214 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[June, 
feeding young trout The salt and smoke of 
hams and bacon do not seem to be distasteful to 
the maggots of the meat-flies, and such articles 
should be kept where flies cannot enter, or be 
so thoroughly enwrapped in paper that there 
will be no chance for them to deposit their eggs. 
Walks and Talks on the Farm—No. 90. 
Our venerable friend, John Johnston, writes : 
“ I will tell you how to eradicate docks, and no 
humbug, and charge nothing. Cut them off 
close to the ground when the tops are fully out, 
but the seed not fully formed, and they are 
done for. The stalk dies in the ground; but 
yoq must cut them so close to the ground that 
j r ou leave no leaves on the stalk, else they will 
not die. About the end of June I found gen¬ 
erally the best time to cut them; but it depends 
on the season. In pasture-fields, they are soon 
cut with a scythe. In wheat and meadows they 
have to be cut with a knife. Never mind 
trampling down a little wheat or timothy. You 
will save it all in getting rid of dock. I kill 
burdock by cutting off when the burs are 
formed, and putting a handful of salt on the 
top of the stalk.” Mr. J. adds: “I found out 
how to kill docks by cutting clover early.” This 
is encouraging, and is an additional reason for 
endeavoring to grow large crops of clover that 
must be cut early. Docks do not seed till the 
second year. If cut off the first year, the root 
will throw up several seed-stalks the next 
season, and the process seems to do more harm 
than good; but if the cutting is delayed till the 
second year, when the seed is partially formed 
and the plant nearly exhausted, I have no doubt 
Mr. J. is right in saying that it will die. We 
may assume that the only way to kill docks the 
first year is to pull them up by the roots, or else 
cut them below the crown; but the second year, 
cutting them after the seed is partially formed, 
is better than pulling.; for if pulled, there is so 
much vegetable matter stored up in the root, 
that the seed will ripen after the plant is pulled 
tip. It is a capital filing for a farmer to get the 
idea fully established in his head that weeds 
can be killed. Many people seem to suppose 
that weeds spring spontaneously from the soil. 
And yet the soil can no more create a weed 
than it can create a man or a monkey. Kill all 
the roots in a soil and cause all the seeds to 
grow, and then kill the young plants, and you 
have land free from weeds. I do not suppose 
that this can be absolutely attained in practice, 
but a thorough conviction of its truth will 
stimulate our efforts. Our seasons are exceed¬ 
ingly favorable for the destruction of weeds, 
and yet one of the most marked characteristics 
of our agriculture is its weediness. The weeds 
carry off half our profits. 
A gentleman in Tennessee, who has been en¬ 
gaged in other business, but who now wishes to 
turn farmer, writes me that he can get 5 acres 
of poor sandy .land at a moderate rent for 10 
years. With a little stable manure in the hill, 
he thinks the land would produce 75 or 100 
bushels of peachblow potatoes per acre. But 
he has no manure, and he wants to know what 
is the cheapest fertilizer for him to buy : super¬ 
phosphate at $60 per ton, Chicago blood at 
$55, bone-dust at $45, plaster at $20, cotton¬ 
seed at $15, or lime at 12 cents per bushel. He 
proposes to sow winter oats, and, when har¬ 
vested, plant the land to potatoes, and thus 
grow two crops in a season. I am always I 
sorry for such men. They are so enthusiastic 
and hopeful that it is far from pleasant to say 
any thing discouraging. “ In all labor there is 
profit,” but, strictly speaking, there is no profit 
in the mere possession of land. It gives one 
an opportunity to work. And the profit will 
be in proportion to the amount, skill, judgment, 
and efficiency of the labor, and not in propor¬ 
tion to the land. Now, a man cannot spend 
labor enough on five acres of ordinary oats to 
enable him to earn a living. He must raise 
something that requires more labor. The land 
is near a city where there is probably a demand 
for vegetables, small fruits, etc. There must be 
stable manure to be sold in the city, and this at 
anything less than $1.50 per ton, would be far 
cheaper than any of the fertilizers named. Cot¬ 
ton-seed would be the next cheapest. I would 
mix 20 tons of manure and 1 ton of cotton-seed 
together in a heap, keep it moist, cover it with 
soil or sods, and let it rot, turning it occasion¬ 
ally, to accelerate fermentation and to make it 
fine. Put this amount on an acre, and then 
plant something that requires rich land and 
much labor and attention, and as much money 
can be made from five acres as from fifty. 
“ Deacon,” I said, last night, “ listen to this 
letter from a farmer in New Jersey : 1 1 have a 
farm on which there are thousands of cords of 
muck (not peat); I wish to know how to use it 
to the best advantage; when and how to get it 
out; and what chemicals have proved the best 
to remove the sourness and make it good man¬ 
ure ? I have Dana’s “ Muck Manual,” but want 
the latest information; and I inclose the small 
sum of ten dollars, which you can use, if you 
please, to accomplish this end.’ ” 
“ There, now, Deacon, is a man who appre¬ 
ciates an agricultural editor. If a short article 
is worth $10 to one reader of the Agriculturist , 
what is the information contained in a whole 
volume worth to its half million readers ? The 
ten dollars have been returned; but I for one 
feel grateful for this appreciation of the labors 
of an agricultural editor. We get double the 
abuse, and not half the credit we deserve.” 
“ Don’t know about that,” said the Deacon, 
dryly, “but what are you going to tell him? 
I’ve been thinking of getting out some muck; 
but somehow I can never find time to do it.” 
“ It is just so with me. I have thousands of 
loads of splendid muck in the swamp, and 
have hitherto excused myself for not using it 
because the land was so wet. But as soon as 
we get the ditch through it, I mean to go at the 
work in earnest. An average sample of air- 
dried peat contains more than twice as much 
nitrogen as stable manure; and there can be no 
doubt of its value. The trouble is, that the plant- 
food it contains is in a comparatively insoluble 
condition. It is ‘ sour,’ but merely neutralizing 
the acids is not enough. The aim should be to 
decompose it by fermentation. Anj' thing that 
will accomplish this will render the plant-food 
available. The first thing is to get rid of the 
water. Throw up the muck in June or July, 
and turn it during the hot weather, in July or 
August. I would then put about a bushel of 
lime to 20 or 25 bushels of muck; and, in 
turning it over to mix the lime with it, would 
aim to make the heap as compact as possible; 
and before the fall rains set in, I would cover 
it with something to throw off the water. In 
the winter, draw this prepared muck to the 
yard, and mix it with the manure—say one load 
of muck to one load of manure. In my case, I 
should use some of the earliest-made manure 
and muck for root crops in May or June; and 
to get it in good condition, the heap should be 
turned, if possible, during the winter, and again 
in the spring; and if bone-dust, or blood, or 
woollen waste, or any thing that would favor 
rapid decomposition, could be obtained, I would 
mix it with the heap a month or six weeks be¬ 
fore using—the earlier the better.” 
“ But,” remarks the Deacon, “ I thought lime 
would set free the ammonia. I know lime and 
ashes are good to mix with the muck when 
about to apply it directly to the land, but I 
never heard of mixing lime with muck, that was 
to be afterwards mixed with stable-manure.” 
Exactly. That is precisely where my plan 
differs from that generally recommended. I 
have no fear of the ammonia escaping from 
the heap. The more ammonia we can set free 
in the heap the better, provided it does not 
escape; and if muck enough is used, there is 
no sort of danger. 
In my case, the bulk of the manure would 
be kept in the heap during the summer, and be 
drawn out on to the grass-land in the fall, to be 
plowed under for corn or potatoes the next 
spring. A much larger proportion of muck 
could be used with the manure in this case. It 
is true that I have had comparatively little ex¬ 
perience in the use of muck; and I wish some 
of the readers of the Agriculturist would give 
the Deacon and me some hints as to the most 
economical manner of handling and using it. 
The Deacon never gets excited about any 
thing; at any rate, he never shows it. But he 
is quite enthusiastic in his praise of my grade 
Cotswold lambs. “I always told you,” he 
says, “ that cross-bred animals are more px-ofit- 
able than tliorough-breds.” The truth is, I 
told the Deacon so; and it is so far compli¬ 
mentary to find that he has adopted my views, 
in part, even though he claims them for his 
own. I say “in part,” because he does not 
clearly understand the point I insist upon in 
crossing. I want a thorough-bred ram to cross 
with common, hardy, vigorous ewes; whereas 
the Deacon can hardly get rid of the idea that 
a cross-bred ram, provided he is as large and 
well-formed as the thorough-bred is just as 
good, whereas I know that such is not the case. 
We have got, up to this time, 67 lambs from 60 
common Merino ewes from a thorough-bred 
Cotswold. They are the healthiest and hard¬ 
iest lambs I ever saw. We have had not the 
slightest trouble in any way, and have lost but 
one lamb in the whole lot. One of them 
weighed, when dropped, 124 lbs., and we had 
many nearly, or quite, as large, and the shep¬ 
herd says some that were larger. This after¬ 
noon, April 22d, we weighed five of these grade 
lambs that are from eight to nine weeks old. 
They weighed respectively 50, 464, 524, 474, 
and 464 lbs., or an average of 49 lbs. each. 
Is not that pretty good for ewes that at 4 years 
old only weighed 80 lbs., and that I bought for 
3 cents per lb. The ewes have had nothing but 
dry feed, and as soon as they get some grass, I 
expect the lambs to do even better still. We 
allow the lambs all the corn, meal, and bran 
they will eat, in small troughs separate from 
the ewes; but they do not eat half as much 
as I wish they would—not to exceed 10 lbs. 
a day among the whole lot. This is the 
only fault I have to find with them. I think 
lambs from Canada ewes would eat more meal, 
and consequently fat better; but some of my 
neighbors who have Canada ewes, have no bet¬ 
ter lambs than these of mine from Merino ewes. 
Liberal feeding, and a thorough-bred ram, is 
the secret in raising good lambs for the butcher. 
