1867.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
289 
far better thau on the rest of the field. I should 
not be surprised if the yield was one-third or 
one-half greater, and this will a good deal more 
thau pay for the clover seed. With such effects 
it is not surprising that so many good farmers 
object to raising clover seed. But I think it is 
nevertheless true that if the money obtained for 
the seed is expended in oil-cake, and the manure 
returned to the land, there is a decided gain. 
You do not see the effect, however, quite so 
soon as if the clover was pastured with sheep, 
or plowed under. 
You may recollect, I asked your opinion as to 
whether a clover field that was cut for seed 
would give a good crop of clover the next sea- 
son. I had such a field, and, not being willing 
to risk the whole, I plowed up half of it and 
planted potatoes, and the other half I left for 
hay. The clover is not quite as good as the first 
crop was last year, but much better than I ex- 
pected. 'I sowed no timothy, but there is quite 
a sprinkling of it among the clover, and I shall 
l«Nce a fair crop of hay. I presume, neverthe- 
less) that a heavy crop of seed weakens the 
clover plant very materially, and, as a rule, it 
should not be allowed to go to seed except in 
cases where it is to be plowed up the next season. 
This morning I was up unusually early, and 
saw a Dominique rooster in a cherry tree picking 
off the fruit almost as neatly as a robin. During 
the day, when we are around, they do not med- 
dle with them. The little chickens eat the 
strawberries, but the hens seem to know better, 
although they occasionally take a slice out of a 
Trollope's Victoria or an Agriculturist. They 
leave us all the Wilson's. If chickens are well 
fed, they do comparatively little injury iu the 
garden. The ducks have done us the most 
damage this year, as they manifest a great par- 
tiality for green peas. They gobbled up a whole 
Vow of Daniel O'Rourke's, and if we had not 
shut them up, the}' would have left us scarcely 
a pea in the garden. I suppose the only way is 
• to have a large yard and JfrtPferase where you 
can shut up the poultry when they prove troub- 
lesome. The next best thing is to feed them 
all they will eat, and keep them out of the gar- 
den as much as possible. A garden with a high 
fence round it is not at all ornamental. 
A gentleman in Huntington, Conn., writes 
me that he has sown twelve acres of corn, in- 
tending to plow it in for manure, but would like 
to know my opinion as to " whether it would 
not be better to cure it and feed it out." I judge 
from the fact that corn is the crop selected, the 
land is not a heavy clay, and that the object in 
plowing it under is simply to furnish manure, 
and not to loosen the soil. This being the case, 
the only point lobe determined is, whether the 
feed will not pay for the expense of curing and 
storing the crop, and drawing back the manure. 
If the manure does not drain away, but is all 
saved, it will be worth within five per cent, as 
much as if the crop was plowed under. This is 
true, I think, even if tlWxrop is fed out to milch 
cows. The milk will not carry off more than 
five per cent, of the nitrogen and phosphates. 
If fed to dry cows, the loss will be still less. And 
if, as is too often the case, the cows are no heavier 
in the spring than in the fall — if, in other words, 
the animals have neither grown or got fatter, I 
do not see where there can bo any loss except ill 
the carbonaceous matter used to keep up the 
animal heat. Where can there be any loss of 
nitrogen or phosphate ? or of potash, soda, lime, 
magnesia, etc.? There is soda in the blood, but 
there is no more blood in the animal than 
there was at the commencement of winter. 
There are phosphates and lime in the bones, but 
there has been no increase of bones. There is 
nitrogen in the flesh, but for each pound of new 
flesh added, a pound of old flesh has been trans- 
formed, and the nitrogen from this is exactly 
equal to the nitrogen taken from the food. There 
is, therefore, no loss. The manure will contain 
as much plant food, except carbonaceous matter, 
as the food consumed by the animal. The ques- 
tion then is simply, what is the value of an acre of 
cured corn fodder, say three tons ? A good-sized 
cow would probably eat from 30 to 35 pounds 
a day, and the three tons would last her about 
six months. Now what is it worth to winter a 
cow ? A cow weighing from 900 to 1000 pounds 
will eat about 200 pounds of hay a week. With 
hay at $10 per ton, this would make the cost of 
keeping a cow six months $26. If we estimate 
the manure worth half the price of the hay, we 
have $13 as the actual value of the food given 
to a cow during six months. What farmer in the 
New England or Middle States will winter a cow 
for less? Now in plowing under clover or corn 
fodder as a green manure we lose this sum, less 
the cost of cutting and curing the crop and the 
expense of drawing back the manure. Many 
farmers make a great deal more than this from 
their feed. One would think few could make 
less. In this section the past spring, hay was sold 
for a short time at $30 to $35 per ton, and it 
would seem in such circumstances to be worse 
than folly to plow under good hay or fodder, 
when, by feeding it to animals, we get the same 
benefit from the manure, and have the food in 
addition. 
If the present, drouth continues, many of us 
would like these twelve acres of green corn for 
our milch cows. But if the corn can not be 
used for this purpose, and if it can not be cut 
and cured, or used to good advantage when it 
is cured, why then, plow it under. It is a very 
low order of farming, but is a good deal better 
than skinning the land by selling all the hay 
and straw. 
I am not sure that a good summer fallow 
would not enrich land just as much as plowing 
under a crop of com. If not, why not ? On 
very sandy soil, where some of the elements of 
plant food may be washed out of the soil, a crop 
that would organize and retain it may be better 
than a summer fallow. And on a very heavy 
soil, where you waut the mechanical action of 
the green manure for loosening the soil, plowing 
under the crop may produce better reSults. 
But otherwise I do riot exactly see %*hat we 
gain from plowing under a crop of corn. It 
must be confessed, however, that we do not 
know enough to speak very positively on the 
point. It may be that the large quantity of 
carbonaceous matter plowed under iu the green 
crop, may, in fermenting, form organic acids that 
act on the latent plant, food in the soil, and ren- 
der it available. Or, at all events, tho carbonic 
acid ultimately formed, doubtless has such an 
effect. I have always supposed, however, that 
we get enough of such matter from the roots 
and stubble, in proportion to other ingredients, 
without plowing under a whole crop. So far 
as wheat is concerned, I have never known an 
application of carbonaceous matter, directly 
or indirectly, attcuded with any increase of the 
grain. It will give more straw. And those 
farmers who tell us that the reason they can 
not grow as good wheat as formerly, is not ow- 
ing to the land being poorer, because they get 
straw enough for forty bushels per acre, while 
the crop only turns out 20 bushels, should con- 
sider whether they are not furnishing too much 
carbonaceous matter to the soil, and too little 
nitrogen and phosphates. 
"What about the price of wheat?" asks an 
old friend. It is not safe to predict. I hope 
we shall have 'a good crop. The country needs 
it. Manufacturers need it, the Secretary of the 
Treasury is looking anxiously at the grain fields 
of the West, and farmers themselves need it as 
much as any other class to pay high wages and 
still higher taxes. I am inclined to think we 
shall have a fair crop, and I hope for fair prices. 
The markets of the world are bare of wheat. 
There is no accumulation any where. High 
prices have brought it all out. Iu such circum- 
stances, it would seem that the new crop should 
command at least as much as. the cost of pro- 
duction. Such will be the case if farmers will 
not sell for less. Manufacturers sometimes sell, 
they say, for less than cost. But they frequently 
make largo profits. Farmers never do. Then 
agar% a manufacturer fears to hold, because 
there may be a change of fashion, but the fash- 
ion for wheat does not change. It is always 
wanted. I am aware that consumers have much 
to say about the extortion of farmers. The 
clfitrge is unfounded. It is vain to expect that 
wheat can be grown as cheaply as it was 25 or 
30 years ago. In this section, I do not see, with 
the present cost of implements, wages, and tax- 
es, how wheat can be grown for less than $1.50 
per bushel, even if you get the laud for nothing. 
You may oil rich iffiu raise it for less, but you 
take enough out of the laud to make up the dif- 
ference. Your land will become poorer. If 
means are taken to keep up the fertility of the 
soil, we can not grow a bushel of wheat for less 
thau $1.50 a bushel. And if we expect an in- 
terest for the money invested in the farm, we 
ought to get $2.00 a bushel. At $2.50, a good 
farmer will get ample remuneration. But when 
the crop does not average over 15 bushels per 
acre, the profits, even at this figure, are not daz- 
zling. I have made up my mind to sell when 
I can get $2.25 for red wheat. If consumers 
can not pay this, let them curtail their expenses 
in some other direction. Farmers need the 
money more than French milliners. 
Wheat, in England, is now worth from 60s. 
to 75s. a quarter of eight bushels. Now, as an 
English shilling is 24 cents of our money, if we 
multiply the price per quarter by 3, we get the 
price in dollars and cents. Sixty shillings a 
quarter, therefore, is $1.80 a bushel. Seventy- 
five shillings a quarter is $2.25 per bushel. This 
is in gold. With gold at 110, $1.80 in gold is 
worth $2.52, and $2.25 in gold is worth $3.15. 
Wheat, in England, thcrfore, is worth iu our 
money, from $2.52 to $8.16 per bushel. 
The Agriculturist should tell us next mouth, 
what it costs to send wheat to Liverpool, and 
London, and wc can then form some idea as to 
what prices we should expect for our wheat. 
As I understand it, wheat has been for several 
months higher here than in England, and con- 
sequently none was exported. But since the 
recent decline of $1.00 a bushel in New York, 
wheat can be exported with a profit, and as long 
as this is the case, it will be no lower. If we 
raise more wheat this year than is wanted by 
our own rapidly increasing population, the price 
will depend ou the foreign demand. Wc cer- 
tainly shall not have enough tosparcto glut the 
markets, and fanners should insist ou receiv- 
ing fair prices— and sell when such arc offered. 
