1877.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
tion'would show that a number of persons, equal 
to the country and village population of the 
whole of New England might be supported by the 
work of women and children and aged people—do¬ 
ing work that is done only by hand. Of one thing 
we may be sure. Should an attempt be made to 
concentrate the families of thirty or forty farmers 
into a village, there would be no difficulty in find¬ 
ing some single branch of industry that would fur¬ 
nish employment for the inefficient members of the 
community. If the locations and conditions of the 
Villages were suitable, a far more attractive and 
profitable field'is open in the very productive in¬ 
dustry of “ taking summer hoarders.” The expe¬ 
rience of village summer boarding-houses now ex¬ 
isting, furnishes ample evidence in support of this. 
Then, too, the field for cooperative industry in 
every branch of agriculture is almost unlimited. 
Whatever one man can do alone—whether in the 
way of breeding improved stock, cultivating, grain 
or root crops, making butter or cheesej or selling 
anything that he may produce—may he much bet¬ 
ter and more effectively done if twenty of his near 
neighbors are engaged in the same interests, and if 
their forces are united to secure the best males, 
the best seeds, and implements, the best means of 
manufacture, and the best reputation in the market. 
We are, of course, a very long way off from any 
such radical change of our customs as the village 
idea suggests, and, in one sense, it is a waste of 
words to talk about the details of a general scheme 
that nobody as yet thinks of attempting. On the 
other hand, however, all thoughtful men who are 
interested in agricultural questions are considering 
with no little anxiety the important problem as to 
what is to become of East ern agriculture, with its 
best boys and girls jumping at every chance to run 
away from it. So long as this general truth is ac¬ 
cepted, we may as well begin thinking, and think¬ 
ing very seriously, about the ultimate means of 
relief. Some day, some radical steps will become 
necessary, and they will be more easily taken if 
taken at once, and in advance of the driving neces¬ 
sity. These considerations are quite enough to 
justify a good deal of thinking and no little writing 
on the subject. 
Science Applied to Farming.— XXX. 
More Farm Experiments with Fertilizers. 
To the account of experiments given' in the last 
article, I am happy to be able to add one of a some¬ 
what similar series, undertaken last summer by Dr. 
J. W. Alsop, Jr., of this place, with the object of 
gaining some indications as to what ingredients of 
plant-food were deficient in the soil of one of the 
fields of his farm. The experiments were made on 
the plan suggested by myself in the previous articles 
of this series, with a view of testing the effects of 
manures containing the ingredients nitrogen, phos¬ 
phoric acid, and potash—parallel trials being made 
with plaster, (sulphate of lime), lime, and barn¬ 
yard manure. The fertilizing ingredients men¬ 
tioned were furnished by materials as follows. 
Nitrogen, by a mixture, (No. I), containing, in 100 parts, 
70 parts of dried blood with ten per cent, of nitrogen, 15 
parts of sulphate of ammonia with 20 per cent of nitrogen, 
and 15 parts of nitrate of soda with 15 percent of nitrogen. 
Phosphoric Acid , by an English super-phosphate, (No. 
H), containing 23 per cent of soluble phosphoric acid. 
Potash, by a sulphate of potash, (No. HI), containing 
65 per cent of sulphate of potash. . 
Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid, by a mixture, (No. IV), 
containing iiS 100 parts, 40 parts of No. I, and 60of No. II. 
Phosphoric Acid and Potash , by a mixture, (No.Y), con¬ 
taining equal parts of No. II and No. in. 
Nitrogen and Potash, by a mixture, (No. VI), containing! 
equal, parts of No. I and No. III. 
Nitrogen, Potash and Phosphoric Arid, . by a mixture, 
(No. VII), containing in 100 parts about 70 parts of No. I, 
16 parts of No. Ill, and 14 parts of No. II. 
Lime by freshly slacked lime, .(No; VIII). 
Sulphate of'Lime, by plaster, (No.JX). 
Each of the above compounds, I to IX, was applied at 
the rate of 400 lbs. to the acre. For No, X,' harp-yard 
manure was used, at the rate.'Of 11 cords to the acre. 
Below is a transcript of a portion of Dr. Alsop’s 
private notes, showing the manner of conducting, 
and the results of the experiments. 
211 
Record of Experiments, Arawana Farm, 1876. 
Very good soil. Light clayey loam, 1 with gravelly sub¬ 
soil. In grass seven years withoutany manuring. Plowed 
autumn of 1875. Cross-plowed April 28,1876. Subsoiled 
one end, (no difference to be perceived in yield between 
subsoiled and non-suhsoiled).; Laid out in nine plots of 
twelve feet by one hundred and eighty-three feet—which 
equals about one : twentieth of an acre. Carefully sowed 
tlie plots with twenty pounds, equal to 400 pounds to the 
acre, of the fertilizing mixtures named—a separate mix¬ 
ture to each plot. The whole carefully harrowed with 
Howard flexible chain harrow—great care being taken 
not to mix the plots. Each ridged into four ridges by 
plow. The fourth ridge no account may be taken of, as 
;the yield, planted in potatoes, was so poor as to render 
weighing and measuri ng useless. 
May 23, two ridges in each plot sowed respectively, 
with Clarke’s.Long Orange Carrot, and Norbiton’s Giant 
Beet, and on June 29th the remaining ridge in each plot 
sowed with' Shamrock Turnip. Cultivated in ordinary 
manner. As far as could be judged by looks, those plots 
containing potash in fertilizers appeared the best, and 
those treated with lime iuid plaster, the poorest during ’ 
.the-season. The:beets jvjere harvested Oct. 5th, carrots 
and turnips Nov. 1C. • Results as per table appended. 
The crops were measured and weighed carefully by my¬ 
self, bushel by bushel, (except the barn-yard manure 
crops, which, being the field crops, were measured hy 
bushel,'and account kept of number of bushels), and the 
yield, by weighed bushel 1 per acre, computed. 
The barn-yard manure was bought, and costs—not tak¬ 
ing account of labor, hauling, or spreading— i. e., actual 
money paid for it, $4.37 per cord. 
FERTILIZERS. 
No. I.—Nitrogen. 
No. II.—Phosphoric Acid .... 
No. III.—Potash. 
No. IV. — Nitrogen and Phos¬ 
phoric Acid. 
No. V. — Phosphoric Acid and 
Potash. 
No. VI.—Nitrogen and Potash_ 
No. VII.^-NItrogen, Pota3h, and 
Phosphoric Acid.. 
No. VIII— Lime. 
No. IX.—Plaster. 
No. X. — Barn-yard Manure, 11 
Cords to Acre.. 
* Probably Increased by being next below manured ground, 
t Yield measured, not.computed by weight, being Held crops. 
These figures will bear careful study. With the 
beets the largest crops were those fertilized with 
potash, plots m, IV, V. Without potash the 
yield was uniformly light; with potash it was large, 
except in VII. Here, however, the amount of pot¬ 
ash applied was very small. If the beets had been 
the only crops raised, the experiment might have 
passed for a very good indication that potash was 
the lacking ingredient, and that the application of; 
nitrogen and phosphoric acid would be of very 
little use on that soil. But the carrots and turnips 
tell a somewhat different 6tory, doing the best with 
nitrogen and phosphoric acid together. The swedes 
seemed to be considerably benefited by potash also, 
much more so than by nitrogen, while the carrots 
do not seem to have been strikingly affected by 
either of the individual articles.' The best crops 
came with phosphoric acid combined with nitrogen 
in IY, and with potash in Y, but phosphoric acid 
alone proved inferior to both nitrogen and potash. 
Lime and plaster did but little good. Barn-yard 
manure proved, on the whole, the best fertilizer, 
though it was much the most costly and did not 
bring so large a yield of turnips as some of the 
chemical fertilizers.* I confess that I can not 
explain the results with nitrogen, phosphoric 
acid, and potash. I should attribute the variations 
to uneveness in the composition of the soil, but 
considering the situation of the plants, the rows 
of beets, carrots and swedes being, in each bf the 
individual bases, T, II, III, etc!,’ side : by side and 
close together, it seems a little strange that vari¬ 
ations in the ' soi! could affect the crops in such a 
manner. We might assume that the results are due 
to different ways the crops may have of making 
use of' the plant-food offered them. We know 
that superphosphates are, in many places, consider¬ 
ed almost a specific for turnips, and that beets are 
in many parts of Europe especially benefited by 
potash salts. But these are matters about which 
we have too little experimental evidence to decide 
with any degree of certainty. 
The experiments described in the article last 
month and above teach, or rather illustrate, some 
very useful lessons. Both were made by intelligent, 
progressive, painstaking farmers, who went to work 
in a rational way to find which ones of the materials 
that their crops needed, their soils or themselves 
failed to furnish, and how best to supply them. 
The one obtained a very striking result the first 
year, which was confirmed by a succeeding crop. 
Phosphoric acid, the chief constituent of a majority 
of our commercial fertilizers, did scarcely any good, 
while nitrogen and potash proved very beneficial. 
The other obtains somewhat conflicting results the 
first year, though on the whole potash seems to be 
wanting. But to get an entirely reliable desision he 
will have to repeat the experiment at least once, and 
perhaps several times more. Still, it will be more 
profitable to do this, than to pay heavy prices for 
fertilizing materials that his soil can itself supply, 
or to lose his crops for want of those it can not 
furnish. 
The fact is that if we are to have knowledge or 
any other good thing we need in' this world, we 
have got to work for it. It was said to man long 
ago “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy 
bread.” For centuries manual labor was the chief, 
if not the only kind of toil that ordinary men need¬ 
ed to or could engage in with profit. But the time 
has come when all, farmers with the rest, must 
use their brains with their hands if they are to work 
economically, profitably, and happily. And in just 
such ways as these, by accurately studying their 
own soils and crops and stock and whatever else 
they have to do with in their farming, at the same 
time calling to their aid that definite knowledge, 
which is the result of the long and accurate ex¬ 
perience of thousands of other more accurate and 
thorough experimenters, and whose results, rightly 
interpreted, we call science, and by applying it to 
their practice will their success be best assured. 
I find that quite a number of the readers of these 
articles have planned experiments like the above 
this season. I should be very glad to learn the results 
and, if they will send me their addresses, I will try 
to see that they have some blanks for noting them, 
such as have been sent to the farmers who are ex¬ 
perimenting with the fertilizers furnished by our 
Experiment Station. 
The circular of directions and explanations which 
accompanied the fertilizers above referred to, con¬ 
tains the following: 
“Attend to the work yourself. Don’t trust it to the 
hired man. Watch the experiments closely. Note your 
observations. Make them both as accurate and complete 
as yon can. The benefit will not be yonrsaIone-,;biit you 
Will share with o thers the total good that will come from 
tlie combined work of ail. With nearly fifty farmers en¬ 
gaged in this work this year, and perhaps more next year, 
we may hope for valuable results. 
We hope yon will he.ahle to fill out the accompanying 
blank and return it to us when tlie experiments are done. 
This undertaking is itself an experiment. Experience 
will doubtless show numerous ways in which the plans 
may he improved. But it is at least sound in principle. It 
will he a valuable Jesson in agricultural chemistry to the 
experimenters, if nothing more, and we hope that hy your 
earnest co-operation much good may come from tlie work.” 
W. O. Atwateb, 
Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 
French Roofed Cottage Costing $2,000, 
BT S. B. : REED, ARCHITECT, CORONA, LONG ISLAND, N. T. 
These plans were designed for a genteel cottage 
adapted to thickly settled localities, where the in¬ 
creased value of lands make it necessary to reduce 
the area, and build upwards. [Several houses con¬ 
structed from these plans in this vicinity are admir¬ 
ed for their convenient accommodation and cheer¬ 
fulness. .. .Exterior, (fig. 1.)—The foundation 
extends four feet above ground, giving a desirable 
altitute to t}je whole building, The front is qn- 
