40 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[February, 
even the next crop was better on this than on 
the 6 inch plowing, and the 10 inch was better 
than the 8 inch, showing that air and freezing 
ameliorated its narsh qualities, and that when 
tliis was done, its greater depth was more con¬ 
genial to the plants. 
Not being able to spare the field that year for 
further uncertain experiments, I sowed it to 
wheat. After the removal of the crop, a light 
coating of manure was spread on and turned un¬ 
der with the stubble, running the plow 8 inches 
deep. Upon the plowed surface I sowed broad¬ 
cast and harrowed in 100 bushels of lime on the 
four acres plowed 12 inches deep; 40 bushels 
on the two acres plowed 10 inches; 30 bushels 
on the two acres plowed 8 inches; and 20 bush¬ 
els on the 0 inch plowing. The wheat was then 
sown and harrowed in, rather late, but I obtain¬ 
ed a good yield—the best on the 10 inch plow¬ 
ing, as above stated. Clover seed was sown on 
the growing wheat in the Spring of 1854, and a 
good setting obtained. In the Autumn of this 
year, having read your series of articles on drain¬ 
ing, I determined to experiment again. Drain 
HOW MB. JONES DRAJNED. 
tiles were out of the question as none were to 
be had ; so I resorted to stones. A considerable 
supply of small round stones, with some bolders, 
had accumulated around the fence and in heaps 
where we had piled them as they had been ■ 
gathered year after year from the surface. The 
larger stones were broken into convenient pieces, 
as broad and long as we could make them. A 
supply of flat stones was also obtained from a 
quarry two miles distant. 
My drains were put 40 feet apart, running 
from the road back across the field, which rose 
about three feet in 30 rods. We opened the 
drains by using the plow to throw out the earth 
each way, continuing to go back and forth until 
the cattle could no longer walk, when we re¬ 
sorted to*the spade, aud sometimes to the pick, 
to loosen the hard subsoil. A trench was 
made 3 to 31 feet deep, and 15 inches wide in the 
bottom. Boards 4 inches wide were laid along 
the middle, and then cobble stones, G to 8 inches 
in diameter placed along each side. The larger 
broken pieces, and the flat stones from the 
quarry were used as covering. The smaller 
stones were then thrown in as we chanced to 
have them. Some wheat straw was put on, 
and about a foot of soil thrown back with the 
shovel. After this had settled somewhat firmly, 
we filled in the rest with a plow, using a long 
yoke, so that the oxen could walk on either 
side of the ditch. When covered, the top of 
the stones were about 2 feet below the surface. 
We worked at this ditching for nearly a year, 
at odd spells, as we could find time. I employed 
two newly arrived Irishmen who were handy 
with the spade, and but little acquainted with 
other work, paying them $7 to $8 a month and 
boarding them, aud using them for other work 
when it could be done to advantage. 
The outside cost of the 775 rods of drains, did 
not exceed $160, or $16 per acre; for most of it 
was done when the men and teams would not 
have been doing much elsewhere; but had it 
cost $500, it would have been money well put 
out. I should have remarked, that while the 
draining was going on during the summer of 
1855, the field was used for a pasture, and 
though considerably broken, it afforded a good 
deal of feed. 
In the Autumn of 1855 I put on what manure 
x could spare, about seven wagon loads to the 
acre, using most over the ditches where the 
clover was not growing. Tfie manure and 
second growth of clover were turned under, and 
350 pounds per acre of plaster sowed on and 
harrowed in, after which wheat was sown. 
No clover seed was sown in Spring. The yield 
of wheat harvested in 1856, was 261 bushels per 
acre, against 21 k bushels on an adjoining field, 
similar to it in all respects, except in not being 
underdrained. This looked like paying at once, 
the extra 51 bushels of wheat per acre, being 
fully 30 per cent interest on the cost of draining. 
Solomon Jones. 
. ( Concluded, m next Number .) 
--- 
Experience in Liming Land. 
[Our questions on the use of lime, page 11, are having 
the desired results, viz., to call out experience. Here is a 
straight-forward account, and our readers will understand, 
that it is from one who says he has never written a line 
for a paper before. If farmers only thought so, any of 
them could describe in a similar, plain, practical manner, 
the methods and results of their various operations. Ed.] 
Mr. Editor : In answer to your questions, I 
will say that I have used over 25,000 bushels of 
lime on my land during fifteen years past, and 
ought at least to know something about it. My 
land is a heavy limestone soil, with heavy clay 
subsoil, not considered wet. The lime used, is 
burned from our “ blue stone,” and costs 9 to 10 
cents per bushel, delivered. I use it air-slaked, 
or slaked with water, as may happen, only tak¬ 
ing care that it be fine like flour, and not drown¬ 
ed with water. I apply 150 bushels to the acre, 
once in 20 years—the second application not as 
heavy as the first. [There must be a mistake 
here as to the “ 20 years,” the writer having 
used lime only 15 years. See March “ Basket.” 
—Ed.] It is applied on clover sod, and used for 
all crops, but manuring must not be neglected. 
Now for the practical results. In 1845 
I limed part of a field with 80 bushels to 
the acre, on oat stubble, with stable manure. 
The remainder of the field was also manured, 
but without lime from that day to this. There 
was no difference in the crops in favor of the 
lime, which I can only account for on the sup¬ 
position that there was not enough lime put on. 
Two years following, I limed a different field 
with 150 bushels to the acre on clover sod, some 
time in June. One acre, however, was left with¬ 
out lime, as I have been always ready to try 
some experiment. The lime was well air slak¬ 
ed, and then spread on the clover, and 
plowed under in July very shallow. In Septem¬ 
ber I plowed it the same depth, to mix the lime 
with the clover, aud sowed it to wheat. In four 
weeks after the wheat was up, you could see 
a great difference in favor of the lime. At har¬ 
vest, the limed part of the field had one third 
more wheat than the other, which would more 
than pay for the lime the first year. The fol¬ 
lowing crop was Fall barley, with the same re¬ 
sult. Then it was put in clover, also with same 
result. No sorrel to be seen on the limed part, 
while the unlimed was very full. Then wheat 
followed again, with the same good result. Then 
it was put down in clover, but missed on ac¬ 
count of the drouth. It the Spring following it 
was plowed, and put in corn, which grew 
very well for the first 4 weeks, when that on 
the limed part became yellow, striped, and sickly. 
I first concluded it was the wireworm, but never 
could find any. I came to the conclusion that 
it must be the lime, and on examination I found 
the unlimed part not affected, and the result 
was in favor of the unlimed 50 per cent. Now, 
I have often heard farmers say that their corn 
was injured by the wire-worm, but, in five cases 
out of six, I suspect it is the use of lime without 
manure, or some vegetable substance. I would 
advise all my brother farmers to make, gather 
and save all the manure they can, for lime 
without manure, will make a man poor. In all 
my experience, I have received the most benefit 
from liming on the sod, at any time, even if not 
plowed under for a year afterward. The quan¬ 
tity per acre depends on the kind of soil. 
Cumberland, Co., Pa. J. M. 
- — - ■» » <— - - —■ - 
A New Silk Worm—Substitute for Cotton. 
The following is condensed for the American, 
Agriculturist , from our foreign files. The infor¬ 
mation appears to be reliable, and is given with¬ 
out comment by Dr. Lindley in the Gardeners’ 
Chronicle. Here is, perhaps, a new field of enter¬ 
prise opened—though we are not ready to en¬ 
dorse all the new discoveries of our French co¬ 
laborers. The account runs as follows: 
In March, 1859, a request was made of the 
French Emperor to provide the means of mak¬ 
ing an experiment on a large scale for the rear¬ 
ing of a new kind of Silkworm, which lives in 
the open air on a very hardy plant, the ailante , 
and produces two crops a year of a strong silky 
fiber which has been used for ages past in China, 
to make clothes for the great mass of the people. 
The authority was immediately granted, and 
the result, as now published, surpasses all expec¬ 
tations. More than three-fourths of the worms 
produced excellent cocoons, and it is now fully 
ascertained that the new worm gives a profit 
of 100 per cent, and often much more, whereas 
the Mulberry Silkworm is considered very 
successM when it makes a return of 15 per cent 
on the capital employed. The silk of the ailcmte 
is of inferior quality, well adapted for coarse 
fabrics, and will form an excellent substitute for 
cotton, of which France annually imports 
162,900,000 pounds from the United States. M. 
Guerin Meneville, who was the first to intro¬ 
duce the new silk into France, proposes to call 
it ailantine. He is now studying the best means 
of promoting the production and manufacture 
of the new silk, which he thinks will ere long 
supply the chief clothing of the people. The 
ailante on which the worm feeds, is the Ailan- 
tus glandulosa , one of the hardiest of trees, and 
very common in American cities and towns. 
-->—-— 
Our Cities—Population and Rank. 
The following table will be interesting for 
present examination and future reference. It 
will be seen that the growth of several of the 
cities has been remarkable—8 of them having 
more than doubled in ten years. The first col¬ 
umn shows the relative rank in 1860, and the 
last column the rank in 1850: 
Rank 
in ’60. City. 
1— Hew-York... 
2— Philadelphia 
3— Brooklyn.273,425 
4— Baltimore... 
5— Boston. ... 
6— N ew-Orleans.170,766 
7— St. Louis_ 
8— Cincinnati.. 
9— Chicago. 
10— Buffalo. 84,000 
11 — Louisville. 
12— Newavk, N. J. 
13— San Francisco 
14— Washington.. 
15 — Providence_ 
16 — Rochester. 43,006 
17— Detroit. 46,831 
18— Milwaukee. 45,323 
19— Cleveland. 43,550 
20— Charleston, S. C.... 40,102 
21— Troy. 39,653 
22— Richmond. 37,958 
23 — Lowell. 37,069 
21 — New-Haven. 30,277 
25— 1 ersey City. 20,256 
26— Hartford.29,168 
27— Cambridge. 26,074 
28— Roxbury.25,137 
29— Charlestown, Mass. 10n 
30— Worcester.. 
81—Nashville. Ti 
32— Reading, Pa. 
33— Salem. 
I860. 
1850. 
Actual Inc. S’k 
Increase per c. ’50. 
. .814,277 
515,647 
298,730 
5S— 1 
. .50)8,034 
408,862 
159,272 
34- 2 
. .273,425 
96,S38 
176,587 
182— 1 
..214,037 
169,054 
44,983 
27- 3 
136,881 
41,021 
30— 4 
..170,766 
115,375 
5*1,391 
47- 6 
..162,179 
77,800 
84,310 
108— S 
.160,060 
116,435 
44,025 
99— 5 
.100,420 
20,963 
79,457 
265-18 
42,251 
41,739 
99—11 
.. 75,196 
43,194 
32,002 
74- 9 
.. 72,055 
S8.S91 
33,101 
85-14 
. .. 66,000 
31,870 
31,130 
89-16 
.. 61,400 
40,001 
21,399 
53-13 
.. 50,689 
41,513 
9,156 
22—rt 
32-15 
36,403 
11,693 
.. 46,834 
21,019 
25,815 
123-21 
.. 45,323 
20,061 
25,262 
120—24 
17,0:34 
26,516 
156 — 29 
.. 40,102 
42,1)85 
loss 2,791 
lose 6—10 
.. 39,653 
28,785 
10,863 
36—19 
.. 37,958 
27,570 
10,388 
37-20 
.. 37,069 
33,383 
3,686 
11-17 
20,315 
18,392 
90—22 
.. 29,256 
6,856 
22,400 
327—35 
.. 29,168 
17,966 
11,202 
62-26. 
.. 26,074 
15,215 
10,859 
71 — 33 
.. 25,137 
18,364 
6,773 
37—25 
25,120 
17,216 
7,904 
4G— 
.. 24,963 
17,019 
7,914 
46-23 
.. 23,715 
10,165 
18,550 
133—34 
.. 23,171 
15,743 
7,*128 
47-31 
.. 22,486 
20,265 
2,222 
11—23 
.. 22,309 
... 20,132 
16,443 
10,977 
5,866 
9,155 
36-36 
83—31 
