794 
THE  RURAL  NEW-YORKER. 
Dec.  3 
CHEMICAL  FERTILIZERS  AND  SAND. 
FATTENING  SOU.  FROM  A  BAG.  A  GARDEN  SPOT  IN 
“THE  BARRENS.” 
PART  II. 
[EDITORIAL  CORRESPONDENCE.] 
A  Garden  Spot  in  a  Desert. 
Mr.  Gordon  has  40  acres  in  his  farm.  It  was  divided 
this  year  about  as  follows:  Two  acres  of  cauliflower,  five 
of  potatoes,  three  of  wheat,  five  of  corn,  14-15  grass, 
four  rye,  six  in  orchards,  old  and  young,  and  a  small 
bit  of  pasture.  Grass  is  also  cut  in  the  older  orchards. 
Here  is  about  what  will  be  sold  from  the  farm  this 
season  : 
500  barrels  cauliflower. 
1,000  bushels  potatoes. 
80  bushels  wheat. 
80  bushels  rye. 
40  tons  bay. 
4  tons  rye  straw. 
850  bushels  apples. 
600  bushels  corn  In  ear. 
In  addition  to  this  some  money  will  be  received  from 
corn  stalks,  carrots,  eggs,  etc.  The  cauliflowers  aver¬ 
age  about  $1.50  per  barrel  and  potatoes  over  65  cents  a 
bushel.  The  hay  and  rye  straw  bring  highest  prices, 
and  the  apples  were  sold  in  the  orchard  at  60  cents  to 
$1  per  bushel  according  to  size.  Figure  out  the  above 
crops  and  you  will  see  that  Mr.  Gordon  surely  has 
“something  to  be  thankful  for”  this  year.  The  chief 
item  in  his  own  estimation  is  that  he  has  learned  cer¬ 
tain  lessons  about  the  use  of  fertilizers.  One  is  to  use 
the  best  goods  he  can  get  his  hands  on,  and  another  is 
to  fertilize  with  a  shovel  rather  than  with  a  table¬ 
spoon.  But  suppose  we  let  him  tell  the  story  as  he 
did  to  me,  in  his  own  words. 
“How  poor  was  your  land  when  you  first  came  to 
it  ?”  I  asked. 
“  When  I  first  came  here  I  could  not  grow  enough  to 
feed  one  horse  and  a  cow.  The  soil  was  lifeless — crops 
could  not  grow  on  it.  Twenty-five  years  ago  I  planted 
corn  without  manure  of  any  kind  on  that  field  where 
I  raised  1,000  bushels  of  potatoes  this  year.  My  grand¬ 
father  cleared  it  100  years  ago,  cultivated  it  a  few 
years  and  then  gave  it  up.  I  did  not  get  10  bushels 
per  acre,  try  as  hard  as  I  could.  Now  I  get  100  bushels 
of  ears  per  acre  without  any  trouble.” 
“  What  is  land  worth  an  acre  ?” 
“  All  around  here  land — the  average  as  it  runs — can 
be  bought  for  from  $10  to  $15  an  acre,  My  land  is  now 
worth  $100  an  acre.  It  pays  interest  and  a  big 
profit  on  that  valuation.  In  other  words,  my  farm  is 
easily  six  to  ten  times  as  valuable  for  producing  crops 
as  the  original  lands  about  it.” 
“  How  did  you  come  to  use  fertilizers  ?” 
“  I  was  driven  to  it.  Here  I  was  with  a  farm  that 
could  hardly  grow  weeds.  Stable  manure  was  out  of  the 
question.  We  could  not  buy  all  we  wanted  any¬ 
way,  and  the  price  was  ’way  up.  Farmers  near  the 
cities  took  about  all  of  it  and  the  freight  made  it  very 
expensive.  Fish  scrap,  too,  was  too  expensive,  and  it  is 
not  suited  to  potatoes  anyway.  Home-made  stable 
manure  was  out  of  the  question — the  farm  would 
not  produce  enough  to  feed  a  horse  and  a  cow, 
much  less  a  herd  of  stock.  I  should  have  had  to  buy 
hay  and  grain  to  make  manure,  and  this  seemed  like 
a  back-handed  way  of  feeding  plants.  When  I  bought 
hay  and  grain  I  had  to  pay  a  profit  on  some  other  farm¬ 
er’s  labor.  In  trying  fertilizers  I  thought  I  could 
cut  that  profit  out.  I  began  in  a  small  way,  using 
potash  with  fish,  superphosphates  and  other  chemicals. 
The  superphosphates  gave  good  results  for  a  time,  but 
at  last  seemed  to  “play  out.”  I  became  convinced 
that  on  my  soil  I  needed  a  complete  fertilizer— one  that 
contained  everything  the  plant  needed.  I  saw  that  I 
had  to  feed  the  plant  rather  than  the  soil.  The  first 
year  I  used  about  $75  worth  of  fertilizer.  Th^  results 
were  so  satisfactory  that  I  have  continued  to  increase 
the  amount  until  I  now  use  about  $600  worth  every 
year  on  my  40  acres.  I  have  also  increased  the  amount 
used  on  each  crop  and  thus  far  the  more  I  use  the 
more  money  I  make.” 
“  But,  is  it  safe  to  use  fertilizers  alone?  Don’t  you 
need  more  stable  manure  to  provide  ‘  humus.’” 
“  All  I  can  say  is  that  I  have  not  bought  any  stable 
manure  for  15  years  and  have  sold  everything  but 
wheat  straw,  and  some  corn  stalks.  My  soil  is  in 
better  condition  than  ever  before  as  to  color,  texture 
and  strength.  My  idea  is  that  the  wastes  of  the  crop, 
that  is,  the  parts  that  do  npt  find  cash  sale,  are  enough, 
if  carefully  saved,  to  give  bulk  to  the  fertilizer  and 
keep  the  soil  friable.  The  better  the  grass  the  better 
the  sod,  the  more  wheat,  the  more  straw,  and  so  on. 
Let  all  that  can’t  be  sold,  be  saved  and  go  back  to  the 
soil  and  you  have  enough  to  go  with  the  fertilizer. 
The  cauliflower  crop  gives  a  big  lot  of  waste  leaves. 
We  save  them  all  for  spreading  on  the  grass  or  mulch¬ 
ing  the  trees  in  the  young  orchard.” 
“Why  not  keep  more  cattle  to  eat  these  leaves. 
Isn’t  it  a  waste  to  use  them  as  you  do  ?  ” 
“  No,  we  think  not.  Cattle  will  eat  the  leaves  when 
fresh,  but  we  cannot  keep  the  cattle  comfortably.  It 
is  so  dry  here  during  the  summer  that  it  is  next  to  im¬ 
possible  to  get  water  for  stock.  Everything  dries  up 
and  cattle  suffer  greatly.  There  are  very  few  sec¬ 
tions  more  subject  to  drought  than  this.  Rain  clouds 
blow  away  from  us  and  we  had  only  a  few  light  wet¬ 
tings  all  summer.” 
“  If  it  is  so  dry,  how  do  the  fertilizers  answer  ?  ” 
“  They  are  better  than  stable  manure  in  such  a  dry 
time.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  possible  to  get  a  perfect 
distribution  of  the  fertilizers — all  over  the  soil.  You 
can  scatter  them  evenly  so  that  every  inch  will  have 
some  on  it.  This  can’t  be  done  with  stable  manure. 
Too  often  it  will  be  left  in  big,  hard  lumps  that  won’t 
work  well  into  the  soil.  Now,  in  a  very  dry  time  the 
manure  dries  as  hard  as  wood,  and  must  be  soaked  all 
through  before  the  roots  can  be  fed  on  it.  The  soluble 
fertilizers  scattered  all  through  the  soil,  are  made 
available  with  every  little  shower  and,  being  every¬ 
where,  they  draw  out  a  bigger  and  more  complete 
root-growth.  We  have  not  had  one  good  soaking  rain 
all  this  summer — that  is,  enough  to  make  stable  ma¬ 
nure  available.  That  is  why  fertilizers  are  better  for 
very  dry  times  and  sections.” 
“  How  much  fertilizer  do  you  use  ?  ” 
“On  potatoes  1,600  pounds  to  the  acre.  I  put  800 
in  the  drill  below  the  seed  pieces  and  800  more  above 
them,  with  earth,  of  course,  between  the  fertilizer  and 
the  seed.  I  have  a  machine  for  dropping  the  fertilizer 
and  raking  it  in.  When  wheat  follows  potatoes,  I  do 
not  use  more  fertilizer.  In  sowing  wheat  after  other 
crops  not  heavily  fertilized,  I  use  800  pounds  per  acre. 
If  grass  is  cut  more  than  twice,  I  top-dress  it  the  third 
spring  with  400  pounds  per  acre.  Corn  is  planted  on 
sod  with  what  manure  1  make  and  cauliflower  leaves. 
Where  these  are  lacking  I  use  600  pounds  of  fertilizer 
per  acre,  and  get  just  as  good  results  as  with  manure. 
For  cauliflower  I  plow  a  piece  of  sod  and  broadcast 
900  pounds  of  fertilizer  per  acre.  This  is  thrown  from 
a  wagon  with  a  shovel  and  harrowed  in.  Then  with 
my  fertilizer  machine  I  drop  900  pounds  more  in  drills 
three  feet  apart,  turn  a  furrow  over  the  fertilizer,  and 
set  the  plants  on  the  ridge.  ” 
( To  be  Continued.) 
NOSE  RING  FOR  CALF. 
Several  readers  having  asked  how  to  make  a  device 
to  prevent  calves  from  sucking  cows,  we  reprint  a 
picture  of  one  made  by  J.  M.  Drew,  and  given  in  The 
R.  N.-Y.  two  years  ago.  It  is  pretty  well  shown  in 
the  illustration  at  Fig.  301.  The  spike  is  riveted  in 
one  set  of  holes,  and  after  the  ring  nas  been  placed  in 
the  nose  the  bolt  is  fastened  in  the  other.  This  is 
sure  to  prick  the  cow  and  make  her  move  away  when 
the  calf  sucks.  Some  heifers  get  into  this  bad  habit 
and  will  not  give  it  up,  even  when  they  have  calves  of 
their  own. 
DAIRY  GOSSIP. 
Variations  In  Milk.— Bulletin  No.  77  of  the  New 
Jersey  Agricultural  College  Station  gives  some  inter¬ 
esting  figures  relating  to  the  interrupted  (by  fire)  ex¬ 
periment  there  going  on  with  the  different  breeds  of 
dairy  cattle.  For  the  six  months  beginning  May  1, 
the  analysis  of  Ayrshire  milk  showed  an  average  of 
total  solids  of  12. 58  per  cent.  The  highest  monthly 
average  was  13.08  in  August,  the  lowest  11.85  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  yet  during  the  short  time  when  this  low  av¬ 
erage  prevailed,  the  milk  still  showed  an  average  of 
3.26  of  butter  fats — a  little  above  the  legal  standard. 
For  the  same  period  the  Guernseys  showed  an  average 
of  total  solids  of  14.265,  and  an  average  of  4.91  butter 
fats.  The  lowest  average  of  total  solids  was  in  July 
when  it  was  13.85.  For  the  same  period  the  Holsteins 
showed  an  average  of  total  solids  of  12.02  and  an  aver¬ 
age  of  3.39  butter  fats.  The  lowest  average  of  total 
solids  was  in  August  when  they  averaged  11.38,  the 
highest  was  in  June  with  12.99.  The  Jerseys  during 
the  same  time  showed  an  average  total  solids  of  14.15 
per  cent  and  an  average  of  4.59  of  butter  fats.  The 
Short-horns  showed  an  average  total  solids  of  12. 14 
percent,  the  lowest  being  11.89  in  July,  the  highest 
12.24  with  an  average  of  butter  fat  of  3.43. 
Cost  of  Milk. — Anent  the  cost  of  producing  this 
milk,  we  are  told  in  the  same  bulletin  that  the  food 
consumed  by  the  breeds  cost  as  follows  for  each  pound 
of  solids  yielded:  Ayrshire  5.9  cents,  Guernsey  5.3, 
Holstein-Friesian,  6.2,  Jersey  6.0  and  Short-horns  6.2. 
For  each  quart  of  milk  produced,  the  cost  is  as  fol¬ 
lows :  Ayrshire  1.66  cents,  Guernseys  1.71.  Hol- 
stein-Friesians  1.75,  Jerseys  1.91,  Short-horns  1.71. 
These  figures  ought  to  demonstrate  to  such  of  our 
dairymen  as  sell  their  milk  all  summer  through  for 
two  cents  or  less  per  quart,  that  they  are  doing  a  losing 
business — that  they  are  impoverishing  their  farms  and 
paying  for  the  privilege  of  doing  it. 
Buy  Fat — Not  Water. — A  prominent  dealer  in  New 
York  city  said  to  me  a  few  days  ago,  that  he  was  de¬ 
termined,  as  soon  as  he  could  make  arrangements  for 
doing  so,  to  inaugurate  the  new  method  in  his  trade — 
that  of  paying  for  milk  in  proportion  to  the  amount 
of  butter  fat  it  contained.  He  assured  me  that  while 
he  made  every  effort  to  get  good  milk,  much  of  the 
time  he  was  in  constant  fear  of  arrest  for  selling  milk 
below  the  legal  standard.  He  thinks  he  can  build  up 
a  better  and  more  secure  trade  and  pay  a  better  price 
for  his  milk  and  be  relieved  from  all  anxiety  about  his 
business.  It  would  seem  so.  Mr.  Abbott’s  magnificent 
success  in  Philadelphia  and  Mr.  Halsey’s  in  this  city, 
both  of  whom  work  on  this  line,  are  excellent  illus¬ 
trations  of  the  possibilities  in  this  direction. 
Finding  Consumptive  Cows. — Bulletin  No.  21  of 
Pennsylvania  State  College  Experiment  Station  is  a 
very  interesting  contribution  to  the  literature  of 
tuberculosis  in  cattle,  detailing  some  experiments  in 
demonstrating  the  value  of  Dr.  Koch’s  tuberculin  as 
an  agent  for  detecting  the  presence  of  this  dreaded 
disease  in  dairy  cows.  The  method,  in  brief,  is  to  in¬ 
ject  tuberculin  under  the  skin  of  the  cattle.  All  that 
show  a  rise  in  temperature,  “-a  reaction,”  are  said  to 
be  tuberculous.  Some  thirty  head  of  cows,  heifers 
and  a  bull  were  subjected  to  the  test.  Of  these  two 
gave  the  characteristic  reaction  and  were  pronounced 
tuberculous.  Two  others  showed  slight  reactions,  but 
not  enough  to  warrant  being  pronounced  tuberculous. 
About  a  month  later,  the  remainder  of  the  herd  were 
tested  and  with  them  the  four  animals  already  alluded 
to  as  showing  a  greater  or  less  reaction  on  the  pre¬ 
vious  test.  On  this  occasion,  only  the  two  first  spoken 
of  gave  any  reaction — they  only  were  declared  tuber¬ 
culous  by  the  test. 
In  order  to  test  the  comparative  value  of  this  method 
with  the  old  one  of  a  physical  examination.  Dr.  F. 
Bridge,  the  State  Veterinarian,  was  called  in  to 
examine  the  herd,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  re¬ 
sults  of  the  Koch  test.  He  pronounced  one  of  the  two 
condemned  by  the  Koch  test,  as  a  case  of  tuberculosis, 
but  decided  that  the  second  one  condemned  was  not 
suffering  from  the  disease.  He  pronounced  one  other 
cow  tuberculous  and  two  others  as  probably  tuber¬ 
culous.  The  five  cows  were  then  slaughtered.  Two 
were  tuberculous — the  ones  condemned  by  the  Koch 
test.  The  others,  suspected  by  the  veterinarian,  were 
suffering  from  bronchitis  or  pneumonia,  but  had  no 
tuberculosis.  All  of  which  goes  to  show  the  great 
difficulty  a  veterinarian  encounters  in  diagnosing  this 
disease,  while  it  is  no  little  evidence  of  the  value  of 
the  Koch  method.  f. 
SHARP  CREAMERY  DEALING. 
Who  Was  to  Blame  Here? 
Last  summer  a  Chicago  creamery  firm  sent  one  of 
its  expert  double-tongued  sharpers  into  this  section, 
and  he  worked  it  for  all  it  was  worth.  By  skillfully 
spun  Munchausen  tales  he  succeeded  in  forming  stock 
company  creameries  in  this  and  quite  a  number  of 
neigboring  towns.  The  stock  was  divided  into  shares 
of  $100  each,  and  was  taken  principally  by  farmers, 
who  were  led  by  the  fanciful  stories  of  the  exDert  to 
believe  there  were  millions  in  it. 
The  one  located  in  this  village  cost  the  farmers  and 
townspeople  $5,000.  The  expert  secured  the  sub¬ 
scribers,  the  company  erected  the  building  and  put  in 
the  machinery,  and  a  second  expert  collected  the 
funds.  It  would  mightily  puzzle  any  man  possessed 
of  common  sense  to  see  more  than  $1,500  in  the  entire 
outfit,  yet  the  company  raked  in  5,000  in  good  dollars 
and  departed  smiling. 
Some  time  after  the  place  was  finished  it  started  up 
under  the  command  of  a  cider  maker,  ran  about  six 
weeks  and  then  shut  down.  There  it  stands  a  silent 
monument  to  $5,000  worth  of  rural  gullibility.  The 
stock  has  been  offered  by  its  holders  as  low  as  $10  per 
share,  with  no  takers.  In  neighboring  villages  the 
same  state  of  affairs  exists,  and  the  deceived  are  mourn¬ 
ing  their  vanished  shekels. 
Most  of  the  farmers  in  this  section  keep  from  one  to 
four  cows,  yet  the  creamery  sharp  made  them  believe 
that  they  could  make  more  money  out  of  them  than 
off  their  whole  farms.  He  convinced  them  that  they 
could  take  their  new  milk  to  the  creamery,  have  it 
run  through  the  separator  in  a  few  minutes,  carry  the 
skim-milk  b?'*.k  with  them  and  fatten  a  dozen  pigs 
with  it  ;  aj.  Rat  the  skim-milk  was  just  as  good  for 
