i89i 
495 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
CHEMICALS AND CLOVER. 
THEY KEEP THE LAND STRONG. 
The Farm Is Old Enough to Be “ Exhausted,” 
but it persists in growing stronger. It has been in culti¬ 
vation more or less extensively for over 100 years. Mr. 
Lewis has owned it 21 years. His immediate predecessor 
owned it for about the same length of time. Bsfore that 
it was held for 10 years by the owner of a button factory, 
who used the farm for spreading the wastes of his factory 
, --horn, bone, etc. For 20 years before Mr. Lewis bought 
it the farm ran down because more fertility was taken 
from it in the form of crops than was put back in the form 
of manure. While the owner paid for the farm and made 
money, he did so at the expense of the soil, and left it 
poorer and less able to produce crops than when he took 
it. The practice at that time was to use marl and lime, 
with light applications of Peruvian guano on wheat. In 
those days 20 bushels of wheat per acre was considered a 
great yield. All the yard manure that was made was 
applied to the wheat crop, and the cost of producing a 
bushel of wheat or a ton of hay was greater than at pres¬ 
ent because the yield was less and the work harder. In 
spite of the “war prices” of these days, yearly sales from 
the farm averaged only from $1,200 to $1,500, and crops 
were gradually decreasing in size. 
In the year ending April 1, 1839, the following sales were 
made from this 100-acre farm : 
Cattle and pork. $362.16 
Corn... 130.00 
Potatoes. 1,304.16 
Hay. 925.00 
Wheat. 331.22 
Miscellaneous. 64.19 
3,116.73 
Last year, the worst season for potatoes and wheat 
known since the fertilizer rotation was begun, the sales 
footed up to $2,435.20. The average Income from the farm 
Is over $1,000 more than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Not only 
that, but the farm is more productive to day than it ever 
has been before. Mr. Lewis says that he grows more hay 
now on his farm than was grown in the entire township 
50 years ago. 
The present season will be the most expensive for years, 
as 129 bags of fertilizer have been uged 
—more than ever before. The potato 
area is larger than usual, and consid¬ 
erable fertilizer has been used on the 
corn. The crops all look well, however, 
and prices promise to be very satisfac¬ 
tory. Several new varieties of grain 
and potatoes have been planted, which 
promise to bring far more than the 
usual market price. The grass and pota¬ 
toes grown on the highly fertilized soil 
are noted for their quality, and easily 
rank “No 1.” 
Two Cents a Pound for Manure 
seems like a tremendous price to the man 
who uses stable manure and never buj s 
fertilizer. “Two cents a pound” is a 
bigger price than is obtained for any 
product sold off this farm! Think of 
using 25,800 pounds in one year! By 
the way, how much less than this does 
your stable manure cost you if you put 
a fair valuation on your labor, your 
time and your feeding crops ? It is 
hard to understand how a farmer, mak¬ 
ing his money in the slow, hard lines 
of old-time agriculture could bring him¬ 
self to put over $400 in cash directly 
into the soil. Following Mr. Lewis’s 
example, many young farmers have used heavy dressings 
of fertilizers on potatoes though told by older men that 
they were tnrowing their money away. But the soil knew 
itself better than the farmers did and with skillful culture 
and generous care every penny of the investment came 
back in subsequent crops of wheat and grass, paying 
ample interest. Mr. Lewis learned his lesson among the 
farmers on Long Island. There he met men naturally 
“close” and stingy, who would “look on both sides of a 
cent ” before letting it go, using a ton of fertilizer to the 
acre! These men never would spend a cent uselessly, and 
ho concluded there must be something in this heavy dress¬ 
ing of fertilizer. These Long Island farmers formerly 
used stable manure. They were induced to use chemical 
fertilizers in this way. Somebody proposed that they take 
the same amount of money that was paid for the stable 
manure use 1 on an acre and buy fertilizers with it. They 
were using so much stable manure that this amount 
bought over a ton of fertilizer. This was used on pota¬ 
toes and the result with that crop was not fully satisfac¬ 
tory. It was not until the grass followed the wheat that 
the “ staying qualities ” of the fertilizers were developed. 
Then they saw the fertilizers were safe when put in the 
soil; that was the only thing they had been doubtful 
about. Mr. Lewis went home and tried this heavy fertil¬ 
izing himself. On the first potato crop the extra fertilizer 
did not seem to pay; on the wheat crop there still seemed 
a loss, but when the grass crop came, there could be no 
doubt about it I It paid. The secret of making that farm 
successful had been learned. 
High-Grade Fertilizers Like High-Grade Stock. 
After trying all sorts of fertilizers, the Cranbury farm¬ 
ers seem to believe there Is about the same difference be¬ 
tween high-grade and low-grade goods that there is be¬ 
tween well-bred and scrub stock. Starve a hired man and 
you weaken his back; cut off a horse’s feed and he will 
quit in the middle of a race. A potato plant is a 3 intel¬ 
ligent as a horse or a hired man, and it is just as liable to 
contract dyspepsia as either of them. A man will grow 
stronger, handsomer and make a better citizen generally 
when fed on nutritious, digestible and well-cooked food. 
Sirloin steak and green peas, bread and butter will keep 
him fat, while gristle, pea pods, bran and skim-milk 
cheese will barely support him. Yet these substances all 
come from the same materials that supply the health-giv¬ 
ing food. The high-grade, soluble fertilizers represent 
the steak, peas and bread; plants live and thrive on it 
because they can utilize it at once. The low-grade, in¬ 
soluble goods are like tough, indigestible food—the plant 
may live on it; but it cannot thrive and grow to its full 
capacity. 
“Our taxes are the same whether we use 300 or 1,500 
pounds of fertilizer,” said one farmer two years ago. So 
they are. The tax on a horse is the same whether he 
stands still in the stable or earns his living every day. 
The tax on a cultivator is the same whether it reposes 
under a tree or is kept steadily at work In the potato field. 
“ If a bag of high-grade fertilizer contains 25 per cent 
more soluble plant food than a bag of low-grade, I save 25 
per cent in time and work by using the former,” said an¬ 
other farmer. You do; and this is just the argument of 
the breeder of high-grade cattle, hogs or sheep—he finds a 
value in concentrated excellence. 
The fertilizer farmer is thought to have a dislike for 
stable manure. That is a mistake. He doesn’t like to 
handle stable manure—that’s all. One great argument in 
favor of live stock keeping is that fat animals will walk 
themselves off to market—their stout legs will save the 
useless labor of loading, hauling and unloading. Your 
fertilizer farmer goes further than this, and wants his 
stable manure to do its own walking 1 His “ stable ma¬ 
nure ” is clover sod; it grows where it is wanted, and its 
own “ muscles ” do the work that stock farmers feel called 
upon to do with their own hands. In what way would the 
clover gain by passing through cattle ? Add high-priced 
grain to the clover and the manure is made richer, while 
there is more meat to sell. But fertilizer added directly 
to the clover makes better manure, while meat selling is 
a poor way to make money in New Jersey. That is the 
way your fertilizer farmer looks at it, and he therefore 
lets his clover do its own walking, hauling and feeding ! 
(To be continued.) 
NOTES FROM THE RURAL GROUNDS. 
A New Insecticide Tested—Sludgite. 
Col. A. W. Pearson, of Vineland. New Jersey, has, per¬ 
haps more than any one else, endeavored to control the 
rose-bug or rose-chafer. The last report of the New Jersey 
Horticultural Society, gives a paper by Mr. Pearson, from 
which the following extracts are taken : 
“This insect, which Is a tough customer, has increased 
to an almost incredible extent of late years, in some por¬ 
tions of New Jersey. It has invaded Mr. Pearson’s land 
in the last three years, and has so enormously swarmed as 
to destroy all the crops of over 4,000 of his grape vines, 
half his strawberry crop, and much of his blackberries. It 
would have taken his apples, peaches and cherries if the 
trees had borne. He has had apples as large as walnuts so 
covered with rose-bugs as completely to hide the fruit. 
Some farmers have been ruined by its depredations Last 
autumn he grabbed out about 1,000 of his grape vines, 
valued at a dollar each before the insects ruined them. 
As these insects have wings, and can fly where food at¬ 
tracts them, it seems impossible to suppress this immense 
brood. Sometimes they appear in dark clouds like storm 
clouds. It may be merely a question of natural increase 
whether they will not eventually own the whole of south¬ 
ern New Jersey. 
“ Mr. Pearson has tried many substances to repel or to 
kill them, nearly all of which have proved ineffectual. 
The remedies which prove efficient on other insects, they 
seem to care nothing about; and what will in rare in¬ 
stances kill the bug will also kill the plant. Last June 
Prof. Smith, the entomologist, came to him with a * whole 
arsenal ’ of insecticides, and war was waged for a week on 
the rose-bugs, at the end of which time they remained 
masters of the field. Soon after this he obtained from the 
Columbia Chemical Works, Brooklyn, a package of a 
chemical termed * zomonia,’ (or sludglte.— Eds. R. N.-Y.), 
and described as ‘ kerosene sludge.’ It has a gelatinous 
appearance, and dissolved in hot water has been found 
effectual for other insects. One pound was applied to six 
gallons of wftter, and the infested rose bushes were 
sprayed with it. In ten minutes the rose-bugs had all 
fallen to the ground. They were found to be dead. No 
damage resulted to the plants. It appears to kill by 
contact.” 
The above article has been extensively copied by the 
rural press. 
A quantity of the sludgite was sent here for trial last 
summer or early fall, but so late that no trial was made. 
Lnderdate of June 6th, the following letter was received: 
Ed. R. N.-Y.—I have sent you to day, by express, pre¬ 
paid, three cans of s udglte, all differing slightly. A is 
made by the same formula as that which Col. Pearson had 
last year, and reported on as being so successful. B is pre¬ 
pared with fish oil as the basis for the soap, with which 
the sludge is mixed It is a little more soluble, and has a 
stronger odor. C is prepared like A with the addition of 
an insecticide which is highly indorsed in Germany, and 
used to some extent iu this country. I have not tried it 
yet, as I have only made a small lot for experimental 
purposes. Different insects, I know, require different 
treatment. The inclosed circular tells briefly all that we 
found out about sludgite last year, and gives a reference to 
Col. Pearson’s report. These all carry 33 per cent of petro¬ 
leum sludge. c. c. PARSONS. 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
June 8.—Twenty rose bugs were treated to A at 4 o’clock, 
one quarter pound to two gallons of water. In an hour 15 
seemed dead. The next morning all were alive and well. 
The same emulsion was forced through a cyclone nozzle 
upon rose bushes infested with slugs—rose-slugs. In an 
hour afterwards the slugs were dead—the foliage not 
harmed. The odor of this mixture is exceedingly offensive 
and it is rather difficultly soluble in warm water. 
J une 9.—9 o’clock. A quantity of potato beetles and their 
larvae and about 30 rose-chafers were placed in a tomato 
can and the spray of the above emulsion (A) was played 
upon them. The insects were then carefully turned out 
into a pasteboard box supplied with potato and rose leaves 
and magnolia petals. At six in the evening but one insect 
(a rose beetle) was dead or apparently so. The rest were 
lively. June 10.—8 o’clock. Ail alive and well. 
Mixture B.—Commenced at 9 o’clock June 10 with 25 
potato beetles, 25 grubs and 50 rose-bugs 
and a quantity of cherry aphidse, all 
collected on their preferred food. Used 
five ounces to two gallons of water—a 
stronger emulsion than the directions 
call for. None harmed one hour after¬ 
ward ; two hours afterward none harm¬ 
ed. This soap is more soluble than 
either A or C. It dissolves readily and 
completely in hot water, forming a 
permanent emulsion. Seven o’clock: 
insects all lively, Including the cherry 
lice. 
Mixture C.—This dissolves less read¬ 
ily than either A or B Odor vile. Six 
o’clock p. m. about 40 each of potato 
beetles, potato larva) and rose-chafers 
were thoroughly wetted with an emul¬ 
sion of one-quarter of a pound to two 
gallons of water. June 14, 8 o’clock, all 
alive and well. 
We must conclude from these trials 
that sludgite Is less effective than other 
insecticides that haven’t the disadvan¬ 
tage of an insufferable odor. We must 
further conclude that in our trials, 
unlike those of Col. Pearson, this emul¬ 
sion has little if any effect upon the 
rose-chafer. 
The following is the circular accompanying the mixtures : 
SLUDGITE. 
(TRADE-MARK.) 
Patented July 1st, 1890. 
This insecticide is prepared from sludge, or the concen¬ 
trated smell of petroleum, combined with soap. 
It is readily cut by hot water, and forms a permanent 
emulsion. 
It is much more powerful than kerosene emulsion, and 
does not Injure the foliage, or poison the grass like 
arsenites. 
It is the only known material that will conquer the rose- 
chafer. 
Kills the Striped Cucumber Beetle, Elm Leaf Beetle 
Potato Bug and Tent Caterpillar. 
Mixed with thin whitewash, and applied freely to the 
trunks of trees, it not only keeps off borers, but kills those 
in the trunks. Also keeps hen-houses free from lice, etc. 
Should be dissolved in hot water, and one pound to from 
8 to 12 gallons water be used. See Bulletin No. 75, New 
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. 
PRICES : 
6-pound cans.$1.00 
40 pound tin cans, boxed.12c. per pound. 
Barrels, 250—300 pounds.10c. per pound. 
COLUMBIA CHEMICAL WORKS, 
21 J ay Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
SMALL PLOTS US. LARGE PLOTS. 
Sir J. B. Lawes’s Opinion, 
I have received your letter of May 15, and I will answer 
your questions in regard to large and small plots. For 
many of the experiments described In your book on pota¬ 
toes, small plots are better than large ones, as you can 
have the same experiment repeated over and over again; 
but where you convert your small plots into average re¬ 
sults, I am afraid they are not to be trusted. Whether 
your experiment plot is small or large, you must have a 
division unoccupied to prevent the roots of one plot from 
taking the food from another plot. The smaller your plot, 
the more ground is unoccupied, but this unoccupied 
ground is used by the plant in various ways, getting air, 
light, water and food. With small plots it is quite im¬ 
possible to say how much the yield is greater than it woulfl 
v \ 
SHROPSHIRE RAM. THE WILLOWS No. 2. Fig. 183. See Page 496. 
