Q94 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST, 
ae western grazier, and stock breeder, has al¬ 
ways bought his cheese from the eastern dairies, 
vinces not only his good taste in the article it¬ 
self but his appreciation of the right kind of hus¬ 
bandry in another line, for himself. 
In an economical view, we consider the dairy, 
either in butter, or cheese, the most permanent in 
price of any one branch of our wide-spread ag¬ 
riculture. Its draw-backs, or hindrances are 
somewhat, to be sure ; yet its advantages are 
many, aside from the uniformity of its income. 
Let us see: a well arranged dairy establishment 
requires a comparatively large capital in its prop¬ 
er outfit, embracing a wide range of land, and 
corresponding buildings. It demands a skill and 
practice in its own peculiar way. In its season, 
and that not a short one, it requires unceasing, 
vigilant attention, and diligent labors. On the 
other hand, its rewards are usually sure. Its 
products are not immediately perishable. Its la¬ 
bor and expenses are much less than the grain 
grower’s. Its localities are eminently healthful — 
pure air and good water always abounding. Its 
associations are agreeable, and the finest taste in 
the way of improved cows, and the possession of 
the finest models of their race may be indulged 
with the strictest eye to economy. The amount 
of labor to be employed is regular, and not sub¬ 
ject to sudden or extraordinary emergencies. The 
life of the dairyman is eminently pastoral, quiet, 
and retired. His gains are steady, and although 
not usually apt to run up to famine prices, like 
that of the grain, or beef and pork produce, they 
seldom fall to the nominal prices of grain, or 
meats, in an over stocked market. In fine, the 
occupation of a dairyman is healthful, and satis¬ 
factory. 
Our position—that the pursuit of the dairyman 
should, on a proper soil, be that of the dairy 
a ] one —must be taken with allowance, whatever 
he can produce on his own farm, that his own 
wants require, not interfering with the most ■profit¬ 
able product of the dairy itself, he should produce. 
If cheese be worth eight cents, or butter sixteen 
cents a pound, and he can not make his own beef 
or pork short of eight cents when he can buy it 
in the neighboring market for six, he should not 
make a pound of either, except he can do it on 
the “wash” of his dairy. And so in other 
things—even the bread for his family, and the 
grain on which he teeds his cows, or horses. His 
hay he should always cut on his own farm, as 
that belongs to the cow keeping department as 
much as pasturage. 
We have said enough. With industry, and a 
well regulated economy, perfect neatness, sys¬ 
tem, and order in his business, the dairyman will 
surely succeed, soon to competence, and ulti¬ 
mately to positive wealth. 
-- -- -»<*►«——> — - 
Save the Straw. 
Reports from many sections speak of an unu¬ 
sually light hay crop. In some counties in the 
western part of New-York, and northeastern 
Ohio, farmers are disposing of their stock at re¬ 
duced prices. An intelligent friend just returned 
from a visit in that neighborhood, expresses the 
opinion that there is not enough hay there to 
winter half the stock. Fortunately there has 
been grown this year an unusually large breadth 
of grain, and straw and stalks will be plenty. If 
these are properly secured, and fed out judicious¬ 
ly, they will do much to make up for the scarcity 
of hay. Straw alone, merely piled up in the 
yard without protection from the weather, and 
left for the cattle to run to at pleasure, will not 
keep them in good condition. If it be housed or 
properly stacked, and fed cut, mixed with a little 
addition of roots, bran, shorts, or oil cake, it will 
be eaten readily, and stock will thrive upon it. 
The experience of all who have used a straw- 
cutter, proves that it is a great economizer of 
food, and that the labor required to cut straw, 
stalks, and even hay, is amply repaid by the sav¬ 
ing effected, and the greater value given to the 
feed. By cutting and steaming, the very coarsest 
parts of stalks may be prepared for mixture with 
ground stuff, and become palatable, nutritious food. 
Let those who think of selling their cattle at a 
sacrifice, first see that all resources of this kind 
are counted upon ; they may find the present ne¬ 
cessity a real benefit in teaching them how to 
winter stock cheaply and well, almost without 
the use of hay. 
- — . -—-- 
Sulphuric Acids for Soils.—Phosphatic 
Guano. 
A QUESTION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS. 
Prof. S. W. Johnson, in a recent report to 
the Connecticut State Agricultural Society, on 
phosphatic guanos, remarks: “To give an idea 
of the extent to which the manufacture of sul¬ 
phuric acid (oil of vitriol) is carried on, I may 
quote a statement, recently made by a German 
agriculturist, who says that one-half of all the 
oil of vitriol now made, is applied to the soil, 
chiefly in Great Britain.” 
If we understand Prof. Johnson and other agri¬ 
cultural chemists, they do not attribute any spe¬ 
cial value to sulphuric acid as a fertilizer per se, 
but they recommend its use chiefly to dissolve 
bones, phosphatic guanos, and other mineral phos¬ 
phates. Now, though we have devoted not a 
little attention to the practical study of agricul¬ 
tural chemistry, we are a little diffident in calling 
in question the views of those who make chem¬ 
istry a profession, but there are a few questions 
we would like to propose : 
1st.—If the good effects arising from burned 
bones, and the phosphates generally, when they 
are applied to soils, are due wholly, or nearly so, 
to the phosphoric acid they contain, how is it that 
these substances have, in practice, proved nearly 
valueless until sulphuric acid has been added to 
theml Is it reasonable to suppose that in the la¬ 
boratory of the soil, none of the phosphoric acid 
will be available to plants, unless it is previously 
rendered “soluble” by the addition of sulphuric 
acid! There have been abundant experiments 
upon various crops, with burned bones, finely di¬ 
vided, to prove that the simple phosphates are 
nearly or quite worthless. 
2d.—Simple sulphuric acid, diluted with water, 
has produced a good effect when added to the 
the soil. Sulphate of lime (Plaster of Paris), 
which contains a large amount of sulphuric acid, 
has often proved beneficial where no other lime 
compound seemed to be useful. Why then may 
we not attribute the valuable results from the use 
of superphosphates, in part, or chiefly, to the sul¬ 
phuric acid they contain ? 
3d.—Admitting, for argument at least, the util¬ 
ity of the sulphuric acid, why would it not be bet¬ 
ter to apply it directly to the soil, diluted of 
course ; or mix it with some unexpensive earth, 
always at hand, rather than be at the expense of 
procuring burned bones, or any of the phosphatic 
guanos, for compounding with it 1 
We are not going to say that phosphoric acid 
is not an essential element in plants; and of 
coutse in the soil, but we have never yet seen 
the analysis of a soil, good in other respects, 
which did not show phosphoric acid enough pre¬ 
sent to supply the exceedingly small amount 
found in the ashes of plants. To us it certainly 
appears that some chemists have fallen into a sort 
of phosphoric acid mania. They are so complete¬ 
ly taken up with the theory that phosphoric acid 
is the sine qua non —the ehief thing to be looked 
after—in cultivation, that they seem scarcely to 
have stopped a moment to inquire whether the 
common, vulgar sulphuric acid has any value of 
itself or not. But of this another time. 
We confess to have been once quite taken up 
with the theories of Liebig, and other prominen 
chemists, in regard to the mineral elements in 
plants, and the value of mineral fertilizers. But 
our practice and study in the laboratory, and 
especially since we left it, have led us into a little 
skepticism. We distrust more and more the 
dicta of agricultural chemists in regard to the ac¬ 
tion of this or that fertilizer, and its specific or 
relative value. Nor are we alone in this feeling. 
Prof Johnson himself, in a recent able paper, 
published in the July No. of the American Journal 
of Science and Art, makes the following state¬ 
ments. which are not without significance : 
11 We are every day drifting further from what but 
a few years ago, was considered one of the most 
fixed and beneficial principles of agricultural science, 
viz. that a substance is chiefly a fertilizer because it 
directly feeds the plant, and are learning from the 
numerous recent and carefully conducted experiments 
with manures, that in very many cases we can not 
safely venture to predict what will be the influence of 
a given application ; but find in vraclice the strang¬ 
est arid most discordant results, it being possible to 
show from the experiments of the farm that almost 
every fertilizer in use has in some instances proved 
beneficial to every cultivated crop, and in other cases 
has been indifferent or even detrimental .” 
-«—«-<3 B3»-*—«»- 
For the American Agriculturist. 
Hatural and Artificial Queen Bees. 
I have recently been reading some of the writ¬ 
ings of Prof. Siebold, relating to the reproduction 
of the honey bee, which go to establish Dzierzon’s 
theory, namely, that in the production of workers 
and queens, connection between the sexes is nec¬ 
essary, but to produce drones, such connection 
is unnecessary. To substantiate this theory, he 
brings forward the case of several insects, which 
without intercourse of the sexes produce females. 
But since the drones are males, I do not perceive 
the relevancy of the proof. 
In relation to the manner of producing natural 
queens, I hold that it is on this wise: The work¬ 
ers commence a royal cell, usually on the edge 
of the comb, and when about one third finished, 
the queen bee deposits an egg, leaving the work¬ 
ers to complete the cell. With the egg is depo¬ 
sited a substance called the royal jelly, which, in 
my opinion, is neither more than less, than the 
impregnated semen of the drones. This alone 
possesses the wonderful power of changing both 
the physical and nervous system of the bee ; no¬ 
thing collected from the vegetable kingdom could 
produce such an effect, it can be done only in the 
natural way, which the Creator has devised for 
the reproduction of animal life. The workers 
continue to feed the larvae with the necessary 
food, in which the drones’ semen forms a com¬ 
ponent part; when ready to cnange from the 
larvae to the chrysalis state, they close the cell 
with an over-supply of the same food. When the 
queen is perfected, she gnaws off the cap from 
her cell, thrusts out her proboscis, and the work¬ 
ers feed her. In a few days she flies out for the 
purpose of having her receptacle or oviary filled 
with the semen of the drones, then she returns, 
and is capable of laying workers’ eggs. 
When the queen of the hive is accidentally lost 
