Boo 
NOV. 14 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
figures given show the amount of digestible substances In 
these foods—what the animal can digest when in good 
health. 
GRAIN FOODS. 
Corn. Oats. 
Wheat 
Bran. 
Linseed 
Meal. 
Cotton¬ 
seed 
Meal. 
Protein. 
. fit! 
9 
13 
27 4 
36 
Fat. 
4 
2 % 
64 
n 4 
Carbohydrates. 
. 614 
42 
44 
39 
16 
HAY AND 
Clover Mixed 
Hay. Timothy. Hay. 
.. 6 34 3 
STRAW 
Corn 
Fodder 
Be^t. 
Ensilage. 
Oat 
Straw. 
Wheat 
Straw. 
Protein. 
34 
vh 
4 
% 
Fat. 
.. '4 1 4 14 
% 
24 
8-4 
3* 
Carbohydrates. 
.. 34 41 33 
43 
224 
41 
34 
These figures represent the digestible materials in these 
foods. There are other substances in these foods that the 
animal cannot digest, but which appear in the manure. 
The analysis for corn fodder represents the best sample— 
well-cured, cut early and safely housed. The great 
majority of farmers who leave their fodder out for the 
rains to spoil, cannot show samples with half as much as 
this—much of its value too is lost in feeding 1 
A milch cow weighing 1,000 pounds should consume, 
each day, food that contains digestible matter equal to 2>£ 
pounds of protein, 12}£ pounds of carbohydrates and 2-5 
pound of fat at least. That is the average proportion 
found best after many experiments. The fats are con¬ 
sidered worth 2^ times as much as the carbohydrates. 
Both of these substances supply the fat in the animal— 
the protein must be had for the muscle. The proportion 
which the protein bears to the fats and carbohydrates 
combined is called the nutritive ratio. In the case of the 
cow just mentioned the 2-5 pound of fat multiplied by 2% 
and added to 12>£ pounds gives 13)£ pounds of fat and carl 
bohydrates combined. This divided by 2%, the number of 
pounds of protein, gives 5.40 or 5 2-5. This means that for 
every pound of protein in the food, the cow should have 
5 2-5 pounds of fat and carbohydrates, or she will not do 
her best. If the proportion is wrong and there is too much 
of one substance and too little of another, there will be a 
waste and much of the surplus will probably go to the 
manure. Fat has no fertilizing value at all, and when a 
surplus of It is excreted it is wasted. This proportion of 
one to 5 2-5 is called a standard ration for milch cows. A 
food that gives a higher proportion of fats and carbohy¬ 
drates is a carbonaceous ration ; one in which the propor¬ 
tion of protein is higher is a nitrogenous ration. By 
figuring out the composition of the different foods as we 
have the ration for the cow, we find that corn has a 
nutritive ratio of over one to ten. There are pounds 
of carbohydrates; add to that 3% pounds of fat multiplied 
by 2X and you have 703^ to be divided by 6>£. Corn is 
therefore classed as a carbonaceous food. In the same 
way we find that oats, bran, linseed meal, etc., are nitro¬ 
genous with clover hay nearly so, while the other hays are 
carbonaceous. Now with these figures before you can you 
weigh your cows’ food for one day and see how much sur. 
plus fat you are feeding her ? 
FORKFULS OF FACTS. 
The dairymen of this country would make money by 
knocking one half of their cows in the head. The breeders 
of other kinds of scrub stock repeat the mistakes of dairy¬ 
men. Why farmers will persist in keeping cows that 
don’t pay their way is more than we can understand. 
Why they winter sheep for five pounds of wool and a 20- 
shilling lamb is equally incomprehensible. And the 
man who feeds stunted pigs, and winters “ lifting” colts 
goes hand in hand with his neighbor who gathers a single 
dozen of eggs a year from his dung-hill hens. “ Farming 
don’t pay ” those fellows. 
English Agricultural Law.— The Mark Lane Express 
gives an account of two legal decisions that will interest 
farmers. A court officer, trying to satisfy a judgment 
against a farmer, seized two pigs and carried them to a 
marketplace. It appeared that, in consequence of some 
swine disease, the farm had been declared an “ infected 
area ” from which no animals could be moved without a 
license. The officer thougnt he had a right to disregard 
this order, but the authorities made him return the pigs 
and pay costs. In another case a milkman was fined $20 
for selling watered milk. The defense was that the dealer 
did not know the milk had been watered. The judges 
paid no attention to this, holding that any man should be 
able to know when milk contains 10 per cent more water 
than it should. 
Feeding Turnips and Cabbages.— An Illinois sub¬ 
scriber asks: “ What is the best way to utilize turnips ? 
I have a great many. They give a peculiar flavor to the 
cows’ butter but not to the milk. I also have a great 
many cabbages that have bursted; what can I do with 
these ?” We have fed a great many turnips and cabbages 
this fall and have had no trouble at all. Tney are fed 
while the cows are eating. The turnips are sliced and the 
cabbages chopped up with a hatchet or spade. It pays to 
thoroughly air the milk. We do this by stirring or pour¬ 
ing it from one vessel to another. With a large quantity, 
one of the patent aerators would be useful. This airing 
will remove objectionable odors. 
THE GRAIN QUESTION IN GERMANY. 
Just now when special efforts are being made to extend 
the sale of our meats and breadstuffs abroad, anything 
pertaining to the condition of European markets Is doubly 
interesting. United States Commercial Agent Smith sends 
to the State Department a critical review of the German 
tariff system and its probable results. He says bread in 
Germany is 50 per cent higher than it was five years ago, 
while potatoes are 80 per cent higher than in 1890. One 
German political party—the Social Democrats—take these 
higher prices for food as a text for arraying the working 
people against the ruling classes, claiming that the high 
cost of food is due to the tariff which was levied to favor a 
small landed aristocracy of farmers. Bismarck is the 
great German “Protectionist.” His belief is that Germany 
is essentially an agricultural State, and that the claims of 
the farming or landed aristocracy should receive first con¬ 
sideration. He argued that tariffs on food products would 
enable the German farmers to live and increase their pro¬ 
ducts. He also proposed tariffs for manufacturers, but 
these were of secondary importance. This policy differs 
from that of this country in that it fostered agriculture 
first, while most American tariffs have been devised for 
the purpose of encouraging manufacturing enterprises and 
thus creating a “ home market” for farmers. There were 
two reasons for this movement. The German land owners 
are the aristocracy—men of noble lineage—the chief sup¬ 
porters of the monarchy and the class from which most of 
the army officers come. If such men were driven into 
bankruptcy and forced to sell their lands or reduce their 
way of living, the Empire would lose its strongest sup¬ 
porters. Bismarck therefore advocated a tariff on farm 
products as a means of strengthening and satisfying this 
strong governing class. Another way in which the Ger¬ 
man situation differs from ours is In the fact that Germany 
is surrounded by rich agricultural countries many of which 
have the advantage of richer soils and cheaper labor. 
Twelve years of protection with different tariffs—gradu¬ 
ally becoming higher—have raised the prices of home¬ 
grown grain and of bread, checked excessive importation, 
but not lessened the amount of grain imported, and pro¬ 
vided nearly 27 per cent of the entire customs duties. It 
seems to be generally admitted that tariffs will not so 
stimulate grain growing that Germany can hope to pro¬ 
duce all she needs. About all the available grain lands of 
Germany seem to be in use—in fact, considerable inferior 
grain is now grown on land and in climates unsuited to it. 
Rye, the great bread grain of the German people, has 
greatly increased in price and the poor people feel the in¬ 
crease keenly. 
Efforts are now being made by the Social Democrats to 
reduce the tariff on grain and meat, particularly on Amer¬ 
ican products. The chief arguments are, 1, that Germany Is 
a manufacturing rather than an agricultural nation. Of 
its exports 72% per cent are manufactured goods while 
only 16 per cent of its imports are manufactures. It is 
therefore argued that Germany should follow the English 
policy and foster manufacturing even at the expense of 
buying its breadstuffs abroad. 2. The landed aristocracy 
is a favored class and one in less need of government favors 
than any other. The workmen, manufacturers and smaller 
farmers are in favor of this policy, the first because they de¬ 
sire cheap food, the second because they desire cheaper 
raw materials, and the third because they want cheaper 
land. Against these arguments it is claimed that the 
landed class is the backbone of the government, the con¬ 
servative element that holds the country together. The 
large farmers claim that a reduction of the tariff would 
reduce the price of their lands and cripple them financially. 
They also claim that the government can find no better 
way of raising needed revenues than by customs duties. 
There is also a party favoring a sort of “reciprocity” 
between Germany and other nearby countries, like Swit¬ 
zerland or Austria. Already Germany has lowered its 
tariff on wheat and rye for Austria, by 20 per cent. But 
even if Germany, Austria, Italy, Bulgaria and Roumania 
should combine in a “customs union,” the combined grain 
product of all these countries will be inadequate to supply 
all the mouths to be fed. C ireful estimates show that 
638,000 tons of rye and 125.000 tons of oats or an equiva¬ 
lent in other grains must still be imported from some¬ 
where. To sum the matter up, it seems altogether likely 
that Germany will need more and more of American 
grain and meat. The tendency is all towards a reduction 
of the German tariff and America is about the only coun¬ 
try that can supply the food. 
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL 
SOCIETY. 
R. N.-Y. Short-Hand Report. 
(.Continued.) 
On plant diseases Prof. B. F. Galloway said that the 
apple scab alone cost this country $6,000,000 in 1890, and 
that the total damage to fruit from disease was simply 
appalling, aggregating not less than $50,000,000 annually. 
The Bordeaux Mixture was recommended. The first ap¬ 
plication should be when the leaves are half grown. In 
nursery stock six or seven applications are needed: the 
standard solution is 6 pounds of copper, four pounds of 
lime and 22 gallons of water. 
The pear, plum, cherry and quince leaf blights are 
best controlled by the Bordeaux Mixture, applied first 
when the leaves are one third grown, and thereafter at 
intervals of 12 or 15 days until six or seven sprayings have 
been given. As to peach yellows, he said the cause was yet 
a mystery after four years of work upon it. The disease is 
transmissible and cannot be cured. It can be dealt with 
only by wise legislation and the judicious axe and fire¬ 
brand. 
The analysis by Dr. Erwin F. Smith of the Department 
of Agriculture, of diseased and healthy peach wood showed 
slight differences, a deficiency in potash and phosphoric 
acid, especially in some cases, but this fact warrants no 
definite conclusion. It was formerly supposed that liberal 
doses of muriate of potash and superphosphates, with 
slight additions of other substances, such as kieserite, were 
all that was required to cure the yellows. The theory of 
feeding the soil as a preventive or remedy of the disease 
breaks down when put to the practical test in the orchards, 
and the chemical or starvation theory must therefore be 
abandoned. The chemicals are practically worthless as a 
remedy. Over 40 acres of treated trees, selected from 11 
orchards in two different counties, have demonstrated 
these results. The disease has increased for the last three 
years under this treatment. He said it was now well es¬ 
tablished that the disease is highly contagious. 
The liberal use of plant foods caused a vigorous growth 
of foliage even on diseased trees. This, Mr. Garfield said, 
often led people to believe their trees were cured, but they 
die suddenly of the yellows after all. Mr. Engle of Penn¬ 
sylvania had evaded the disease by using stocks of the 
Blackman Plum. Dr. Smith is also experimenting in that 
line. 
The much needed work of catalogue revision was boldly 
begun at the second morning session, but was given up 
before the work was half completed, to give time for the 
many essays that were waiting to be fired off. All felt 
that while some good work had been done, far too many 
indifferent, unknown and practically worthless varieties 
were yet left to lumber up the list. 
D. W. Adams, President of the Florida Horticultural 
Society, attacked “pruning in general.” “Oar present 
practice in pruning proves that we consider it necessary to 
butcher things generally,” said he, “ under the notion that 
every fruit tree is born depraved and full of evil tenden¬ 
cies. We prune to make trees grow, to check growth, to 
make them bear, to reduce the fruit crop ; we prune up to 
make them tall, and down to make them short. We prune, 
finally and chiefly, because that is the way we are brought 
up to do. Now when you begin to cut you shorten vital¬ 
ity. There is no such thing as pruning to make a tree 
grow. The more you prune the smaller it will be. The 
loss of foliage makes extra work for that which remains. 
Pruning is at the expense of the future growth and vigor 
of the tree. Cut off one half the roots and the same thing 
will occur in another way. Tne tree must go to work and 
repair damages. Pruning may make a tree bear, but it is 
because its vitality is threatened. Can we afford it at this 
cost f See how the ‘ water sprouts’ grow; we must keep 
removing these, again at the expense of the tree. We ex¬ 
pose long, naked trunks and branches to sun, frost, etc., 
unnaturally. Is it any wonder that black knot, rot and 
all manner of diseases attack such trees? Then, too, come 
the ravages of insects. Much of all this is produced by the 
low vitality occasioned by this immoderate pruning. So 
long as we continue to violate Nature’s laws we must reap 
the penalty.” 
Mr. Goff : “ Does not an unproductive orchard show 
that the trees are abnormal ? ” 
Mr. Adams : “ I think not. There is something wrong 
about a tree that is prematurely fruitful If the proper time 
comes and there is no fruit, that depends upon you. If 
you are willing to sacrifice vigor to get it, all right.” 
Mr. Engle said Mr. Adams would be obliged to raise all 
seedlings, not being able to graft or bud to get new 
sorts. 
Mr. Adams: “ Well, grafting only shortens the life of a 
tree. As a general thing, I prefer to let Nature do her own 
pruning.” On being asked about grapes, he said : “ I don’t 
grow grapes at all.” 
Mr. Williams, Fla.: “ Would you not prune the center 
of an orange tree ? ” “ No ; I have seedlings now 30 feet 
high and broad. The center of those trees is an excellent 
place for the harbor of lady bugs.” Prof. Bailey protested 
vigorously. “Suppose pruning is unnatural, why, the 
whole system of horticulture is unnatural I But nature 
prunes every year. It is an advantage and a necessity. 
The point is nob to prune where we please, but where we 
should. We have to prune to get fruit.” 
Mr. Johnson, Pa.: “I have an orchard of 900 quince 
trees. If I cut out the center long limbs I get fruit every 
year, otherwise I don’t. All branches should be sawed off 
close to the collar and not some inches away from the 
trunk.” Mr. Stringfellow, of Texas, didn’t believe in 
fibrous roots in transplanting, and said a tree would grow 
more vigorously when deprived of these and even tap¬ 
roots. H. H. 
(To be continued ) 
Farm Politics. 
Here it is proposed to discuss with (reedom and fairness, ques¬ 
tions of National or State policy that particularly concern farm¬ 
ers. The editors disclaim responsibility for the opinions of cor¬ 
respondents. The object is to develop a true and fair basis for 
organization among farmers. Let us think out just what we want 
and then strive for it. 
THE ELECTIONS. 
The farmers as a class and the People’s party as a party 
contributed somewhat to the result in the recent State elec¬ 
tions. In New York State the farmers seem to have failed to 
vote in large numbers, taking but little interest apparently 
in the State issues. In this we think they made a mistake. In 
Massachusetts some farmers voted for Allen, Republican, 
because of his support of the Oleo Bill. Others opposed 
Russell because he failed to appoint a railroad commis¬ 
sioner who seemed disposed to be just to milk shippers. 
This opposition was not enough to defeat Russell, how¬ 
ever. He is elected while all other candidates on his ticket 
are defeated. In Ohio the People’s party cut an insignifi¬ 
cant figure and were unable to defeat Senator Sherman or 
Major McKinley. The Farmers’ Alliance vote seems to 
have disappeared in Nebraska. In Michigan the People’s 
party so split the Democratic ranks that a Republican was 
elected to Congress to succeed the late Mr. Ford, a well- 
known Democrat. Most of the campaigns this year were 
run on “State issues.” On these issues the Democrats 
have had decidedly the best of it, while wherever 
National issues have been debated the Republicans have 
won—except possibly in Iowa and to some extent in Massa¬ 
chusetts. It is impossible to say how much the tariff re¬ 
form Issue helped Governor Boles. Tne winning issue 
with him was his opposition to Prohibition, but the result 
will undoubtedly be claimed as an indication that Iowa 
has pronounced against a protective tariff. It is also 
stoutly claimed that Russell’s election shows that Mas¬ 
sachusetts wants “free raw materials.” This Iowa elec¬ 
tion will make Mr. Boies a favorite candidate for Vice- 
