It becomes the farmer to be cautious 

 how he enhances the cost of his farm, or ex- 

 tends his operations ; as it is concentration, 

 and not expansion, that is needed. 



I make these remarks because I think that 

 such radical views often promulgated by agri- 

 cultural writers and speakers, are liable to mis- 

 lead the practical farmer who needs correct 

 information. .7. L. Hubbard. 



Feabody, Mass., Sept., 27., 1871. 



FALL MANURING. 



A year ago, I had ten acres of wheat seeded 

 down with clover, but on which the clover 

 failed. I wished very much to get it into clover, 

 and could hardly make up my mind to plough 

 it up. I thought the clover might still come in. 

 And so, innnediately after harvest, I top- 

 dressed it with barnyard manure, thinking that, 

 if the clover came in, the mauure would help 

 it, and if it did not, that it would at any rate 

 help any crop I might put on the land in the 

 spring. 



The clover did not come in. And so, with 

 great reluctance, I this spring ploughed it up^ 

 and drilled in three bushels of peas and one 

 bushel of oats per acre. The manure put on 

 the previous September was of good quality, 

 pretty well rotted, and we put on a liberal 

 dressing, say fifteen tons per acre. It was 

 spread as fast as drawn. The weather was hpt 

 and dry, and some of my neighbors thought 

 the manure would all be burnt up), or at any 

 rate that nearly all the virtue in it would evap- 

 orate and be lost. I never had any fears on 

 this score. We harrowed it once or twice last 

 fall, and re-spread any portion that the har- 

 rows pulled together ; and there the manure 

 lay, exposed on this bare ground, through the 

 fall and winter, until it was ploughed under in 

 the spring. 



