1866.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
89 
Walks and Talks on the Farm. 
No. 37. 
The 'Squire wants me to put some rotten manure 
for a foot or two round the trunks of the apple 
trees. I told him 1 did not see how it could do 
them much good. The roots probably extend for 
ten or fifteen feet on all sides of the trees, and it is 
principally from the extremities of the roots that 
the tree gets its food. 
To this he replied, " Because in the spring all rain 
runs down the trunli of the tree and so along the 
roots to the extremities, and if manure is put 
around the trunk, the water will carry its fertilizing 
Ingredients to the fibrous roots." Is there any 
truth in this idea ? Our best pomologists recom- 
mend enriching the whole land, and so far as I have 
read, agree in the assertion that manure applied 
merely for a foot or two about the trunk can do 
little good. And yet the practice of putting a little 
manure .at the base of the trees is very common. 
Is there any truth in the 'Squire's explanation ? 
I must confess that I do not exactly see, in case 
the whole surface is manured, how the manure gets 
to the roots. Where orch.ards arc plowed, the 
roots must be five or six inches below the surface, 
and it would seem from all the experiments of W.ay, 
and confirmed by Liebig, that manures, unless em- 
ployed in too excessive quantities, do not descend 
far into the subsoil. We might malvc the surface 
soil rich for six inches without furnishing to all the 
roots of the trees beneath, any nourishment. 
If this is true, it follows that the benefit of culti- 
vating the soil among trees is due not so much to 
Its enriching the soil, as to its keeping from the 
Bubsoil the roots of plants that would take up the 
moisture and plant-food that are needed for the 
roots of the fruit trees. We know that a grain or 
grass crop seriously cheeks the gj'owth of young 
trees, while cultivating the surface of the land fa- 
vors the growth and fruitfulness of the orchard. If 
we had some crop whose I'oots did not go more than 
two or three inches into the soil, I do not see that 
its growth would injure the trees. Perhaps beans 
come as near it as anything we have 
I hear that our school-teacher says that Mr. B. 
told her that " larnin^ and fannhi* d<in't go to- 
gether." — This is unkind in Friend B., but it docs 
not hit me. Some years ago the workingmen of 
Rochester determined to vote for no one who 
was not one of their number. They would not 
have a professional man on their ticket. After the 
Elate was made up, it was discovered, to their con- 
Bternation, that they had nominated a young lawyer 
for the office of district attornej'. " Oh well, never 
mind," said their leader, " he is not lawyer enough 
to hurt him." It is so of my larnin'. I think " me 
and my neighbors" are perfectly safe. If larnin' is 
the only drawback to successful farmin', it will be 
hard to beat us. 
I am not surprised at the prejudice that exists 
against " boolc farming." There is good reason for 
it. As the Agriculturist said last month, " Popular 
Bcienee is too apt to be popuUar error." I have 
just been reading an article in one of the leading 
agricultural journals of Eugland, in which the 
writer betrays an ignor.ance that is inexcusable. It 
is a review of the " Sixth Annual Report of the 
Board of Agriculture in Victoria," one of the Aus- 
tralian colonics. The writer says they are trying 
" to render the practice of agriculture in strict 
accordance with modern science,iuste:id of adopting 
the ruinous system of working the land out by in- 
cessantly cropping it with cereals, as is the practice 
in America." Further on we are told Ihat " the 
colony at present does not grow ^iiheat enough for 
its own conaumption!" H.ad we followed the advice 
of this writer, the same would have been true of 
America. We may have erred in growing too 
ranch grain. It would have been better had we 
paid more attention to keeping up the fertilitj' of 
the soil. But those people who are continually 
barping about "the exhaustion of the soil in Amer- 
ica " do not Icnow what they are talking about. 
The most that can be said is, that we found a soil 
that had been heavily manured by nature, and that 
we have grown wheat and other grains till this 
manure is pretty much exhausted. This is all. The 
soil is not exhausted. We have hardly as yet made 
any draft upon it. 
But this is not what I was going to speak about. 
It seems that the great enemy to the wheat plant 
in Victoria is the rust, and a chemist has been em- 
ployed to analyze the soil, in order to discover the 
cause. He found, according to our English critic, 
that in the sections where the rust was most preva- 
lent, the soil was deficient in phospliates. Some of 
the soils, he says, contained no phosphate at all. If 
so, there would have been no wheat to rust : for 
wheat cannot grow without phosphates — and the 
same is true of grass. I know of no ordinary plant, 
even a weed, that does not contain phosphates, .and 
if such plants grow on a soil it is proof positive 
that there are phosphates in the soil, whether the 
chemist can detect them or not. 
On some of the soils ho found 0.71 per cent, of 
phosph.atcs, and these are the only figures given. 
The writer says " with such adeficiency of the most 
essential elements of a good wheat soli, it is not 
surprising that a failure should occur, but rather 
that wheat should grow at all." Now an acre of 
soil twelve inches deep would weigh about 3,000,000 
lbs., so that if it contained only 0.71 per cent, of 
phosphates, an acre would contain 21,300 lbs. 
A crop of wheat of fifty bushels per acre contains, 
in grain and straw, about 70 lbs. of phosphates; so 
that this land, which is said to be so deficient in 
phosphates, contains enough for tlii'ee hundred suc- 
cessive crops of wheat of 50 bushels per acre. And 
this is assuming that the straw is removed from the 
land and no manure of any kind is applied to the 
soil! Truly, as Friend B. says, larnin' and farmin' 
do not go together. — Mark yon, I do not s.ay that 
a deficiency of phosphates or of lime is not the 
cause of the rust in whe.at. All I claim is that an 
analysis will not show the f^xct. The only way it 
can be ascertained is to apply some phosphates, or 
some lime, to a portion of the land, and see if it 
prevents the rust. 
In this section, last season, our wheat rusted 
badly, and had the crop been attacked a week or 
ten days earlier, the damage would have been quite 
serious. As it was, except on low, wet land, the 
rust was confined pretty much to the leaves, and 
did not appear before the grain was so far advanced 
that the juices in the straw were sufficient to ma- 
ture the grain. In the Western States rust very 
frequently proves a serious enemy to the wheat 
crop. There is no known remedy. In this ease, as 
in the case of the midge, the great aim should he 
to get the crop as early as possible. 
Why cannot we burn our own lime ? On nearly 
all farms in this section we have abundance of 
limestone, that by burning makes excellent lime. 
The cost of a kiln is but little, and on many farms 
there is enough rough wood that cannot be sold, to 
burn all the lime needed to manure the land. I am 
satisfied that we must use more lime. Except in a few 
localities the practice of liming is almost unknown 
in our agriculture. I know many people think 
that where the rocks are principally limestone 
there is no necessity of liming. But while this 
m.ay be true in individual cases, it is by no means 
true as a rule. Land in England th.at rests on the 
chalk (which is a soft limestone) is found to be 
greatly benefited by the application of rune. In 
the few cases where I have heard of lime being used 
hereabouts, it has had an excellent effect, the only 
drawback being its great cost. They ask 2.5 to 30 
cents a bushel for it. In England it is estimated 
that the farmer can quarry six tons of limestone 
and burn it, for $4.ii0, including interest on capital, 
tools, etc. These Ei.x tons yield about 100 bushels 
of lime, so that the cost is only four cents a bushel. 
Where larger and better constructed kilns arc used, 
the cost of burning is much less, though the first 
outlay is greater Even supposing it cost us three 
times as much as this, I believe we could use 50 
to 100 bushels per acre witli profit. For grass, 
clover, pe.as, and barley, there is nothing like lime. 
The grass is thicker at the bottom, sweeter, heavier 
and more nutritious. The weeds and moss are 
choked out, and white clover and valuable grasses 
take their place. 
Relatively to wheat, barley is now lower thon it 
has been for many years. The Arjriailturist last 
month quotes barley in New Tork at 85 cents to 
$1.15 ; and red and amber wlicat at .?1,C2 to $3.25 ; 
in other words, wheat is worth as much again as 
barley. Two years ago I predicted* that this would 
be the case. In 1860, at this time, the best red 
wheat was worth in New Tork $1,30, and the best 
barley 85 cents. In 1801 red wheat was worth 81.40 
and barley SO cents. Before the close of 1863 the 
best red wheat sold for $1.-15, and barley for SI. CO. 
Barley is sold by weight at 48 lbs. per bushel and 
wheat at CO lbs., so that at the above prices 100 
lbs. of wheat and barley were worth : 
Wheat. Barley. 
S2.41 .. $3,33 
4.25 .. 2.40 
}Vheat. Barley. 
1800 .. ?3.1C .. $1.77 I 1863 
1861 .. 3.33 .. 1. CO 1860 
As compared with other grains, except wheat, 
barley still commands a good price. It is higher 
here than in England, and we ought to be able to 
grow it with a profit. The Canadian farmers beat 
us in raising barley, and yet their soil and climate 
are no better than ours. They take more pains 
with the crop. It seems strange, but is neverthe- 
less true, that thousands of bushels of Canadian 
barley are sent to the large cities of the West. The 
last number of the Prairie Farmer quotes barley in 
Chicago at from .30 to 60 cents for common to good 
grades, and $1.30 to SI, 30 for choice grades of 
Canada. It would seem from this, that the West 
does not raise good barley. If the " Reciprocity 
Treaty" with Canada is not renewed, the proba- 
bilities are, that barley of prime quality will com- 
mand a high price next fall, and we shall be safe in 
putting in a good breadth this spring. 
The great difficulty in raising barley is, to got it 
in early enough. The land should be rich, and as 
mellow as a garden. A good, strong loam, if thor- 
oughly pulverized, produces heavier crops than the 
lighter soils. But a light, warm, dry, sandy loam, 
if rich enough, generally produces the best barley, 
for the reason that it is difficult to get the heavier 
soils in fine tilth early in the season. On the light 
soils, a little artificial manure, if it can be obtained 
of good quality and at a fair price, can be used with 
great advantage to the barley crop. It will increase 
the yield and improve the quality — and it is giiulily 
that should be the principal aim. Think of common 
barley selling in Chicago at .30 cents per bushel, and 
choice at S1.30 ! I think 100 lbs, of genuine Pe- 
ruvian guano, mixed with 200 lbs. of a good super- 
phosphate, would, in a fair season, on dry, well 
prepared land, sown early, give us from 40 to .50 
bushels of barley per acre. 
One of my neighbors was telling me yesterday, 
that be intended breaking up an old meadow this 
spring, and summer fallowing it for wheat, I ad- 
vised him not to do it, I did the same thing two 
years ago ; I broke up an old meadow in June and 
summer-fallowed it at considerable expense, and 
did not get as good a crop as I did from wheat 
sown after barley. A farmer near Cauandaigua 
says he observed the same thing. John Johnston 
also writes me on the subject. He says : " I no- 
ticed some time .ago, that you stated your wheat 
was not so good on your old sod-fallow as on your 
barley stubble. I often thought to write that I 
never got a really good crop of whe.at on old sod 
fallowed, but have had good crops on old sod by 
plowing only once, .and keeping the surface mellow 
with the cultivator and harrow. But a better w.ay 
is, to take a summer crop from old sod and fallow 
the following year. This is almost sure to give the 
very best wheat crops. My practice for over 27 
years was to keep my best wheat land in fallow 
and wheat alternately— sowing clover among the 
• " Walks anil Talks " in Genesee Farmer. 1864, p. 203. 
