218 
TO MAKE FRUIT TREES THRIFTY.-FENCES.-GEDDES HARROW. 
TO MAKE FRUIT TREES THRIFTY. 
In the month of March wash them as high as a 
man can reach with one quart of whale oil soap di¬ 
luted in fifteen gallons of water; and if in April 
there are caterpillars, give them another dose; then 
put round the roots of the apple and pear trees two 
or three shovels full of charcoal dust or anthracite 
ashes; to the peach, plum, and nectarine trees, I have 
tried various experiments, yet have hitherto been 
most pleased with tobacco stems, which are purchas¬ 
ed at two cents per bushel Half a peck of stems 
round each tree is sufficient. The roots are first laid 
bare ; the tobacco is then placed over them and 
covered with soil. To this, three or four shovels full 
of anthracite ashes may be added with advantage. 
The past spring I have tried on all, save peach and nec¬ 
tarine trees—which were so diseased by worms that 
1 ordered them cut up—an application of warm (not 
hot) coal tar from the gas house. We first removed 
the earth from the roots, picked out the worms, and 
then with a painter’s brush covered the trunk of the 
tree eight inches up from the roots. After this the 
soil was immediately replaced around the tree. The 
effect was astonishing. In May we applied half a 
pint of guano as a top dressing to each tree, and 
thriftier trees, fuller of fruit, and with a deeper, 
richer green foliage, cannot be seen. I mean to trdat 
all my peaches in this way, as the cheapest and best 
manner of protecting them. Two peach trees I gave 
up last fall as past all hope of saving. On these I 
tried an experiment of putting to each fifteen gallons 
of urine, .neutralized with a peck of plaster of Paris. 
The trees are now living, and the leaves are green; 
but whether they will thrive well remains to be seen. 
I think, however, the dose will effect a cure; and if 
so, it is worth knowing. You shall have the result 
hereafter. R. L. Colt. 
Paterson, N. /., June 5, 1845. 
FENCES. 
I have noticed in particular what you have said, 
in regard to the barbarous custom of enclosing land 
with fences. Now, I like your plain, honest blunt¬ 
ness, in attacking some errors which our forefathers 
fell into, and to which we, their descendants, so per¬ 
tinaciously adhere. This is sometimes the only 
way to provoke discussion, and then good may result 
from it. I, for one, have spent much of the strength 
of my days, clearing up and fencing a few acres of 
land, and it has cost me more sweat and money to do 
it, than all {pecuniarily speaking) that I or my pos¬ 
terity can ever get for it. But I have done the best I 
could, and am satisfied. I can conceive, that in a 
country where there are no stones for fencing, such a 
system as you advocate, might and ought speedily to 
obtain; but in all stony and mountainous districts, 
it would be more difficult. True, stones if cleared 
from land, might be put into places of deposit, and 
sunk into the earth with less cost than fencing. But 
it strikes me, that this is not so easy and practicable 
as on plain lands. Will you give me a little more 
light on the subject ? L. D. Clift. 
Carmel , Putnam Co., N. Y. 
Within the past few weeks we have received seve¬ 
ral letters of a similar purport to the above, and judg¬ 
ing from these, our articles on the subject of fences 
are likely to aliract more favor than we at first sup¬ 
posed they would, and do some good, though we are 
not so sanguine as to believe that changes will be 
very rapid. Some say they shall abolish half (he 
division fences on their own lands this year, and hope 
ultimately to be rid of them entirely ; others write 
that when their present fences decay they shall not 
renew; again, those who were planning vsnous new 
divisions, declare they shall give them up,—adding in 
repeated instances, that their fences alone, for the last 
30 years, have cost as much as the farms would sell 
for now, exclusive of the buildings 1 
Where it becomes necessary to clear the land of 
stones, and it is about as cheap to lay them up in 
fences as to otherwise dispose of them, we should 
have no objection to their being used in this manner. 
But this is seldom the case, and instead of fencing, 
we would recommend farmers to cast about and see 
if there are not bridges to build; causeways to make ; 
ditches and ravines to fill up ; roads to Macadamize: 
and farm-buildings, though the first cost is greatest 
when made of stone, instead of wood, yet they last so 
much longer they prove cheaper in the end. Stone 
is wanted for various other purposes which we 
need not enumerate ; and to the person who wishes 
to get rid of them without embarrassing himself with 
fences, he will, without much teaching, find many a 
place for their safe deposit. We respectfully com¬ 
mend the subject to the consideration of our hard¬ 
working yeomanry. 
GEDDES*H ARROW. 
I observed in the American Agriculturist for this 
month, a cut of my harrow, accompanied by some 
remarks that seem to require notice. 
Messrs. Ruggles, Nourse, and Mason, say, they 
have “ made some improvements in it; such as to 
confine each tooth with a screw nut and washer, 
tapering the tenon of the tooth through the timber, 
which does away with all liability to become loose.” 
Upon a prairie where there are no stones, and 
teeth very seldom require sharpening, this may be an 
improvement; but upon the stony hills of New Eng¬ 
land, or Western New York, it will be found that 
the old way, of making the teeth of extra length, and 
leaving them some distance above the top of the tim¬ 
ber, in the first instance, that they may be many 
times sharpened, before they become too short, is the 
best. A nut by drawing the tooth up in tightening 
it, shortens it, and the wear of the earth below short¬ 
ens it, so that between both these causes, the teeth 
will soon require to have pieces welded on to restore 
them to their proper length. As to the superior 
finish that Messrs. R. N. and M. give the harrow, 
no one who has used as many of their superb imple¬ 
ments as I have, can for a moment doubt. 
Mr. Wilkinson, of Union Yale, has “ arranged 
handles for lifting the harrow when clogged—it has 
round iron teeth, instead of square ones, with a pair 
of draught clevies.” 
The handles were shown at Poughkeepsie, and to 
the driver may be of some advantage; but they ren¬ 
der the harrow much less portable, as with them on, 
one half cannot be turned over on the other. As to 
the round teeth, I am not able to discover their supe¬ 
riority. The pair of “ clevies,” remind me of my first 
attempt at hitching on to my harrow, a short chain 
fastened at each end to one of the centre pieces, and 
