296 
April 27 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
soap in hot water, and add the kerosene while the 
water is at the boiling point. Churn thoroughly until 
a complete emulsion is formed. Use one gallon of the 
emulsion to 20 of water, spray thoroughly, and this 
very serious pest can be annihilated. Within the next 
two weeks, another very thorough spraying again 
done so that every part of the tree is wet, will insure 
a good growth of new wood, and not only will the 
present crop of fruit be saved, but one assured for 
next year. Fruit growers must examine closely, and 
if they see any evidence of this insect, must spray at 
once, and save their trees and fruit. Millions of dol¬ 
lars in losses were experienced by pear growers last 
year from this pest, and millions more will be added 
the coming season, unless great vigilance is used to 
annihilate the Pear tree psylla. geo. t. powell. 
Columbia County, N. Y. 
THE HORSE SPREADS THE MANURE 
AND DOES A BETTER JOB THAN THE HIKED MAN. 
In this inventive age, it begins to look as though it 
is possible to do the rough work of every farm opera¬ 
tion by horse or steam power—with man simply to 
direct some stronger force than his own. This may 
not be true of milking cows, but it is of almost every¬ 
thing else. Manure spreading is always a hard job. 
On too many farms, it comes at a season when time is 
pressing. TheD, too, any one familiar with the com¬ 
position of manure, will see that its value may be con¬ 
siderably increased by a fine and even surface spread¬ 
ing. It is hard to get a man to do this right, and on 
farms where considerable manure is handled, there 
has been great demand for a machine to do this work. 
In order to give our readers a fair idea of the value of 
such machines, we sent these questions to some well- 
known farmers for answer : 
1. Can two horses handle a spreader, or is the draught too 
heavy ? 2. How does it compare with hand spreading as to speed 
and efficiency ? 3. Will it handle all kinds of manure? What 
works best in it ? 4. Can you load direct from the barnyard, and 
spread without re-handling? 5. What proportion of labor and 
time do you consider is saved by it ? 6. Let us have any facts 
bearing on its real value for spreading manure or fertilizers. 
Handles Manure or Ashes. 
1. The Kemp spreader, as now manufactured, can 
be handled without any trouble by any ordinary pair 
of horses. We put three horses on the first machine 
we used, and have now the three-horse poles, but 
have not used them in four or five years, or since get¬ 
ting the improved machine. 2. The machine has 
spread for me upwards of 30 loads per day, when 
piled in the field, with two men to pitch on, and I 
consider that it would not be possible for the same 
men to spread four loads per day and do it with the 
same thoroughness as to evenness and pulverization ; 
in fact, it is an utter impossibility to spread by hand, 
and graduate the amount per acre as the spreader 
will do. 3. We spread any and all kinds of manure 
with it; well rotted works the best, but I think each 
kind proportionately better than it could be spread 
by hand. 4. We top-dress our meadow lands and the 
like, direct from the barnyard. 5. When seeding and 
for use with crops, I think it pays to haul to piles in 
the field, as we can save time in the rush of work. 
(5. The only use I have put it to besides spreading 
manure and muck, is spreading wood ashes; it 
worked perfectly. We had found trouble in handling 
ashes in fertilizer sowers, unless very carefully 
screened, and could hardly get men to sow them by 
hand. But with the spreader with lime hood, there 
is no trouble ; nothing will clog it, and it will spread 
evenly, if as little as 20 bushels to the acre is put on, 
which quantity we sow by not loading the spreader 
full, and using the two-load per acre feed. In fact, 
I can not find any words too strong to recommend the 
manure spreader, and if obliged to do without either 
reaper or spreader, I would keep the spreader. 
New York. j. M. ham. 
Far Ahead of Hand Spreading. 
1. Two horses can handle a spreader very easily 
with no harder work than to plow heavy sod. 2. 
Spreading manure by hand is not to be compared with 
machine spreading, for it is simply impossible to do it 
as well by hand, and the manure is worth one-fourth 
more spread with a machine than by hand. 3. It does 
its work to my entire satisfaction ; we have no long 
corn fodder manure to handle, as we cut all of our 
fodder. 4. Yes. 5. It will spread more manure than 
six men can, do it a great deal better and we get far 
better results from the manure. 6. I believe that I 
have all of the modern farm machinery that is used 
in this locality, and 1 think the manure spreader is 
the best investment of them all. I consider it the 
keynote to success for any farmer to save all of his 
manure, liquid as well as solid, haul out as he makes 
it, and top-dress with a manure spreader. I have 
been keeping from 75 to 150 head of stock—have 110 
at the present writing, and have handled all of the 
manure with a spreader. If any good, live, energetic 
farmer will follow up the above plan of farming for 
five years, I will guarantee him success. 
Chester County, Pa. B. c. MITCHELL. 
It Requires a Big Team. 
1. The draft of the larger-size spreader is too heavy 
for a light team ; one weighing 2,200 to 2,500 pounds 
will do very well. Three light horses should be used. 
2. It will spread a load in about four minutes, pick¬ 
ing it thoroughly to pieces, and distribute it more 
evenly than a man with a fork could do it in two 
hours. 3. It will handle manure in any condition in 
which we ever find it ; but that which is very wet, 
sloppy, or unusually coarse, gives a heavy strain on 
the spreader, and inferior results. 4. We spread about 
80 acres annually with our Kemp, pattern of 1892, 
hauling three-fourths of it direct from the barnyard. 
When dispatch is required, as in May or June, to pre¬ 
pare land quickly for the plow, or when we wish to 
make a short job of cleaning the yard, we keep the 
spreader in the field, haul the manure to it with other 
teams, and transfer the loads directly to the spreader. 
The double handling eases the work of the spreader, 
and improves the quality. 5. The saving of time de¬ 
pends on the distance to haul. But the hand spreading 
is the item that consumes the most time, and the 
spreader almost eliminates that, especially where thin 
spreading is desired. 6. With the spreader, we gauge 
the number of loads exactly as we want them. We 
cover, probably, twice as much ground every year as 
we would without it, and with vastly better average 
results. Fertilizers can be added to the loads of manure 
and spread in the same operation, with automatic cer¬ 
tainty of results. We would almost as soon think of 
dispensing with the mower as with the spreader. 
Delaware. e. h. Bancroft. 
Does a Much Better Job. 
1. We use only two horses on our spreader ; they 
weigh from 1,100 to 1,200 pounds each. They do the 
work easily and well. 2. We spread from 30 to 40 
loads per day from the stables with two hands. 
Owing to the distance we have to haul it, we unload 
in a very short time ; owing to the amount we put on 
per acre—four loads—it takes more driving than 
eight loads per acre. We can spread more from piles 
on the ground in the fields than we can haul out from 
the stables, and the work is done evenly ; and the 
manure made finer, which can not be done by hand. 
The work is done so well, quickly and easily, that it 
will bear no comparison with hand work. 3. Yes. 
We can handle all sorts of manure excepting frozen— 
heavy cow stable manure, sheep stable manure 
packed in cakes, straw and corn stalks from the 
stables, etc. Dry fine manure works the best, but all 
is well spread and gives entire satisfaction. 4. Yes, 
we haul or spread direct from the stables, when we 
can ; we think this the best way. 5. The labor saved 
is great. A boy that can handle the team, can un¬ 
load the spreader ; the only labor is loading, which is 
soon done. 6. The great value of the spreader is its 
great saving of labor. The real money value derived 
from its use is in better crops. The same manure 
used as a top-dressing for meadows, corn and wheat 
each season, gives better returns than when plowed 
under for one crop. j. d. shields. 
Mahoning County, Ohio. 
HOW SHALL WE PRUNE? 
IS IT RIGHT TO LEAVE A STUB? 
In pruning branches from trees, should we cut close or leave a 
short stub? I have been pruning close, but some say that it is 
best to leave a little stub, contending that close pruning causes 
decay at the heart. n. h. g. 
Greenfield, Ind. 
No Stubs Wanted. 
In removing branches, the prompt healing of the 
wound is of the first importance. Therefore, the cut 
should be made as near the parent branch as practic¬ 
able. There is, however, always an enlargement at 
the base of a branch, so that to cut close to the parent 
branch would involve a much larger wound, to avoid 
which, the cut should occur just beyond such enlarge¬ 
ment, but as close to it as practicable. r. t. lyon. 
Prune close to the body or limb, but not so close 
as to make the wound any larger than the branch cut. 
Saw the limb off at its smallest circumference where 
it joins the limb to which it is attached. The point 
to be observed is to make the wound as small as pos¬ 
sible. leaving no stub. Stephen hoyt’s sons. 
I would leave a small stub in pruning limbs from 
trees. Just how long this stub should be, is a matter 
which cannot be explained offhand. All large limbs, 
especially those which are horizontal, or nearly so, 
have large bilges or swellings near the base, and we 
usually recommend cutting the limb just beyond this 
bilge at right angles to the direction of the limb. This 
will leave a stub from a half inch to an inch long on 
the upper side, and a little longer below. If the limb 
is cut off parallel to the main trunk upon which it 
grows, it makes an unnecessarily 
large wound ; and if the tree is large 
and somewhat feeble, the heart of 
the wound is likely to decay down 
into the main limb. L. H. bailey. 
Experience has taught me that it 
would be very unwise to leave a 
stub in cutting a branch from a 
tree. If it were left on in pruning, 
it would eventually have to be cut 
off at the base, unless left to rot 
off. Any one who has cut and split 
cordwood, or handled knotty lum¬ 
ber, knows how these dead stubs 
in jure the tree. If a branch must be 
removed, let it be done as soon as 
possible, and like any other surgical 
operation, with neatness and dis¬ 
patch. Just at the junction of the 
branch with the main stem, is the spot to make the 
cut. Then paint the wound, if larger than will be 
grown over the first year. In Hg. 97 the cut at 1 is 
too close to the body, and the wound too large ; at 2, 
it is too far from it, but at 3 it is just right. 
II. E. VAN DEMAN. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name and address of 
the writer to insure attention. Before asking a question please 
see whether it is not answered in our advertising columns. Ask 
only a few questions at one time. Put questions on a separate 
piece of paper.] 
More About Feeding Millet. 
B. 1)., Mt. Kisco, N. Y .—We are renovating an old pasture by 
sowing mixed grass seed and clovers, with Hungarian millet this 
spring, intending to cut the millet for soiling, or for hay while it 
is in bloom. Another field is sown with peas and oats, which we 
expect to cut for hay while the peas are in blossom, and promptly 
to plow up the ground, adding 10 tons of stable manure to the 
acre. We shall then sow with Hungarian millet and Crimson 
clover, cut the millet when in bloom, and leave the clover to 
occupy the ground during the winter. On page 223, Prof. I. P. 
Roberts says : “ Immature millet is a somewhat dangerous food. 
If the seeds are unripe, at a certain stage of growth, they contain 
poisonous substances and are injurious. I would not in any case 
sow millet, since there are so many better plants.” It is due to 
the dairying interests of the country, that so high an agricultural 
authority should give the reasons for his positive condemnation 
of millet. There are four varieties in popular use, Common (Pani- 
cum miliaceum), Golden (Var. aureum), Pearl (Penicillaria spi- 
cata), and Hungarian (Panicum Germanicum). Related in nat¬ 
ural affinity to the millets, are the wild green and glaucous¬ 
leaved bottle grasses. The analyses of millets for feeding values 
vary widely; but the very recent bulletin from the United States 
Department of Agriculture, gives as the average of 14 analyses of 
green Hungarian millet, in percentage, protein 3.1, nitrogen-free 
extract, or carbohydrates, 14.2 fat 0.7. The average of 13 analyses 
of Hungarian hay gives protein 7.5, nitrogen-free extract 49, and 
fat 2.1. Two practical authorit.es speaK very highly of the use 
of millets. William Crozier says, “ I have grown a great deal of 
Hungarian millet. If cut in bloom before it goes to seed, it is an 
excellent crop. It makes very good winter food, and may be sown 
after the hay or oat crop has been taken off. Common millet is 
better liked by some farmers, who believe that Hungarian grass 
is injurious to horses, on account of its short, stiff, sharp awns.” 
In his work on “Feeding Animals,” Prof. E. W. Stewart states : 
“ On a dry, rich, light, well-pulverized soil, Common millet will 
furnish an abundant yield of green food of the best quality. In 
this green state, it has a nutritive ratio of one to seven. The quality 
of Hungarian grass as a green food, is nearly or quite as good. 
When the land is appropriate, the millets can be safely left out 
of the list of soiling crops.” Again, under the head of millet for 
pasture, Stewart says: “ In a fine, rich loam, millet produces a 
very large growth of excellent fodder. A good crop will produce, 
at three or four feedings, 10 tons of green food on an acre, and pas¬ 
ture 50 sheep 25 to 30 days. Golden millet produces the largest 
growth, and for pasturing, may be found the most profitable.” 
Ranking Timothy hay at $14 per ton, Stewart’s tables quote Hun¬ 
garian hay at a value of $13.20, and green Hungarian in blossom 
at $4 per ton. Fuller information from Prof. Roberts on the objec¬ 
tionable features of the crop, will be very acceptable. 
Ans. —I have but little more to say about millet than 
was said on page 223. The common millet was largely 
raised from 1800 to 1870 in southern Iowa, and many 
horses and some cows died from eating it. This is not 
saying that when cut at the right stage of growth, and 
fed in moderation, it is not a good food for animals. 
What was said in the article was simply to caution 
people against its dangerous character under certain 
conditions. Unripe beans, like millet in some stages, 
are also a dangerous food, as a recent endeavor to feed 
a car-load of them proved most conclusively. I have 
raised millet several times, and fed it without any 
deleterious effects ; still, this does not prove that it 
may not injui e animals, especially horses. The amount 
of nutriment which it contains, is ceitainly large, and 
since this is so and the yield under proper culture on 
suitable soil is also large, it has its place among our 
cattle foods. But all this does not do away with the 
fact as stated in the following quotation from Dr, 
