4=52 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[December, 
Walks and Talks on the Farm—No. 96. 
“No. 96.” And is it so that I have written 
these “Walks and Talks” for ninety-six consec¬ 
utive months? I am told that they have done 
good. Many persons, strangers to me person¬ 
ally, have written to thank me for them; only 
two, so far as I know, have written to the pub¬ 
lishers, of the Agriculturist asking that they be 
discontinued. Mr. Judd, who is certainly a 
good judge, tells me I ought to write them as 
long as I live. Be that as it may, I feel pro¬ 
foundly grateful for the kindness manifested 
towards me in the past, and the interest which 
so many seem to take in my farm work. The 
Deacon and I are plain, unpretending people. 
We lead rather a quiet, uneventful sort of life. 
There are thousands of better farmers than 
either of us. But the Deacon is a close ob¬ 
server, and has had great experience, and if I 
iiave had sense enough to “draw him out,” and 
then tell the readers of the Agriculturist what 
he says, who shall say me nay ? 
The best farmer between me and the city is 
a German, who a few years ago worked by the 
month on the farm he now owns. He saved a 
little money; then rented a farm “on shares;” 
then he bought it; then sold and bought a 
larger one; and now he has one of the best 
farms in the neighborhood, -worth $20,000. He 
is very industrious; never seems in a hurry, 
but is always ahead with his work. You always 
see him at church Sundays, and on bis farm 
week days. He raises a good many calves, and 
when I was only half through husking he had 
his corn in the crib and the stalks in the barn, 
and fifteen head of young cattle on the stubble 
picking up the leaves and scattered ears. He 
lias enlarged and reshingled the old barn, given 
it a coat of paint, put on gutters, and conducts 
the water into a large cistern. His fences are 
in perfect order. The whole farm, garden, and 
orchard is a pattern of neatness and thrift. No 
water stands on his low land, no weeds go to 
seed on his pastures. His back lot, adjoining 
the woods, was covered with partially decayed 
stumps, brambles, and weeds. He set Are to 
the stumps, cleared the land, summer-fallowed 
it, and sowed it to Diehl wheat, and got (this 
year) forty bushels per acre. And it is now in 
wheat again, and is probably good for over 
thirty bushels next harvest. Everything he 
does prospers. He is a “ lucky ” man—that is, 
he has good sense , and has health, strength, 
energy, and industry to use it. 
It is curious how some men succeed, and 
others, with equal or better opportunities, fail. 
“It is not in man that runneth to direct his 
steps.” But, at the same time, it is equally true 
that the causes which lead to success or failure 
are pretty generally under our own control. I 
have sometimes thought that the great differ¬ 
ence in men was the ability or inability to “ see 
a point,” as a friend of mine expresses it. It is 
eminently so in the legal profession. A mere 
talker somelimes wins temporary reputation as 
a “jury lawyerbut no lawyer who cannot 
“ see a point” ever attains real eminence in the 
profession. It is so in all professions. An 
editor who can not see the real point of anj 
subject he is discussing had better quit the 
business. People are too busy to read column 
after column of words with no point to 
them. How often do men put a heavy build¬ 
ing on a weak foundation, or make a ma¬ 
chine very strong at some unimportant point, 
while the parts where the strain comes are 
made of the poorest and lightest material! 
They can not “see a point.” I have an old 
crowbar on my farm that is thicker and heavier 
at the upper than at the lower end. I once 
heard a gentleman, who is regarded as an 
authority on such subjects, say that “ timothy, 
-weight for weight, is the most nutritious of all 
the grasses,” and at the same time declare that 
a mixture of different grasses, weight for weight, 
is far more nutritious than timothy alone. He 
can not “ see a point.” 
A farmer, more than most men, needs to cul¬ 
tivate this faculty. Every day questions arise 
as to what had best be done, and when and 
how to do it. The man who can think clearly, 
and will patiently look at the matter in all its 
bearings, taking everything into consideration, 
will decide w'isely and act promptly. His stock 
will be well attended to; implements and 
machines in repair and in their proper place; 
work will be done systematically and cheaply; 
there will be no loss of time; nothing of real 
importance will be neglected, and it will be 
done in the best manner and at the best time. 
On the other hand, we need not go far to find a 
specimen. A farmer may have his head full of 
miscellaneous knowledge, maj^ be a “great 
reader,” a fluent talker, and a ready writer, but 
if he can not think, if he lack common sense, 
if he can not “see a point,” his brain, his farm, 
and all his affairs will be in confusion. He will 
always be in a hurry; never has time to attend 
to necessary duties, but spends hours and days 
in doing something of no consequence to him¬ 
self or any one else. He has a dozen jobs on 
hand unfinished. He feeds extravagantly for a 
few weeks, then gets tired and lets his stock 
pick up a living as best they can. He can tell 
you the leading characteristics of the different 
breeds of cattle, sheep, and pigs. He has tried 
many of them. But he can not see the main 
point in regard to their successful breeding and 
management. 
It took me three years to convince our path- 
master that it was just as well to lower the 
water two feet below the road as it was to raise 
the road two feet above the water—and a good 
deal cheaper. He finally let me wmrk out my 
tax by digging a ditch on the side of the road. I 
am not sure that he sees the point, but the road 
is now dry, firm, and good. I lowered the water 
two feet below the road for half the money it 
would have cost to raise the road six inches. 
Mr. Glover, of Illinois, writes: “I should be 
glad if you would show how the manure from 
a ton of bran is worth more than the bran at 
$14.” I am glad to have this question asked, 
although it is not an easy matter to answer it. 
Some things must be taken on trust. Mr. 
Lawes’ celebrated table showing the composi¬ 
tion of thirty-one different articles of food, and 
the value of the manure made by animals con¬ 
suming them, is the result of years of careful 
investigation and experiments in the field, the 
feeding sheds, and the laboratory. I can not 
give all the details, and few farmers would read 
them if I did. Suffice it to say that the evi¬ 
dence comes as near demonstration as the nature 
of the subject will admit. It should be under¬ 
stood, however, as stated in “Harris on the 
Pig,” page 139, that the estimate of value is 
“relative,” not absolute. The value of the 
manure made from a ton of wheat straw is 
placed at $2.68; that from a ton of clover hay 
at $9.64; and that from a ton of bran at $14.59. 
But I do not claim that the manure from a ton 
of wheat straw is always, on all soils and for 
all crops, worth $2.68; but where such is the 
case, the manure from a ton of clover hay is 
certainly worth $9.64, and that from a ton of 
bran $14.59. If the manure from the ton of 
straw is only worth $1.34, that from a ton of 
clover would only be ^vortli $4.82. If in Illi¬ 
nois, on Mr. Glover’s farm, the manure from a 
ton of straw, drawn out and spread , is only worth 
67 cents, that from a ton of clover wrnuld be 
worth $2.46, and that from a ton of bran $3.65. 
To determine the actual value of a manure is 
not an easy matter. In Illinois, for ordinary 
farm crops, it is not worth as much as it is in 
■Western New York, not merely because .the 
land is richer, but because produce is lower. 
On my farm, if I have a field properly prepared 
for wheat, I should probably get, without ma¬ 
nure, 20 bushels per acre. Now, judging from 
Mr. Lawes’ long-continued and accurate experi¬ 
ments, I should have reason to expect that the 
manure from a ton of bran, the liquid and solid 
excrements being all carefully saved and thor¬ 
oughly decomposed without loss, so that the 
ammonia would be immediately available, if 
applied to an acre of this wheat would give 30 
bushels per acre. In other words, the manure 
would give me 10 bushels of wheat. Good 
Diehl wheat is now worth $1.70 per bushel. 
And the ten extra bushels, after deducting the ex¬ 
tra cost of harvesting, thrashing, and marketing, 
would net me at least $15. So that the estimate 
of $14.59, as the value of the manure from a 
ton of bran, is not far out of the way. And if 
this is correct, then the other figures in the table 
are correct also. 
This estimate of the effect of the manure on 
the first crop is based on the supposition that 
the ammonia is nearly all available the first 
year; but there would be an excess of other 
plant-food left for the following crop of clover. 
The land, too, where the heavy wheat crop has 
grown would probably be cleaner, and it would 
produce a greater growth of clover, and this in 
turn would make the land (or the farm) richer, 
and so the effect of the manure would be felt 
for many years. 
Where wheat only brings half the iibove 
price, the manure would not be worth more 
than half the estimate. And it must not be 
forgotten that the manure is supposed to be 
drawn out and spread on the land. It would 
cost as much to draw out the manure in the 
one case as in the other, while the increased 
produce obtained from its application is worth 
only half as much. This would make a serious 
deduction from the estimated vaJue of the bran 
for manure, but it would make a still greater 
deduction from the estimated value of straw. 
On the whole, therefore, I believe that the table 
of values is relatively correct. It is worthy the 
careful study of every farmer. Irs the whole 
range of agricultural literature, I know of noth¬ 
ing that has done and is still doing so much 
good, and I think I have a right to feel proud 
of the fact that I was the first to call attention 
to its real, practical value, and to publish it two 
years in advance of its appearance in the Jour¬ 
nal of the Royal Agricultural Society of Eng¬ 
land. The more the table is studied, and the 
better it is understood, the more will its value 
and importance be appreciated. 
So far, I am delighted with my wliite-mustard 
experiment. We had an oat stubble on which 
the clover and grass seed had failed. The field 
is back of the Deacon’s farm, and for want of a 
good outlet through his land I am unable to 
drain it properly. Until this is done, it is throw¬ 
ing time and money away to try to raise grain 
