1870.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST, 
171 
purchase has been discarded years before as unfit for our 
climate, or is retailing in our markets at 25c. apiece! 
Just so with fruits; the Jargonelle- Pears, or Kean’s 
Seedling Strawberries, upon which he feasts his eyes in 
European markets, every gardener knows are worthless 
here. Yet our privileged amateur will buy them and 
chuckle to himself that he can get them over, duty free. 
If I am correct in these statements it is evident that 
the benefits intended to be conferred upon the communi¬ 
ty by the proposed bill are far worse than useless, as the 
seeming advantage of this privilege would induce many 
to buy who otherwise would not, and this buying in nine 
cases out of ten, would result in total loss to the pur¬ 
chaser. But if this bill had been so framed as to read 
that Trees and Plants might be imported duty free, for 
sale or otherwise, its passage would be a wise and judi¬ 
cious act. For seeds and bulbs we would make no 
claim, as such are not quickly perishable, and hence the 
necessity for their admission free of duty is not equal to 
that for the perishable commodities of trees and plants. 
It is only on account of their being perishable that we 
claim that they should be admitted duty free, and thus 
save us from six to ten days in the transit; for be it 
known, that on all articles on which duty is to be paid— 
such is the tangled length of the red tape arrangements of 
the New York Custom House—that it requires about the 
same time to get our goods out of it that it takes for them 
to cross the Atlantic. In consequence of such delays 
more than half of our importations of new plants are 
total losses. Was the revenue to the Government derived 
from the duties on trees and plants of any considerable 
amount we might with less reason complain, but the 
amount must be quite insignificant, and that coupled with 
the fact of the delay (in consequence of this duty being 
imposed), in passing through the Custom House pre¬ 
vents us in many instances from being able to get alive 
many of the more rare and delicate plants. So disas¬ 
trous has been our experience, since the duty was put 
on, that in importing delicate plants from Europe, we are 
obliged to order a dozen in the hope of getting one alive 
to propagate from. We trust our legislators will view 
this matter fairly; we care nothing about the amount 
paid for duties, these are trifling; but we bitterly com¬ 
plain of the delay to our perishable goods incident to the 
collecting of these duties. 
-— S - a Qi w -> o.- 
Ogden Farm Papers—No. 5. 
We have at last had an opportunity to ascer¬ 
tain the quantit 3 r of fodder used, by actual 
weighing. The platform of the Fairbanks scale 
is a part of the main floor of the barn between 
the cutting machine and the box in which the 
feed is mixed. By building temporary side- 
hoards on the platform, we are enabled to weigh 
1,000 lbs. of cut-feed at a draft. The chop con¬ 
sisted, on this occasion, of about one-half 
fine hay from a poor stack that was bought 
for $12.50 per ton, one-fourth mouldy cured oats 
of our own growing, and one-fourth corn-stalks 
kept since harvest, in an out of door stack. The 
average value of the whole, taking the hay as 
the basis, was not more than $10 per ton. Of this 
chop we used 2,840 lbs. It was thoroughly 
wetted, and well mixed with 342 lbs. of wheat 
meal, costing 2c. per lb.;—the whole cost of the 
material was $21.04. To which must be added 
$3 for fuel and labor (estimated), making the 
whole cost, say, $24. The stock fed was as fol¬ 
lows :—-Mules (large), 2 ; Horses, 7; Colts, 2; 
Oxen, 2; Steers (coming 3 years old), 3; Bull 
(coming 3 years old), 1; Cows, 12 ; 2-year old 
heifers, 3 ; Yearlings, 6; Calves, 9. Total, 47. 
The steamed fodder lasted exactly four days— 
from Sunday morning until Wednesday night,-— 
equal to 188 days feed for one animal of aver¬ 
age size, giving as the cost of keeping each ani¬ 
mal for one day, 12 s- ' 4 cents. In addition to this 
the horned cattle (old and young) received about 
an average of one quart of meal per day, appor¬ 
tioned according to their needs. This costs 3c. 
a day additional for these animals, and raises 
the average cost of all (including the horse 
stock) to 15c. per dajq or $4.50 per month. We 
feed, on an average, from Nov. 15 until May 
15—when soiling rye should be fit for cutting. 
This makes the cost for wintering $27 per head. 
In addition to the above, the mules and colts, 
and a stallion kept for service, receive a little 
grain. Just what allowance to make for age 
and condition, I do not know ; I have stated the 
whole case as it stands, and any farmer who is 
accustomed to the care of stock can figure the 
average to suit himself. I draw from the facts 
the following deductions:— 
1. I can raise a Jersey heifer to her first calv¬ 
ing (two years old) for $56 for her winter keep, 
and $14 for summer keep—on hired pasture 
land; $70 in all—and this pays. 
2. I can raise a colt to four years old, for $108 
for winter keep, and $52 for summer keep— 
hiring pasture; $160 in all, and if this don’t 
pay it will he because I don’t raise the right 
kind of stock. If I feed grain to young colts I 
expect them to pay cost and interest, twice over, 
when the time for selling comes. 
3. I can keep a full grown cow—allowing her 
to eat fifty per cent more than the average of my 
stock, for $40.50 for winter keep, in addition to 
the cost of her summer feed, which I estimate 
as follows :— 
Interest on cost of y 2 aero of land, say, ($300 per acre) at 
6 per cent, and taxes.$10.00 
Cost of seed, $3 ; cultivation, $5, and harvesting, $2. 10.00 
$20.00 
Add for winter keep. .-. .^.$10.50 
Total cost of year’s keep.$(50.50 
If the animal were kept at pasture instead of 
being soiled, $20 would pay the interest on the 
value of the land required for her support. If 
this don’t pay (witli an average of 200 lbs. of 
blitter), it will be because butter and skimmed 
milk have gone much below the average value 
of the past ten years. I have left out of the 
account the cost of labor,—but I have also left 
out the item of manure which will more than 
equal it. It. should be understood that my ani¬ 
mals are fed three times a day, all that they will 
eat up clean, and that they arc in,blooming 
condition. They are not made to squeeze through 
the winter, hut are kept as well as they can be. 
To make the calculation still more exact, we 
will estimate the value of the manure made, and 
of the labor required. Basing the calculation 
upon J. B. Lawes’ table showing the value of 
manure made by the consumption of different 
kinds of provender, given in the American Ag¬ 
ricultural Annual for 1868, p. 32, adding one- 
quarter American prices, it is fair to estimate 
the value of the manure produced hj r my cut 
hay, oats, and corn-stalks, at $7.25 for each 2,000 
pounds consumed, or $10.28 for 2,840 pounds. 
By the same computation the manure from 
342 lbs. of wheat is worth $1.51;—hay and 
grain together, $11.79. Deducting from this $6 
for the cost of feeding, carding, and stable at¬ 
tendance for four days, we have left $5.79 in 
our favor. This deducted from $24, leaves 
$18.21,—and it reduces the total outlaj r for feed 
to about 12 cents per day, or $3.60 per month. 
The foregoing calculations are based on the 
use of an inferior quality of forage during a sea¬ 
son of very low prices. I have no facts to prove 
what would be the effect of cutting and steam¬ 
ing when only good hay is used at a cost of $25 
per ton. Probably the outlay would be great¬ 
er, blit I believe that the proportional saving 
from the extra preparation, would lie quite as 
large as it now is. This, however, is an opinion 
only, and it needs proof to establish it. 
Ogden Farm finds encouragement in the fol¬ 
lowing passage in the Hon. George Geddes’ 
Essay on Wheat Culture. “Undrained clay lands 
are never worn out, for the owner that lacks the 
energy to free them from stagnant water, never 
has force enough to exhaust their fertility by 
cropping. Manure on such land is nearly 
thrown away. Draining is the first tiling to lie 
done; next, thorough cultivation, then manure. 
Whoever reverses this order throws away his 
money and his labor.” 
This would lie a good text for every farmer 
to keep constantly in mind. The profit of farm¬ 
ing comes entirely from the surplus of produc¬ 
tion beyond the grand total of the cost of inter¬ 
est, labor, seed, manure, and wear and tear. 
These are nearly fixed quantities. They are at 
least as great, in the aggregate, with medium 
crops as with good ones. If 30 bushels of corn 
to the acre will barely return the outlay, 60 
bushels may give a clear profit equal to the 
value of 30 bushels. There are thousands of 
farms in the country, whose soil contains enough 
of the elements of fertility to produce fair crops 
with the aid of ordinary manuring, (if only these 
elements were come-at-able,) but which, by rea¬ 
son of their soggy and unpleasant condition, 
would do less injury to their owners if they 
were hopelessly barren. In the spring and early 
summer they are moist and cold,—more like 
putty than like arable land ;—in July and August 
they are baked to a crust; and when the fall 
rains come they revert again to their weeping 
state. An}'- effort to make good land of such 
a farm as this without draining, is simply an 
effort wasted. Neither labor nor manure can 
do much to drive away the demon of “bad-luck,” 
by which every patli of its owner is beset. I 
have scores of letters from the occupants of such 
farms,—and I have had for years. I began by 
advising this and that make-shift, where it was 
claimed that the expense of draining could not 
be borne, but I have finally learned to say, point- 
blank, to an)' man who is trying to make his 
way on this kind of a farm : “ Either drain it 
or give it up ! You can make more money by 
working at day’s work, on good land, than by 
fighting year in and year out, against the estab¬ 
lished laws of Nature. If you can’t do belter, 
sell off your stock,—and if necessary, work for 
a neighbor enough of the time to earn your bare 
living. Spend the rest of your time and all the 
money you can raise in draining the best field 
you have got. Don’t imagine that your case is 
to he ail exception, but accept the fact, now, 
that yon can't afford to farm wet land—either 
own up that you are only lit for a day laborer, 
or buckle to and make your land worth culti¬ 
vating.” 
There are two great obstacles to the advance¬ 
ment of underdraining, viz; One is, the idea 
that land which suffers from drouyht does not 
need draining, when the fact is that land often 
suffers from drought just because it needs drain¬ 
ing;—take out the water and let in the air, so 
that the soil can be put in proper tilth, and it 
will be able to withstand drought. The other 
is, the not unnatural notion that the first land to 
be drained is that which is now the wettest. In 
my judgment the improvement should be first 
applied to those fields which are just dry enough 
to be considered arable, but which, two years 
out of three, disappoint the farmer’s hopes and 
produce barely enough to repay the cost of cul¬ 
tivation. If such land as this is drained it will 
pay a profit. If a hack swamp lot is drained it 
may be years before it will do more than pay 
the expenses of its management. Begin with 
the very best land that needs draining at all, and 
make it produce a profit , and then take the next 
best and bring that to a profitable state, and so 
on until the back swamp comes in its turn 
What we want is not so much large crops as 
