1867.] 
AMERICAN AQ-RICULTURIST. 
fur better thuii on the rest of tlie held. 1 should 
not be surprised if the yield was one-third or 
one-half greater, and this will a good deal more 
than pay for the clover seed. With such effects 
it is not surprising that so many good farmers 
object to raising clover seed. But I think it is 
nevertheless true that if the money obtained for 
the seed is e.\{)eudeil in oil-cake, and the manure 
returned to the land, there is a decided gain. 
^ ou do not see the effect, hoAvever, quite so 
s.-on !is if the clover was pastured with sheep, 
or plowed under. 
You may recollect, I asked your opinion as to 
whether a clover field that was cut for seed 
would give a good croi) of clover the next sea¬ 
son. I had such a field, and, not being willing 
to risk the whole, I plowed up half of it and 
planted potatoes, ami the other half I left for 
hay. The clover is not quite as good as the first 
crop was last year, but much better than I ex- 
l>ected. I sowed no timothy, but there is quite 
a sprinkling of it among the clover, and I shall 
have a fair crop of hay. I presume, neverthe¬ 
less, that a heavy crop of seed weakens the 
clover plant very materially, and, as a rule, it 
should not be allowed to go to seed except in 
cases where it is to be plowed up the next season. 
This moruing I was up unusually early, and 
sjiw a Dominique rooster in a cherry tree picking 
off the fruit almost as neatly as a robin. During 
the day, when we are around, they do not med¬ 
dle with them. The little chickens eat the 
strawberries, but the hens seem to know better, 
although they occasionally take a slice out of a 
Trolltjpe’s Victoria or an Agricidturist. They 
leave us all the Wilson’s. If chickens arc well 
fed, they do comparatively little injury in the 
garden. The ducks have done us the most 
damage this year, as they manifest a great par¬ 
tiality for green peas. They gobbled up a whole 
row of Daniel OTlourke’s, and if we had not 
shut t'.icm up, they would have left us scarcely 
a i>ea in the garden. I suppose the only way is 
to have a large yard and hen-house where you 
can shut up the poultry when they prove troub¬ 
lesome. The next best thing is to feed them 
all they will eat, and keep them out of the gar¬ 
den as much ns ix>ssible. A garden with a high 
fence round it is not at all ornamental. 
A gentleman in Huntington, Conn., writes 
me that he has sown twelve acres of com, in¬ 
tending to plow it in for manure, but would like 
to know my opinion as to “whether it would 
not be better to cure it and feed it out.” I judge 
from the fact that corn is the crop selected, the 
land is not a heavy clay, and that the object in 
plowing it under is simply to furnish manure, 
and not to loosen the soil. This being the case, 
the only point to be determined is, whether the 
feed will not pay for the expense of curing and 
storing the crop, and drawing b;vck the manure. 
If Ujc manure does not drain away, but is all 
saved, it will be worth within five per cent, as 
much as if the crop was plowed under. This is 
true, I think, even if the crop is fed out to milch 
cows. The milk will not carry off more than 
five per cent, of the nitrogen and phasphates. 
If fed to dry cows, the loss will be still less. And 
if, us is too often the case, the cows are no heavier 
in the spring than in the fall—if, in other words, 
the animals have neither grown or got fatter, I 
do not see where there can be any loss except in 
the carbonaceous matter u.sed to keep up tlic 
anim.al heat. "Wdierc can there be any loss of 
nitrogen or pbosphatc? or of potash, soda, lime. 
magnesia, etc.? There is soda in the blood, but 
there is no more blood in the animal than 
there was at the commencement of winter. 
There are phosphates and lime in the bones, but 
there has been no increase of bones. There is 
nitrogen in the fleslj, but for each pound of new 
flesh added, a pound of old flesh has been trans¬ 
formed, and the nitrogen from this is exactly 
equal to the nitrogen taken from the food. There 
is, therefore, no loss. The manure will contain 
as much plant food, except carbonaceous matter, 
as the food consumed by the animal. The ques¬ 
tion then is simply, what is the value of au acre of 
cured corn fodder, say three tons ? A good-sized 
cow would probably eat from 30 to So pounds 
a day, and the three tons would last her about 
six months. Now what is it worth to winter a 
cow ? A cow weighing from 900 to 1000 pounds 
will eat about 200 pounds of hay a week. With 
hay at $10 per ton, this would make the cost of 
keeping a cow' six months $20. If we estimate 
the manure worth half the price of the hay, we 
have $13 as the actual value of the food given 
to a cow during six months. Whalflirmerin the 
New England or IMiddle States will winter a cow 
for less? Now in plowing under clover or corn 
fodder as a green manure Ave lose this sum, less 
the cost of cutting and curing the crop and the 
expense of drawing back. the manure. Many 
farmers make a great deal more than this from 
their feed. One Avould think few could make 
less. In this section the past spring, hay was sold 
for a short time at $30 to $35 per ton, and it 
Avould seem in such circumstances to be worse 
than folly to plow under good hay or fodder, 
when, by feeding it to animals, Ave get the same 
benefit from the manure, and have the food in 
addition. 
If the present drouth continues, many of us 
would like these twelve acres of green corn for 
our milch cows. But if the corn can not be 
used for this purpose, and if it can not be cut 
and cured, or used to good advantage Avhen it 
is cured, Avhy then, idoAv it under. It is a very 
loAV order of farming, but is a good deal better 
than skinning the laud by selling all the hay 
and straw. 
I am not sure that a good summer falloAv 
would not enrich land just as much as ploAving 
under a crop of corn. If not, Avhy not ? On 
very sandy soil, where some of the elements of 
plant food may be Avashed out of the soil, a crop 
that Avould organize and retain it may be better 
than a summer fallow. And on a very heavy 
soil, Avliere you Avant the mechanical action of 
the green manure for loosening the soil, ploAving 
under the crop may produce better results. 
But otherAvise I do not exactly see Avhat Ave 
gain from ploAving under a crop of corn. It 
must be confessed, however, that avc do not 
knoAV enough to speak very positively on the 
point. It may be that the large q«ia«tity of 
carbonaceous matter jfioAA’ed under in the green 
crop, may, in fermenting, form organic a •ids that 
act on the latent plant food in the soil, and ren¬ 
der it available. Or, at all events, the carbonic 
acid ultimately formed, doubtless has such an 
effect. I haA'c ahvays supposed, hoAvever, that 
we get enough of such matter from the roots 
and stubble, in proportion to other ingredients, 
Avithout ploAving under a Avhole crop. So far 
as Avheat is concerned, I have neA^er knoAvn an 
application of carbonaceous matter, directly 
01- indirectly, attended Avith any increase of the 
grain. It Avill give more straAV. And those 
farmers who tell us that the reason they can 
not groAV as goo() Avheat as formerly, is not oav- 
ing to the land being poorer, because they get 
straw enough for forty bushels per acre, while 
the crop only turns out 20 bushels, should con¬ 
sider Avhether they are not furnishing too much 
carbonaceous matter to the soil, and too little 
nitrogen and phosphates. 
“What about the price of wheat ?” asks an 
old friend. It is not safe to predict. I hope 
we shall have a good crop. The country needs 
it. Manufacturers need it, the Secretary of the 
Treasury is looking anxiously at the grain fields 
of the West, and farmers themselves need it as 
much as any other class to pay high Avages and 
still higher taxes. I am inclined to think we 
shall liaA'C a fair crop, and I hope for fair prices. 
The markets of the AA’orld are bare of Avheat. 
There is no accumulation any Avhere. High 
prices have brought it all out. In such circum¬ 
stances, it would seem that the new crop should 
command at least as much as the cost of pro¬ 
duction. Such AAull be the case if farmers will 
not sell for less. Manufacturers sometimes sell, 
they say, for less than cost. But they frequently 
make large profits. Farmers never do. Then 
again, a manufacturer fears to hold, because 
there may be a change of fashion, but the fash¬ 
ion for Avheat does not change. It is always 
Avanted. I am aware that consumers have mueh 
to say about the extortion of farmers. The 
charge is unfounded. It is vain to expect that 
Avheat can be grown as cheaply as it was 25 or 
30 years ago. In this section, I do not see, with 
the present cost of implements, Avages, and tax¬ 
es, hoAv wheat can be grown for less than $1.50 
per bushel, even if you get the land for nothing. 
Y'ou may on rich land raise it for less, but you 
take enough out of the land to make up the dif¬ 
ference. Your land Avill become poorer. If 
means are taken to keep up the fertility of the 
soil, we can not groAV a bushel of Avheat for less 
than $1.50 a bushel. And if we expect an in¬ 
terest for the mone}’’ invested in the farm, we 
ought to get $2.00 a bushel. At $2.50, a good • 
farmer Avill get ample remuneration. But when 
the crop does not average over 15 bushels per 
acre, the profits, even at this figure, are not daz¬ 
zling. I have made up my mind to sell when 
I can get $2.25 for red Avheat. If consumers 
can not pay this, let them curtail their expenses 
in some other direction. Farmers need the 
money more than French milliners. 
Wheat, in England, is now Avorth from 60.^’. 
to 75s. a quarter of eight bushels. Now, as an 
English shilling is 24 cents of our money, if Ave 
multiply the price per quarter by 3, Ave get the 
price in dollars and cents. Sixty shillings a 
quarter, therefore, is $1.80 a bushel. SeA^enty- 
five shillings a quarter is $2.25 per bushel. This 
is in gold. With gold at 140, $1.80 in gold is 
AA'orth $2.52, and $2.25 in gold is Avorth $3.15. 
Wheat, in England, therfore, is Avorth in our 
money, from $2.52 to $3.15 per bushel. 
The Agriculturist should tell us next month, 
what it costs to send Avheat to Liverpool, and 
London, and Ave can then form some idea as to 
Avhat prices we should expect for our Avheat. 
As I understand it, Avheat has been for several 
months higher here than in England, and con¬ 
sequently none AA'as exported. But since tlie 
recent decline of $1.00 a bushel in New York, 
Avheat can be exported Avith a profit, and as long 
as this is the case, it Avill be no loAver. If avc 
raise more Avheat this year than is wanted by 
our own rapidly increasing population, the price 
Avill depend ou the foreign demand. W^e cer¬ 
tainly shall not have enough to spare to glut the 
markets, and farmers should insist on receiv¬ 
ing fair prices — and sell when such are offered. 
