1893 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
53 
an acre an hour and have kept this up for a half day 
while applying 1,000 pounds of fertilizer, when the 
work takes longer than if no fertilizer is used. The 
team to do this must be able and willing to walk four 
miles an hour The draft of the planter is very light 
—about half that of the average 4%-foot mower. I 
have been able to plant three-quarters of an acre of 
corn in an hour as filling the hopper is necessary only 
about half as often as with potatoes. 4. As nearly as 
I can estimate, one per cent will approximate the 
missing hills after getting the machine fairly started. 
The year previous to that in which I bought the 
planter was the first in which I planted in drills, and 
I instructed my help to be as careful as possible and 
I am satisfied that there were as many missed hills as 
there have since been with the planter. 
Perth. N. Y. tiiomas steele. 
Paid Its Cost In Outside Work. 
I have used one of the Aspinwall potato planters for 
about five years past for my own planting; and have 
also hired it out to my neighbors. At first, I charged 
75 cents per acre, the user coming after it, working it 
himself with his own team, and then returning it to 
me, or to the next man who had hired it, and so on. 
For the last two years I have charged 50 cents per 
acre. In this way I have received enough for its use 
to pay for it, as well as for all repairs, and also for all 
repairs needed for my digger, and have a small surplus 
still left. 3. From four to six acres per day, and by 
changing teams and having the seed handy I have 
planted seven per day. 4. Not over one hill in twenty 
is missing. I have not owned or used a machine on 
the cooperative plan; I prefer to own my own, but 
where a number of farmers could work together har¬ 
moniously it might well be owned in company. It 
has paid me better than any other tool I own, as it is 
more than self-supporting, and at the prices charged 
its work is very cheap to the man hiring it. 
Bellevue, Ohio. f. e. fitch. 
To Grind Cob Meal; Feeding Rations. 
C. F., Wayne, Pa .—Will it pay me to purchase a cob 
meal grinder for $35 to grind 500 bushels of corn ? Is 
cob meal considered good for cattle ? As compared 
with corn meal, what should be its market value. I 
have two Jerseys about four years old, of average 
weight, both due to calf next September. I have the 
following feed, viz : corn fodder, mixed hay (chiefly 
Timothy) mangolds, and cob meal. I’d like a well- 
balanced ration in combination with cotton-seed meal 
or any other advantageous feed. 
Ans. —My experience with a corn-cob grinder has 
been quite favorable. Some years ago I purchased 
one for $50, and the whole cost of it was repaid within 
a year by the neighbors, who, seeing the results of my 
feeding, came and ground their feed in it, paying 10 
cents an hour for the use of it, using their own team 
and help. Corn cobs have some feeding value, and, 
besides this, they aid in the digestion of the corn 
itself, especially when the meal is fed to cows. If the 
cobs are ground fine, they may be fed to horses with 
perfect safety, as I have known it to be done in eastern 
Pennsylvania, where the fine Conestoga horses are 
kept, and the condition of the live stock is unsurpassed. 
At that time I had a mill and ground for the neighbor¬ 
hood, and the ear corn was used by nearly every 
farmer who came to my mill. I have never seen finer 
horses than those seen there ; every team would do 
credit to a carriage, and they were fed almost exclu¬ 
sively on corn-ear meal and rye straw, cut and mixed. 
The feeding value of this meal may be gathered 
from the following figures : 
Cellulose, per cent. 
Fat *• . 
Protein “ . 
Carbohydrates “ . 
Corn meal. Corn and cob. 
3.49 
7.75 
4.97 
3.67 
10.39 
9.13 
79.49 
77.77 
The cob meal is thus the cheaper, considering the 
saving in weight, which is equal to 25 per cent, while 
the difference in money value is only seven per cent. 
In three months’ feeding of cows at the Massachusetts 
Station, the corn and cob meal made the cheapest 
feeding, and yielded a daily average of milk of 
14% quarts against 14% with more than twice as 
much corn meal and gluten meal. Analysis of the 
cobs themselves, made by Prof. J. F. Elsom, shows 
that they contain .72 per cent of oil, 2.62 of sugar, 2.33 
of protein, 1.07 of gum, 41.62 of starch and 36.10 of 
cellulose, some of which is digestible. As the cobs cost 
nothing, and the grinding very little when done at 
home, all this nutriment is clear gain, allowing noth¬ 
ing for whatever aid the ground cobs may afford in 
the digestion of other food. 
A ration of 
Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat. 
Hay and fodder, 20 pounds, containing ... .47 8.00 .28 
Corn and cob meal, 6 pounds, containing.. .45 4.60 .22 
Mangolds, 30 pounds, containing.33 3.30 .03 
1.25 15.90 .63 
with a nutritive ratio of 1 to 5.5, would be desirable 
for these cows. Three pounds of cotton-seed meal 
added to this would make a full ration, possibly in 
excess as regaards the dry fodder, which might be re¬ 
duced one-half, thus restoring the balance. This might 
be considered high feeding for ordinary small cows, 
but a Jersey cow will generally dispose of one-third 
more food than any other of her weight, and the ration 
is to be regulated by the appetite of the cow. It would 
be well to give the mangolds, in part, at the noon feed, 
cutting them fine and sprinkling one-third of the meal 
on them. The fodder and hay should be cut and wetted 
and the rest of the meal mixed with it. h. stewabt. 
Tobacco Stems as Fertilizers. 
O. W. H., Orient, N. Y .—What is the value of tobacco 
stems as a fertilizer ? 
Ans. —The stems vary considerably in composition. 
An average of four analyses made at the Massachusetts 
Station gave, in each ton of stems, 129 pounds of 
potash, 12 of phosphoric acid and 45 of nitrogen. Two 
samples at the Connecticut Station gave in pounds per 
ton : 
Phosphoric 
Potash. Nitrogen. acid. 
Kentucky stems. 160 36 13 
Connecticut stems. 130 39 10^ 
It is thus evident that they vary considerably. The 
Kentucky stems were worth $14.20 per ton and the Con¬ 
necticut stems $12.95. On the same basis, ordinary 
stable manure would be worth about $2 per ton. The 
stems are about as available for plant food as fresh 
manure. Their chief value lies in the amount of potash 
they contain—they lack phosphoric acid and hence are 
not a “complete manure” in the sense that they will 
supply all the plant needs. They are also useful for 
preventing attacks of insects. Market gardeners who 
grow squashes or melons use them scattered thickly 
around these plants—lightly worked into the soil. 
This serves to keep off squash bugs and borers besides 
providing food for the plants. We would use them in 
this way or on cabbage or onions with superphosphate 
added. They ought to be a useful fertilizer in fruit 
orchards—used as a heavy mulch. 
Trusts and The Farmers. 
S. T. Af., Newark, Ohio. —A late issue of The Rubal 
contained a long list of trusts with their capitalization 
and the actual amount of unwatered capital they are 
known or believed to use in their transactions: only 
a few were mentioned that affect farmers directly by 
influencing the prices of grain and other farm prod¬ 
ucts they have to sell, or those of agricultural imple¬ 
ments and other farm supplies they have to buy; why 
then is agriculture specially aggrieved by the existence 
of such combinations? 
Ans. —Chiefly because every other threatened or 
outraged industry can take either precautions against 
their machinations, or measures to repel their attacks 
or minimize the evil results thereof. Neither of these 
can be done by agriculture on account of the unor¬ 
ganized multitudes of those engaged in it, the multi¬ 
plicity of its branches and—out with the truth!—the 
simplicity, helplessness, indifference, supineness and 
apathy of the great majority of its patrons. True, the 
number of trusts that directly affect agriculture is 
small, and their capitalization comparatively moderate; 
but nearly every other trust in the country affects 
the industry more or less injuriously, and, moreover, 
there are numerous persistent or temporary combi¬ 
nations which are neither trusts nor even corporations, 
but which often have a grievous effect on the prices 
of farm products. Such are the milk exchanges of 
towns and cities, which regulate the price of milk 
though they never produce a drop; the elevator and 
miller “ combines ” of the Northwest and other sec¬ 
tions, which by mutual agreement “ among gentle¬ 
men,” say they; “ among rogues ” think the public, 
“regulate” the price of wheat as it rushes to market 
after harvest, and again just before harvest when 
scarcity of breadstuffs is widespread and growing. 
Through their own shiftlessness, carelessness and 
thoughtlessness farmers—many of them at least— 
play directly into the hands of these sharpers, and 
then howl at their greed. They send their milk to 
the arbitrary exchanges instead of combining and 
selling it themselves without the aid or intervention of 
middlemen; they rush their crops to market as soon 
as harvested, reckless alike of thus surfeiting the de¬ 
mand and consequently beating down prices, and of 
the extra cost and waste of storage on blockaded rail¬ 
roads or in makeshift receptacles rendered indispens¬ 
able by glutted elevators. Again, whenever there’s a 
momentary rise in the price of any article owing to 
the shrewd machinations of speculators or the corner¬ 
ing of a product, they hurry the commodity to market, 
to arrive just in time to meet the inevitable reaction, 
and unprofitable prices. Among no other class in the 
community do trusts, monopolies and trade and spec¬ 
ulative combinations find such easy and—yes—gullible 
prey as among farmers. 
The real trusts, however, and similar organized 
combinations fleece them unmercifully in spite of the 
utmost vigilance, caution and intelligence. The Coal 
Trust not only despoils them in the matter of fuel, 
but unjustly enhances the price of numerous commod¬ 
ities they must buy, owing to the extra cost of manu¬ 
facture due to the extortionate price of coal in furnace 
and workshop. The Barbed Wire Fence Trusts victim¬ 
ize them directly out of millions every year. The 
Broom Trust is equally rapacious, but its operations 
are more limited. The Condensed Milk Trust, while 
keeping down prices in sections, also affords markets 
for a product which, without it, would be unremuner- 
ative, and is therefore hardly a curse. The Cordage 
or Binding Twine Trust, however, is an unmitigated 
extortioner among farmers; but the Cotton Oil Trust 
is the monster par excellence in this line. The Cotton 
Thread Trust winds its fleecing way into every home¬ 
stead ; and the Fork and Hoe Trust rakes unjust gains 
from every meadow, field and garden. The Fruit Jar 
Trust overtaxes alike the fruit grower and the house¬ 
wife. The Harrow Trust drags the farmer’s cash as well 
as his land, and the Harvester Trust reaps his gains 
as well as his grains. The Fiber Trust is as tough on 
the farmer as the Leather Trust, and the Linseed Oil 
Trust is nearly as greedy a leech in the North as its 
congener the Cotton Oil Trust is in the South. The 
Match Trust is almost matchless in its rapacity ; while 
the Oatmeal Trust is a doubtful blessing in any section. 
Where does the Paper Bag Trust make itself felt more 
than on the farm ? Does the Preserves Trust raise the 
prices of jellies and fruits anywhere except on the con¬ 
sumers’ tables ? What farmer is benefited by the 
Rice Trust ? The Salt Trust lays its covetous hand 
alike on the farmer’s own food and that of his live 
stock and levies on his meat barrel and his butter tub. 
The SanitaryWare Trust and the Sewer Trust menace 
bis health, and the Soap Trust his cleanliness, while the 
Starch Trust strikes a blow at his corn and potatoes, and 
aims one at his linen. The Stove Trust seeks to make 
his home less cheerful in this or any other weather ; 
and the Sugar Trust lays an arbitrary impost on its 
sweetness. Even the Teasel Trust shows that no 
specialty in rural regions is too insignificant for a 
trust’s omnivorous greed, and the Umbrella Trust 
threatens the farmer and his family with a drenching 
unless he adds to its extortionate hoards. Finally, 
with its 20 years of baneful existence, the Standard 
Oil Trust, the most patriarchal, powerful and pitiless of 
all, restrained in its exactions in towns and cities by 
gas and electricity, has a free hand in its taxation of 
lamp lights in country places. 
Farmers can expect little in the way of good from 
trusts and similar monopolies, but are sure to meet 
a great deal in the way of evil. 
Steam Evaporation of Maple Syrup. 
W. II. C., East Freetown, N. Y. —In The Rubai. Nkw- 
Yobkeb for 1890, page 901, appeared an article on “An 
Improved Process for the Manufacture of Maple 
Molasses.” The writer says the evaporator is run with 
a 10-horse power engine, but that a much smaller engine 
would serve the purpose equally well and with less 
expense. He does not say how much it will evaporate. 
Now I would like to know how much is an eight-horse 
power engine capable of evaporating; or, in other 
words, how large an engine will it require to evaporate 
the sap from 1,000 trees; say from 4,000 to 5,000 gal¬ 
lons per day? Any information in relation to evapor¬ 
ating sap by steam will be thankfully received. 
Ans. —The apparatus referred to consisted of a single 
evaporating vat, as described. By running from early 
morning till nearly midnight, this evaporated the sap 
of 300 to 500 trees. The owner had a 10-horse power 
engine, but found it larger than necessary. How 
much too large it may have been is not known ; but it 
was supposed a six-horse engine could have run this 
one vat. For 1,000 trees or over, W. H. C. should use 
two or more vats. To evaporate rapidly, they should 
be wide and shallow—not deep. His eight-horse power 
engine or generator may do the work, but it is possible 
that he would find a larger size more satisfactory. He 
will find a steam generator less expensive as regards 
the first cost; but the fuel consumed is very nearly the 
same for a given amount of work done. s. p. shuli.. 
How to Get “Quality” in Potatoes. 
A. S. McB., Lakewood, N. J .—As a rule, our potatoes 
are of good quality in this section. Our soil is light 
and our drainage excellent. A New York hotel offered 
me a dollar a barrel over market price for all it needed. 
Last year for some reason the quality failed although 
every care in the way of fertilizers was given them. 
What was the cause ? If one is growing a potato for 
quality, regardless of cost or care, what variety should 
he grow? Do fertilizers improve or injure the quality? 
Don’t care for (pmntity. I’d rather have 50 bushels per 
acre of good ones than any quantity of poor ones. 
Ans.—W e can only say that the quality of potatoes 
varies from season to season. This is the case with 
some varieties more than with others, and it is doubt¬ 
ful if any one can offer a satisfactory explanation. 
As to fertilizers, we prefer raw bone to superphos¬ 
phates, and sulphate to muriate of potash. As to 
which are the best varieties in quality, we can do no 
better than to refer our friend to the careful reports 
which appear in these columns from year to year. 
