FARMING AMONG THE COAL MINES. 
Driven Back to the Hills for Land. 
A SHRIOU8 AGRICULTURAL PROBLEM PROMPTLY MET. 
[editorial correspondence.] 
Finding New Sources of Plant Food. 
The R. N.-Y. is always very glad to help its readers 
solve hard problems of agriculture. Such problems 
are constantly coming up for solution. Every change 
in a market, every industrial or manufacturing change 
and every development in increased facilities for 
transportation or the preservation of 
farm products, affects agriculture, 
either directly or indirectly. The 
successful farmers are those who 
watch for these changes and are 
able, by the application of scientific 
principles to their business, to meet 
the changed demand of the times, 
and still obtain a profit from the 
culture of the soil. Indeed, it seems 
to us from quite an extended obser¬ 
vation, that even in these times of 
depression, the great industrial 
changes that sweep over the country 
benefit skilled farmers quite as much 
as they do any other class of work¬ 
men. What we mean by that is that 
the building up of a great market in 
an industrial center, gives the local 
farmer an opportunity. A farmer in 
these days may take advantage of 
the teachings of science to cheapen 
the cost of producing a pound or 
bushel of his product. Decreased 
price to the consumer, seems to be 
the natural law of products to-day. 
Trusts, combinations and special 
legislation may keep up high prices 
on certain products, but, left to the 
natural law of production and con¬ 
sumption, prices ought to decrease 
because science and invention are 
constantly disclosing new means for 
cheapening the cost. Every one rec¬ 
ognizes this truth as applied to man¬ 
ufactured articles— The R. N.-Y. has 
always maintained that it is equally 
true as applied to agriculture. We 
think the following notes have a 
direct bearing on this point, and we 
bespeak a careful study of the facts 
brought out in them. While these 
facts may not apply directly to all 
situations, we think the careful 
reader will discover an underlying 
principle that may be applied to his 
own case. The statements here made 
can all be verified. 
Some three years ago, The R. N.-Y. 
received the following note from Mr. 
M. Garrahan of Kingston, Pa.: 
“In my vegetable culture, I am 
handicapped by a limited area. If I 
had a sufficient acreage to enable 
me to keep a certain proportion seeded down, I would 
rely upon the so-called fertilizers almost exclusively. 
My leading crops are early cabbage and celery, w ith 
beets and onions for bunching, to be followed by late 
celery. On my soil, celery seems to be more partial to 
a liberal application of well-rotted stable manure than 
some other crops. Our manure is obtained from the 
mines, where the mules are fed exclusively on 
cracked corn and oats, with plenty of hay, and 
no bedding of any kind is used. It is probably worth 
one-half more than the average farmyard manure. 
Counting the hire of my team and its driver at $4 per 
day, my manure, ready to be plowed under, costs $1.60 
per long ton. 
“I keep no stock, grow no grain and very little 
grass, and as my whole area is almost constantly 
under the plow, I have to furnish humus from some 
source. I suppose I could grow farm crops on this 
land for the next 10 years without manure of any 
kind, but land here in Kingston, Pa., is worth $6 per 
acre for surface use, and $25 for the minerals. To 
sum up then : If I had 60, instead of 30 acres, I would 
keep 20 in clover all the time, employ two men and 
possibly one team less most of the time, buy fertilizer 
by the car-load, have less worms, less fungus, and a 
world more fun. As the case stands, a man couldn’t 
put in any more time if he went to State prison.” 
At that time, we knew little about the local condi¬ 
tions in Mr. Garrahan’s case, and could only suggest 
that he experiment with fertilizers exclusively, on a 
part of his land with some “ catch crop ” plowed in to 
supply humus. Observation has convinced us that 
the chief items of expense on farms that are made to 
produce large crops of potatoes and quick-growing 
garden crops, are plant-food and labor, and both items 
are, in most cases, greatly increased by the use of 
stable manure. Comparison with the actual prices of 
nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash in chemicals, 
will usually show that stable manure is an expensive 
source of these substances. Every one knows how 
land is seeded to weeds and grass by the use of ma¬ 
nure, and the cost of cleaning crops like onions, beets, 
celery, etc., is great because these crops are planted 
so close together that hand work is absol utely neces¬ 
sary. That is why we have always urged gardeners 
to experiment fully with chemicals and green crops, 
1 , because in that way we believe 
most of them will obtain cheaper 
fertility and, 2, because they will 
thus save the cost of keeping one or 
more teams and a small army of 
hand weeders. 
Some men are easily convinced 
that the chemicals provide cheaper 
actual fertility, but they will not 
give up the manure because they ap¬ 
pear to ascribe Certain undefinable 
powers to it and also realize that 
bulk or humus is a great necessity 
in their soils. While realizing that 
this vegetable matter could be pro¬ 
vided by green crops well plowed 
under, they make the point that on 
their high-priced land they cannot 
afford to grow a crop that gives no 
immediate cash return. It is a gen¬ 
erally accepted belief by such men 
that green manure farming must be 
done on comparatively cheap land 
where one can grow the usual area 
of money crops, and yet have area 
enough to grow the less profitable 
manuring crops. As Mr. G. states 
in his note, he needed land enough 
to provide space for 20 acres of clover 
each year. We dwell upon this point 
because it is important in view of 
what is to follow—viz., the story of 
a change of base from close culture 
on expensive land, to a wider culture 
on cheap land. 
We knew but little of Mr. Garra¬ 
han’s plans until last November, 
when he wrote that he had quite a 
remarkable exhibit in the shape of 
two bushels of potatoes, one the 
product of 56 hills on the natural soil 
of a poor farm, and the other dug 
from 26 lulls right alongside the 
others, where fertilizer at the rate 
of 1,200 pounds per acre was used. 
Later Mr. G. sent the following note: 
“ I ship to-day two boxes of pota¬ 
toes, one containing the product of 
26 hills planted 33 inches apart each 
way, manured with 1,200 pounds of 
Mapes Potato Fertilizer per acre; 
the other containing the product of 
56 hills from rows adjoining, five of 
which were left without fertilizer 
for comparison. The thought occurred to me that a 
plain statement of facts regarding the use of fertilizer 
on a run-down farm outside of New Jersey, might be 
instructive to some, if not intellectually edifying. 
Resides, the persistent agitation of the fertilizer ques¬ 
tion by The R. N.-Y. finally induced me to buy a farm 
to learn the possibilities of an acre.” 
The potatoes made a striking exhibibit, and we had 
them photographed as they came from the boxes. 
Rear in mind, that each pile represents an exact 
bushel from 26 and 56 hills respectively. Those from 
ONE RUSHED OF POTATOES FROM TWENTY-SIX HILLS. Fig. 5. 
One thousand two hundred pounds of fertilizer per acre. 
ONE RUSH EL OF POTATOES FROM FIFTY-SIX HILLS. Fig. 6. 
No fertilizer used. 
* 
