6i8 
THE  RURAL  NEW-YORKER. 
Sept.  24 
“  useless  ”  middlemen  for  we  recogmize  the  fact  that 
there  must  be  a  certain  number  of  handlers  and  sellers 
whose  business  is  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  grow¬ 
ing  the  crops.  Legitimate  middlemen  can  handle  and 
sell  the  crops  cheaper  than  the  farmer  can.  It  is  the 
extra  man — the  one  who  is  not  needed — who  eats  up 
the  profit  that  rightfully  belongs  to  the  farmer.  As 
illustrated  in  our  cartoon,  tie  the  handkerchief  of  co¬ 
operation  over  his  favorite  hole  and  shut  off  his 
supply. 
Horticultural  Gossip. 
On  the  first  day  of  September,  Mr.  Wm.  B.  Brown, 
of  Newburgh,  brought  me  specimens  of  his  new  early 
grape,  and  with  them  some  of  the  ripest  Champions 
he  could  find.  The  Champions  were  colored  well,  but 
were  not  ripe.  With  such  grapes,  it  makes  but  little 
difference  whether  they  are  ripe  or  unripe,  for  they 
are  never  fit  to  eat.  Mr.  Brown’s  grape  was  thor¬ 
oughly  ripe  and  sweet.  While  not  of  high  quality,  it 
is  a  very  good  grape  for  an  early  one,  and  if  it  could 
at  once  drive  out  the  Champion,  it  would  be  a  great 
boon  to  the  cause  of  horticulture.  The  grape  is  of 
good  size,  about  the  same  as  Champion,  with  compact 
bunches,  black,  and  we  think  would  market  well. 
When  the  peduncle  is  pulled  from  the  fruit,  it  has  a 
reddish  tinge,  resembling  somewhat  the  Hartford, 
and  we  believe  Mr.  Brown  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Hartford  is  its  sire.  We  believe  it  has,  as  yet,  not 
been  named  or  disseminated. 
Strolling  through  the  markets  a  few  days  since, 
our  attention  was  drawn  to  a  lot  of  a  half-dozen 
baskets  of  beautiful,  large,  yellow  peaches.  They 
were  very  handsome,  indeed,  but  unlike  any  variety 
with  which  we  were  familiar.  While  looking  at  them, 
the  market  man  approached  and  remarked,  “Fine 
peaches,  sir.”  “Very  fine,  indeed,”  we  answered. 
“What  variety  are  they?”  “They  are  Morris 
Whites.”  “Oh  no,  that  won’t  do,”  we  replied.  “We 
know  all  about  Morris  Whites,  and  these  are  not  at  all 
like  them.”  He  scratched  his  head,  and  finally  sug¬ 
gested  that  they  were  “  Mountain  Rose,”  but  we  told 
him  that  Mountain  Rose  was  also  a  white-fleshed 
peach,  and  then  suggested  that  perhaps  he  didn’t  know 
anything  about  them.  To  this  he  rather  sneakingly 
assented,  after  finding  out  that  he  could  not  success¬ 
fully  lie  his  way  through.  Further  examination 
showed  them  to  be  clingstones,  and  probably  a 
seedling. 
Onk  of  my  neighbors  has  about  a  dozen  plum  trees 
in  an  inclosure  in  which  his  hens  and  chickens  run 
freely,  and  every  year  he  has  a  crop  of  plums,  suffer¬ 
ing  somewhat  from  rot,  but  losing  very  few  from  cur- 
culio.  My  trees  produce  but  few  plums,  as  the  most 
of  them  are  annually  bitten  by  the  curculio  and  fall  to 
the  ground.  I  suppose  his  hens  and  chickens  catch 
enough  of  the  “  little  turks  ”  to  materially  reduce  the 
aggregate  of  their  ravages  and  hence  he  gets  plums 
while  I  get  none.  I  must  either  get  chickens  or  spray 
my  plum  trees  with  some  poison — the  latter  will  be 
easiest  for  me. 
By  the  way,  have  any  of  the  readers  of  The  Rural 
ever  succeeded  in  growing  what  might  be  called  a 
good  crop  of  Coe’s  Golden  Drop  Plum  ?  I  have  not. 
The  tree  is  a  splendid  grower  and  it  blossoms  well, 
but  it  sets  very  light  crops  of  fruit,  which  are  reduced 
to  a  minimum  later  by  the  curculio.  It  is  such  a 
splendid  fruit  that  I  dislike  to  give  it  up,  but  I  think 
I  shall  graft  it  to  some  more  productive  sort.  I  shall 
write  to  my  friend  Willard,  of  Geneva,  who  is  great 
on  plums,  and  see  what  he  has  to  recommend.  f. 
A  Discussion  of  Fertilizers. 
Part  VI. 
While  Soil,  Atmosphere  &  Co.,  the  great  firm  of 
builders  of  all  kinds  of  crops,  furnish  most  of  their 
material,  yet  as  we  know,  the  farmer  must  provide  for 
a  certain  part  of  the  plant  food.  Leaving  the  consid¬ 
eration  of  the  amount  of  nitrogen,  let  us  turn  our  at¬ 
tention  to  the  proportions  of  phosphoric  acid  and 
potash  in  crops.  The  following  table  shows  the  ratio 
of  the  former  to  the  latter  in  some  of  the  leading  crops. 
Ensilage  . 
.  1 
2.7 
Potatoes . 
.  1 
3.1 
Hay . 
.  1 
4.5 
Clover . 
3.5 
Corn . 
.  1 
2.6 
Wheat . 
.  1 
1.2 
Oats . 
.  1 
3.3 
BeanB  . 
.  1 
2.6 
Thus  ensilage  contains  for  each  pound  of  phosphoric 
acid  2.7  pounds  of  potash,  while  hay  contains  4% 
pounds  of  potash  to  each  pound  of  phosphoric  acid. 
The  following  table  shows  the  pounds  of  deficient 
plant  food  in  1,000  pounds  of  the  products  named  : 
Nitrogen. 
Phos.  Acid. 
Potash. 
Oats . 
.  20.0 
5.33 
4.25 
Potatoes  . 
.  3.4 
1.8 
Hay . 
4.25 
19.3 
Oat  straw . 
.  4.0 
1.8 
9.7 
lleans . 
11.6 
12.0 
Corn . 
.  16.0 
5.5 
3.3 
Milk . 
.  5.6 
1.95 
2.14 
Butter . 
.  1.0 
0.75 
.5 
Fat  oxen . 
.  23.2 
16.5 
1.84 
Live  hogs . 
.  17.5 
6.9 
Wool . . 
.  73.0 
1.0 
40.0 
Live  sheep . 
.  19.6 
11.39 
1.6 
Note  that  in  most  of 
our  farm  crops 
there  are 
three 
times  as  much  potash  as  phosphoric  acid.  If  we  feed 
these  crops,  on  the  farm,  the  manure  will  be  richer 
in  potash,  just  as  the  crops  fed  have  been.  But 
another  fact  comes  in  here,  clearly  shown  by  the  fol¬ 
lowing  table.  The  amount  of  manure  produced  an¬ 
nually  has  been  estimated  as  follows,  for  a  1,000- 
pound  ox : 
Nitrogen,  Phos.  Acid.  Potash. 
Solid  manure,  20,000  lbs.,  containing. . .  96.4  46.6  96.0 
Liquid  manure,  10,000  lbs.  containing  95.5  160.9 
Total  per  year . .  191.9  46.6  256.9 
In  other  words,  the  liquid  manure  contains  nearly 
two-thirds  of  the  potash  and  none  of  the  phosphoric 
acid.  But  the  liquid  is  what  is  usually  lost,  so  that  as 
manure  has  generally  been  handled,  a  large  part  of  the 
potash  and  very  little  of  the  phosphoric  acid  has  been 
lost.  The  natural  result  is  that  on  a  large  part  of  the 
land  that  has  been  long  cropped,  and  especially  that 
on  which  grass  has  been  grown  is  deficient  in  potash. 
Bulletin  No.  14,  of  the  Hatch  Experiment  Station, 
in  summing  up  the  results  of  a  large  number  of  ex¬ 
periments  with  fertilizers  on  corn  in  different  parts  of 
Massachusetts  says,  :  “  Potash  much  more  often  proves 
beneficial  or  proves  much  more  largely  beneficial  than 
either  nitrogen  or  phosphoric  acid.  Potash  as  a  rule 
most  largely  increases  the  yield  of  both  grain  and  sto¬ 
ver,  but  its  effect  upon  stover  is  greater  than  upon 
grain  production.  The  relative  deficiency  of  many  of 
our  soils  in  potash  may  be  largely  accounted  for  from 
the  following  facts  :  Manures  as  a  rule  lack  this  in¬ 
gredient.  All  fodders,  pasture  grasses  and  hay  are 
rich  in  potash,  and  our  farmers  ha/ve  devoted  a  large 
share  of  their  land  to  the  production  of  these  crops. 
Farmers  who  have  used  commercial  fertilizers  have, 
as  a  rule,  bought  phosphates  or  fertilizers  rich  in 
phosphoric  acid  and  containing  little  or  no  potash. 
What  is  true  of  Massachusetts  is  true  of  the  rest  of 
the  older  parts  of  New  England,  and  what  is  true  of 
An  Unwelcome  Guest.  From  the  Globe.  Fig.  248. 
New  England  is  true  of  most  of  the  older  parts  of  this 
country,  I  believe.  In  the  Experiment  Station  Record 
for  July  1891,  page  725,  are  notes  of  an  experiment 
with  corn  on  “Blue  Grass  soil”  in  which  potash 
showed  a  marked  effect.  There  are  probably  thou¬ 
sands  of  farmers  who  are  losing  money  every  year  just 
because  their  soils  lack  potash.  I  have  not  space  in 
this  article  to  speak  of  how  to  apply  potash,  but  I  will 
speak  of  one  important  result  of  this  deficiency. 
Clover  will  not  grow  in  a  soil  deficient  in  potash.  It 
contains  3K  pounds  of  potash  to  each  pound  of  phos¬ 
phoric  acid.  This  is  a  most  important  fact  for  those 
who  are  experimenting  with  chemicals  and  clover. 
The  influence  of  potash  on  the  growth  of  clover  is 
strikingly  shown  in  the  following  table  taken — as  are 
all  of  the  tables  in  this  article  except  one— from  Bul¬ 
letin  No.  6  of  the  New  Hampshire  Experiment  Station. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  amount  of  clover  follows 
very  closely  the  per  cent  of  potash  in  the  fertilizer 
and  as  the  seed  sown  was  exactly  alike  on  each  plot 
there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  potash 
promotes  the  growth  of  clovers. 
Composition  of  fertilizer.  Per  ct.  of  each  variety  of  grass. 
Nitro-  Phoshphoric  Herd’s-  Red 
gen. 
acid. 
Potash. 
Clover. 
grass. 
top 
l. 
..  7 
— 
32 
10 
70 
20 
2. 
..  3 
12 
2 
0 
20 
80 
3. 
..  3 
12 
2 
0 
15 
85 
4. 
..  3 
12 
6 
1 
19 
80 
5. 
..  3 
12 
2 
1 
19 
80 
6. 
..  - 
— 
— 
1 
19 
80 
7. 
..  3 
12 
2 
2 
23 
75 
8. 
..  0 
9 
25.5 
55 
40 
5 
9. 
..  5.5 
16 
0 
5 
85 
10 
10. 
..  2.5 
9.5 
11.25 
10 
80 
10 
11. 
..  3 
12 
2 
2 
58 
40 
12. 
.  3 
12 
2 
2 
48 
50 
15. 
.  .  - 
2 
8 
35 
60 
5 
16. 
.  .  - 
— 
— 
2 
48 
50 
17. 
..  - 
— 
8 
35 
55 
10 
18. 
.  .  - 
— 
50 
40 
55 
5 
19. 
..  0 
0 
0 
1 
24 
75 
20. 
..  - 
16 
— 
1 
19 
80 
21 
.  .  - 
34 
— 
1 
19 
80 
22 
..  2 
19 
10 
20 
60 
20 
23. 
.  .  - 
34 
— 
1 
19 
80 
24. 
..  0 
0 
0 
0 
15 
85 
25. 
..  - 
15 
— 
1 
14 
85 
26. 
..  2.5 
5.75 
25 
35 
60 
5 
If  you  leave  out  the  words  “phosphoric  acid,”  and 
all  reference  to  phosphatic  manures  in  the  translation 
of  Prof.  Paul  Wagner’s  article  on  page  252  of  The 
Rural  for  April  16,  it  will  far  better  fit  American 
conditions.  The  great  lesson  of  that  article  is  that 
if  clover  fails  on  your  soil,  you  should  sow  150 
pounds  of  muriate  of  potash  to  the  acre.  If  you  know 
your  land  is  deficient  in  phosphoric  acid,  apply  also 
300  or  400  pounds  of  dissolved  bone  black.  The  600 
pounds  of  Thomas  phosphate  powder  mentioned  in 
the  article  of  Prof.  Wagner,  would  contain  about  120 
pounds  of  phosphoric  acid,  a  much  larger  amount 
than  is  needed  by  most  of  our  soils.  In  many  cases, 
200  or  250  pounds  of  muriate  of  potash  would  be 
better  than  less.  I  should  judge  from  Prof.  Wagner’s 
article  that  German  soils  contained  much  more  potash 
and  much  less  phosphoric  acid  than  American  soils 
Notes  from  the  Rural  Grounds. 
Crossing  Tomatoes.  Tuber  -  bearing 
Tomatoes. 
The  mode  of  crossing  tomatoes  is  the  same  as  that 
of  crossing  potatoes,  as  the  generative  organs  are 
much  the  same  in  form  and  arrangement.  While, 
however,  it  is  easy  to  cross  tomatoes  because  the  an¬ 
thers  generally  yield  more  or  less  pollen,  it  is  difficult 
to  cross  potatoes  because,  in  this  climate  at  any  rate, 
the  anthers  rarely  develop  pollen. 
Tomatoes  sometimes  cross  naturally.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  of  it.  Hence  it  is  that  a  plant  now  and 
then  of  a  given  variety  bears  fruit  quite  different  from 
the  type  in  color  and  form  ;  or  leaves  of  a  different 
color,  size  or  incisions.  So,  too,  the  habit  may  differ 
from  the  compact  form  of  the  “  Tree  Tomato  ”  (To¬ 
ma  te  de  Laye),  to  the  widely  spreading  habit  of  the 
varieties  now  in  the  market,  and  it  is  to  such  varia¬ 
tions — not  to  artificial  crossing — that  we  are  indebted 
for  the  Acme,  Favorite,  Perfection,  Optimus,  Paragon, 
and  other  kinds  chiefly  in  demand  at  the  present 
time.  Prof.  E.  S.  Goff  gave  us  a  cross  between  the 
“Tree”  Tomato  and  the  Alpha,  and  the  writer  has 
crossed  this  cross.  But  nothing  of  value  has  yet  been 
obtained.  Prof.  Bailey  has  hybridized  the  Currant 
Tomato  (Lycopersicum  pimpinellifolium)  with  the  com¬ 
mon  tomato  (L.esculentum.)  Further  crosses  and  se¬ 
lections  may  lead  to  nobody  knows  or  may  guess  what. 
The  writer’s  work  in  this  line  during  the  past  three 
years,  leads  him  to  infer  that  the  favorite  kinds  of  the 
future  will  depend  upon  artificially  crossing  the  best 
varieties  of  to-day  ;  by  continued  careful  selection  and 
then  further  crossing  the  progeny. 
If  we  examine  a  tomato  flower  we  shall  see  that  the 
stamens  (five  or  more  in  number)  are  joined  together 
above,  forming  a  little  cone  surrounding  the  style. 
In  the  immature  flower  the  head  of  the  pistil  (stigma) 
is  below  the  top  of  this  cone  of  anthers.  Later  the 
pistil  lengthens  pushing  the  stigma  through.  As  the 
stamens  dehisce  (open)  on  their  inner  surface,  begin¬ 
ning  at  the  apex,  the  stigma  receives  it  and  fertiliza¬ 
tion  of  the  ovary  follows.  If,  therefore,  we  want  to 
cross  one  flower  with  another,  we  must  remove  this 
whorl  of  anthers  while  green,  protect  the  stigma  from 
access  to  other  pollen  than  that  we  desire  to  apply, 
by  tissue  paper  or  something  of  the  kind,  until  the 
stigma  is  ripe  or  receptive;  then  remove  the  covering 
and  apply  the  foreign  pollen,  again  protecting  it  until 
the  fruit  has  set.  Our  way  is  to  gather  flowers  from 
the  plant  that  is  to  be  the  male  parent  and  by  the  use 
of  a  toothpick  or  even  a  pin,  scratch  out  the  pollen 
from  the  anthers  through  the  line  of  dehiscence  up¬ 
wards,  and  apply  it  to  the  stigma  of  the  emasculated 
flower  that  is  to  be  the  mother.  In  this  way  artificial 
crossing  is  easy  enough. 
When  the  stigma  begins  to  ripen  it  may  as  often  as 
not  occur  that  it  has  reached  the  top  of  the  stamen 
tube  or  even  beyond  it  before  receiving  pollen  from  the 
anthers  beneath.  Any  insect  having  gathered  pollen 
from  flowers  of  other  plants  would  unavoidably  touch 
the  stigma  of  the  next  flower  visited  and  thus  cause  a 
cross  between  them.  It  is  not  known  that  the  tomato 
flowers  secrete  honey  and  the  writer  has  rarely  seen 
insects  visiting  them.  Since,  too,  the  stamens  do  not 
usually  bear  much  pollen,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  self-fertilization  is  the  rule.  Occasionally,  how¬ 
ever,  we  find  so  considerable  a  quantity  of  pollen  that 
it  might  easily  be  wafted  from  one  flower  to  another 
by  a  timely  breeze. 
From  time  to  time  a  new  tomato  has  been  introduced 
with  the  claim  that  it  was  the  result  of  a  cross.  This 
need  not  be  doubted.  We  do  not,  however,  know  of 
any  systematic  crossing  having  been  carried  on  until 
of  late  years,  and  we  do  know  that  the  best  kinds  of 
to-day  are  not  the  results  of  artificial  crossing.  Mr. 
Livingston's  varieties  or  selections  from  them  which 
have  long  held  the  first  place  in  the  market,  were  the 
outcome  of  selection  only,  as  he  himself  freely  admits 
The  results  of  The  R.  N.-Y.’s  work  in  tomato  crossing 
during  the  past  three  seasons  are  such  that  it  will  be 
hopefully  and  vigorously  continued. 
