1863 . 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST, 
269 
ness. This last item is not the least in im¬ 
portance of what we have here suggested. 
Industry of Italian Bees. 
Rev. L. L. Langstrotli, sends to the Agricul¬ 
turist the following facts, communicated to him 
byWm. Noah Coler, of Montgomery Co., Ohio. 
On the 8th of August 1862, a stock of Italian 
bees threw a large swarm, which filled its hive 
two-tliirds full of comb, and gathered honey 
enough to winter well. The new colony 
swarmed on the 15tli of May last, and in eight 
days swarmed again. The first swarm filled its 
hive and swarmed on the 22nd of June ; the 
second swarm at the same date, had its hive 
three quarters full. The season has not been a 
good one for bees. In Southern Ohio, a swarm 
of black bees coming off as late as the 8th of 
uly, is seldom considered to be w r orth hiving. 
Question to Italian Bee Keepers. 
Among the many strong claims put forth for 
the Italian Bees, it is stated that they collect 
more honey and from a greater variety of sources 
than the common bee. It is said, that they 
gather sweets from raspberries, blackberries, 
and other fruits, and from flowers not visited 
by other bees. The question we would ask 
through the American Agriculturist is, wthether 
the honey thus collected is of equally good 
quality with that gathered by the common bee, 
and indeed, whether it may not have a flavor 
that will unfit it for table use. It is well known 
that the honey gathered by the humble bee, the 
different species of hornets, and the wasp, is 
watery and not of pleasant flavor. Along with 
the other tests applied to the Italian bees, this 
matter of the quality and flavor of their honey 
should not be neglected. 
The Value of Phosphates for Wheat and 
Turnips. 
Messrs. Editors of the Am. Agriculturist :—In a 
former number you say: “We know that the 
ashes of wheat contains a large amount of phos¬ 
phoric acid, and turnips but little, yet the appli¬ 
cation of phosphates to the soil does very little 
good to a wheat crop, while the superphos¬ 
phates are the great turnip manure in England.” 
This seeming anomaly, is, I think, well explain¬ 
ed in an article by Doct. Voelcker, in the Jour¬ 
nal of the Royal Agricultural Society, from 
which I quote for the benefit of those who may 
not have access to the original: 
“ In England the application of purely phos- 
phatic manures is confined almost exclusively 
to root crops: why is it that these manures, as 
a rule, benefit root crops more than cereals and 
other crops ? The idea naturally suggests itself 
that turnips or swedes require more phosphoric 
acid to bring them to perfection than wheat, 
barley, and oats; and an examination of the 
ashes of these several crops confirms this im¬ 
pression. A given quantity of ash of turnips, 
it is true, contains less phosphoric acid than the 
same quantity of wheat ash ; but since the to¬ 
tal amount of mineral matters or ash in a crop 
of turnips is very much larger (?) than that in a 
crop of wheat, the amount of phosphoric acid 
which is removed from the soil by the one is 
very much more considerable than that taken 
up by the other.—Taking the average composi¬ 
tion of the ash of turnips, bulbs and tops, de¬ 
duced from the recorded results of numerous 
reputable experimenters, we have in 100 parts: 
Potash.42.0 
Soda. 2-0 
Magnesia. 2-0 
Lime. 1L5 
Phosphoric acid. 
Sulphuric acid. 
Silica. 
Chloride of sodium. 6.0 
Chloride of potassium. 
Carbonic acid.15.0 
Bulbs. Tops. 
20.0 
3.0 
Phosphoric acid. 
Sulphuric acid. 
Silica. 2.5 
Lime... 3.5 
Magnesia.11.5 
Potash. 
Soda . 
Chlorides of potassium and sodium 
... 2.0 
1.0 
30.0 
5.0 
11.0 
... 1.0 
1.0 
8.0 
5.0 
16.0 
the ash 
of the 
out as follows: 
Wheat. 
Straw. 
5.0 
2.7 
67.0 
5.5 
2.0 
...30.0 
13.0 
4.8 
If we suppose the crop of bulbs of the turnips 
to weigh 20 tons per acre, and the tops 6 tons, 
and take the average percentage of ash in the 
bulbs at .70, and that in the tops at 1.7, we re¬ 
move from each acre, in round numbers: 
In the bulbs lbs. of mineral matter.314 
In the tops “ “ “ .228—542 lbs. 
An average crop of turnips in fact removes 
from the soil 281 lbs. of phosphoric acid iu the 
bulbs, and Hi lbs. in the tops—393 lbs., or, in 
round numbers, 40 lbs. in all. 
The grain of wheat, on an average, contains 
1.7 per cent, of ash, and wheat straw 5 per cent. 
The mean produce of wheat per acre, taken at 
4 quarters—32 bushels at GO lbs. the bushel—is 
1,920 lbs. of wheat; and the straw, generally 
twice the weight of grain, equals 3,480 lbs. 
lbs. lbs. 
In 1,920 of wheat there are of mineral matter... .32)<f 
In 3,480 of straw there are “ “ ...192 
Total mineral matter per acre. 224!£lbs. 
A fair average crop of wheat indeed removes 
from the soil 16J lbs. of phosphoric acid in the 
grain, and 9j lbs. in the straw—together 25! 
lbs,, or in round numbers, 26 lbs. Therefore a 
turnip crop weighing 20 tons per acre, takes 
14 lbs. more phosphoric acid out of the soil than 
32 bushels of wheat and 3480 lbs. straw.” 
I think that the above throws some light upon 
an interesting point in agricultural chemistry, 
and will be interesting to those of your readers 
who are turning their attention to the use of 
bones and faithfully prepared phosphates. I 
am no advocate for the use of loudly puffed fer¬ 
tilizers, but believing that we should not let the 
real merits of the phosphates be overlooked, 
because the name is attached to valueless arti¬ 
cles. I quote the above, that the farmer may 
see that phosphoric acid in some form is needed 
by his root crops. Rhode-Island. 
Remarks. —In reply to the above, it may be 
stated in the first place, that all calculations 
based upon the amount of phosphoric acid 
reported in the ashes of plants, are exceedingly 
unreliable. Until within the last few years, 
phosphoric acid was determined by the magne¬ 
sia process, a very uncertain method at best, as 
all experienced analysts are aware. A great 
deal of the reported phosphoric acid was 
doubtless magnesia. But granting that the 
analyses were approximately or relatively cor¬ 
rect, the fact (if a fact) that an acre of turnips 
contained 40 lbs. of Phosphoric acid, and an 
acre of wheat 26 lbs. (only about one third less) 
would not, we think, explain why phosphatic 
manures should so greatly benefit turnips, and 
yet produce so very little effect upon wheat. 
We have analyzed many specimens of soils 
from different localities, but never found one 
that did not contain detectable phosphoric acid 
enough for an almost unlimited number of crops, 
either of turnips or wheat; while there may be 
enough for many crops, and still the amount be 
so small in the minute proportion of soil ana¬ 
lyzed, as to escape detection by the most skillful 
chemist. We consider it exceedingly uncertain 
what proportion of the mineral substances 
found in the ashes of plants are really necessary 
constituent elements. The fluids taken into 
the roots contain dissolved earthy materials, 
such as chance to be fonud in the soil. When 
these fluids are evaporated from the leaves, the 
earthy materials (minerals) are left behind, as 
accidental impurities—not necessarily there as 
essential constituents. The large leaf surface 
of the turnip evaporates more fluids than the 
small leaved wheat, and there will of course 
be more ashes left behind in the turnips, to be 
found on analysis—we repeat, not necessarily 
there as essential constituents. When chemical 
analysis can discover what me the essential 
mineral constituents of any plant, we shall be 
better able to judge of the probable relative 
value of the different mineral manures. Until 
then, we shall remain much in the dark, and be 
obliged to rely mainly upon experience—upon 
the results of practical trials. For some reason, 
a manure made of bones dissolved in sulphuric 
acid benefits a turnip crop. May it not be that 
the sulphuric acid, together with the free phos¬ 
phoric acid which has a strong affinity for am¬ 
monia, are so effective because of the large 
amount of ammonia they attract or retain for 
the use of the plants ? We throw out the idea as 
suggestive, not as a posittve explanation.—E d.] 
--—BO P- ►- 
Cut up Corn by the Ground. 
A “ Young Farmer” asks whether it is better 
to “ top ” corn, by taking off the stalks at the 
ears, and afterward gather the crop, or to cut 
the w'hole stalk at the bottom. We have al¬ 
ways advised the latter course, and still recom¬ 
mend it for the following reasons. It saves 
labor. The whole hill can be severed almost at 
a blow while topping requires handling each 
stalk. The stalks yield more fodder ; the bot¬ 
tom leaves can be well cured and saved. The 
crop can be housed earlier, and much saved 
from molding, and destruction by birds and 
vermin. The crop should be cut as soon as 
the corn is glazed. The sap remaining in the 
stalk will be appropriated by the kernels, and 
the stalks, if properly cured, and housed will 
make good fodder. It may afterward be husk¬ 
ed out at leisure under cover. This plan of 
course will hardly do on the prairies, where 
hundreds of acres in a body are cultivated, but 
is applicable in most other sections, where only 
limited areas are given to corn. 
Poor Honey Yield. 
During our visit at St. Johnsville, N. Y., 
August 3d, we noticed that the hives were poor¬ 
ly filled, and Mr. Quimby informed us that 
owing to the almost constant heavy rains in July 
—the great honey collecting month—the bees 
had been able to make but little, and the pro¬ 
spect was that the supply of clover honey to be 
spared from the hives would not perhaps exceed 
a tenth of the usual yield. The second crop, 
which is mainly from buckwheat, may possibly 
be large, but this is not so valuable in market. 
As the rains were not general over the country 
—we saw very few showers during July, at the 
West—other locations may perhaps make up in 
part for the deficiency in the Middle and Eastern 
States, but we judge the supply on the whole 
will be much below the average of other years. 
