362 
BE6. 6 
MOORE’S RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
c>$ai[m (Bconomii. 
APPLYING COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS. 
Having used, and watched the effects of 
using, commercial fertilizers for a number of 
years, I feel inclined to give your correspond¬ 
ent, Samuel Johnston, the results of my 
experience and observation. I do this the 
more readily because Mr, J. seems of himself 
to have struck the true idea and to be on the 
right track for success. He wants to use 
commercial fertilizers (if they pay) in con 
ncetion with other manorial resources within 
his reach. This is the sensible plan, aud one 
that if followed will never be regretted. 
Commercial fertilizers are not a substitute 
for stable manure, nor ore they better than 
stable manure. 1 use them because I cannot 
get enough manure for my crops, nor to in¬ 
crease the fertility of the soil so rapidly as I 
wish. If any farmer can make his land rich 
enough to produce the largest crops without 
buying manure, this article is not for him. 
I have used mainly superphosphate of lime 
with some poudrette, and one trial of bone 
sharings, not dissolved, with sulphuric acid. 
I bought this last because it was only $20 per 
ton, and I knew that the bone contained a 
largo amount of nitrogen as well as phos 
phates. That was seven years ago, and no 
doubt the bone shavings contain those fert.il 
izing elements yet, as I have never seen a 
particle of benefit from their application. 1 
even fancied that the first crop (wheat) was 
poorer for their use. If 1 had composted 
these shavings two or three months with 
stable manure, there is little doubt that the 
result would have well repaid me for the 
trouble. Next time I plow this field I intend 
to cover it heavily with stable manure. This 
will half develop the dormant fertility locked 
up in the bone shavings. 
BoneH need to be treated with oil of vitriol, 
made into a superphosphate, to give the best 
results. I have experimented In making su 
perphosphate, and, although I get good re¬ 
sults, the fertilizer costs me more to make. It 
than it does to buy it. My first, trial of su¬ 
perphosphate was with Baugh’s raw bone, 
nine years ago. 1 bought two barrels, pay¬ 
ing $00 per ton, and applied it on oats after 
corn, drilled in with 135 pounds per acre, 
The effect was really wonderful. The crop 
■was fully twice as large as where no super¬ 
phosphate was applied. It also gave a fair 
“catch ” of clover, while the rest of the field 
was nearly bare the following spring. It 
undoubtedly paid me double or treble the 
cost of the fertilizer. Still, as oats are a low- 
priced grain, 1 h ive since thought it better 
to apply the extra manure in growing higher 
priced wheat and barley, and occasionally on 
corn. I usually seed with clover after wheat, 
and I rely on the superphosphate to give a 
good “catch” and a vigorous growth the 
following season. This it never fails to do, 
and this I regard as one of the chief advan 
tages in using it. 
I have used superphosphate on wheat at 
the rat© of 125 to 250 pounds per acre, usually 
about one ton to ten acres, drilling it in with 
the seed. It has added five to twenty bushels 
per acre t.o the crop, with corresponding in¬ 
crease of straw and greater proportionate 
advantage to the clover and timothy the fol¬ 
lowing season. It is more profitable to use 
fully 200 pounds per acre than less, and, to 
receive the best effect, it should be drilled in 
with the wheat. On spring crops (oats or 
barley), 100 to 150 pounds per acre, drilled in, 
will secure a good result, unless the soil is 
very poor. Still, even on spring grain, I pre¬ 
fer to use as much as 200 pounds per acre. 1 
have never applied superphosphate broad¬ 
cast. Some of my neighbors who sowed it 
on their wheat after drilling report that it 
produced little appreciable effect on the 
grain, though it benefited the succeeding 
crop of clover very much. 
It is hardly worth while to apply super¬ 
phosphate extensively on corn. My rotation 
of crops puts com on a clover sod and gives 
it all th© coarse manure that the barnyard 
furnishes in spring. This properly managed, 
and the corn manured in the hill just as it 
comes up with a mixture of ashes, salt and 
gypsum, insures a good crop. This thorough 
manuring of the corn ground also insures a 
good crop of oats or barley ou com stubble 
the following season, even without additional 
fertilizers, though it pays well to use them. 
One advantage of superphosphate is that it 
does not cause a coarse, “ strawy ” growth, 
and grain is not nearly so apt to fall down as 
whore large quantities of stable manure are 
used. 
The best us© of superphosphate for grain 
Is on wheat. This leaves the farmer free to 
use all his coarse barnyard manure for corn 
and potatoes, putting the finer port ions on 
his meadows, especially the young clover, to 
give it a vigorous growth. I think that in 
time we shall learn to apply nearly all our 
stable manures to young clover. The com 
crop will get the benefit the second year, 
and if it needs further manuring, apply some 
commercial fertilizer, as we now do for 
wheat. When J come to this I shall use the 
Lodi Company’s double-refined poudrette—a 
small handful to each hill. 1 tried it one 
year on corn with excellent results. The 
double-refined poudrette costB $30 per ton 
and freight. Poudrette is also excellent on 
potatoes, giving them a vigorous start and 
largely increasing the yield. I have tried 
superphosphate ou potatoes, but with little 
result, owing, possibly, to ft very dry season 
My neighbors have used it with variable 
result#, some commending It highly, while 
others could not see that it made any differ¬ 
ence. 
This year I am trying an experiment, using 
one barrel of salt with one ton of superphos 
phate on wheat. The result thus far is ex 
cellent. The mixture has kept the wheat 
bright and green through a severe drouth 
when other wheat fields were turning yel 
low. Think I shall hereafter always mix salt 
with superphosphate. It helps to dissolve the 
phosphate and make it more immediately 
available to the crop. 1 think that 150 pounds 
of superphosphate with salt will produce as 
much effect on the crop as 200, more or less, 
without it, possibly as much as 300 pounds, 
This is my present impression from the re¬ 
sults of my experiment thus far. 
For seven years after I began using super¬ 
phosphate I bought it of an agent, who 
charged me $00 to $63 per ton. Two years 
ago he did not keep ns much on hand os 1 
wanted, and I lost $200 or $300 by the fail¬ 
ure. I then wrote to the manufacturer, and 
bought the superphosphate at $45, or less, 
per ton. If Mr. Johnston cannot buy the 
best superphosphate for less than $60 a ton, 
be had better send direct to the manufac¬ 
turers. I now use Lister Bugs.’ superphos¬ 
phate, as that I find is always of reliable 
quality. One or two barrels which the agent 
sold to me for Baugh’s was greatly inferior. 
When honestly made, there ought never to 
be any considerable variation in the quality 
of superphosphate. 
One final word by way of caution. Pre 
sumiiig that Mr. Johnston wants to improve 
his burn as well us to grow good crops, let 
him always seed his wheat with clover when 
using superphosphate. The benefit of the 
fertilizer will extend to the second year, se¬ 
curing a rampant growth of the clover. 
Whether this be plowed under, fed off, or 
mown and fed from the barn, it must make 
the farm richer and better. On the other 
hand, using large quantities of superphos¬ 
phate, or any other concentrated manure, 
without seeding to clover frequently, may 
make the soil poorer. A little manure of 
any kind placed close to the seed helps the 
crop largely by helping the plant to extend 
its roots further and rob the soil more. 
Hence the necessity of frequently changing 
to some ameliorating crop, than which there 
is none better than clover. Hence, also, the 
importance of taking more care than ever of 
barnyard manures, to increase their quantity 
and improve their effectiveness. 
Monroe Co., N. Y. Western New-Yokk. 
ABOUT FERTILIZERS. 
TOP DRESSING WITH EARTH. 
The Germantown Telegraph says :—“We 
know that often top-dressing of earth has a 
wonderful fertilizing power. We know of an 
orchard which is top-dressed annually with 
nothing but waste earth got together from 
wherever it could be obtained, yet these 
trees make an annual growth of from three 
to five inches ami are the admiration of all 
who see them. When asked what he thinks 
best for top dressing orchards, this friend 
always seems hard to understand when he 
replies anything whatever; it makes no 
difference what. It is likely, however, that 
it does make some difference sometimes. It 
has been contended by some agricultural 
chemists in England that it is no use to apply 
nitrogen to the 6oil, as the soil is capable of 
absorbing all of this necessary fertilizing 
ingredient from the atmosphere that it needs. 
But this probably will only hold good in 
clayey soils. It has been found that dry 
clay is a powerful absorbent of ammonia, 
and it is extensively used now as a deodorizer ; 
and it is perhaps in clayey soils that it has 
been noticed in this way. It may be that 
the good effects of mere earth as a top dress¬ 
ing may have followed from the same cause. 
The earth contained clay, and the clay 
absorbed ammonia, and hence the good re¬ 
sults, especially on grass-land, which always 
seems to be so much benefited by nitrogen¬ 
ous manures.” 
EXPERIENCE WITH SUPERPHOSPHATES AND PLASTER. 
A correspondent of the American Rural 
Home says:—“ Last season I tried a little 
experiment in the use of superphosphates on 
wheat, as compared with plasterer gypsum. 
My opinion had been that this fertilizer 
would not show great results ou roy heavy 
calcareous soil; that plaster would be more 
profitable to use than phosphate of lime, it 
being much cheaper. On the 16th and 17th 
of Sept, lost, I drilled in Diehl wheat, one and 
a half bushels per acre on a 20 acre field of 
barley stubble. On one half the field super¬ 
phosphate was drilled in about 200 lbs. to 
the acre, a part of the Buffalo manufacture 
and part of Baugh’s raw-bone phosphate. I 
could see no difference in effect. On the 
other half, plaster was drilled in, the same as 
the phosphate, at the rate of 150 lbs. per 
acre. The growth through the summer 
seemed to slightly favor the phosphate, 
though the difference was but little. At 
harvest time it was difficult to determine 
which half of the field was best wheat, and 
had a decision been given at that time by 
appearance it would not have favored the 
phosphate, but each part was threshed and 
measured by itself. The half having phos¬ 
phate ou yielded two hundred and five 
bushels, that where the plaster was used, 
one hundred and sixty bushels. The yield 
was smell on the whole field, owing to the 
late sowing, and the severity of the spring 
weather, which damaged it much. One or 
two acres of the field was nearly lost, and 
more of it was injured. In this experiment 
the superphosphate barely paid cost; in 
another trial it may pay better or It may pay 
less ; if it benefits succeeding crops it maybe 
a good investment. The field was seeded to 
clover, and where the plaster was applied it 
is best.” 
WHEN TO APPLY LIME. 
In answer to a correspondent, the Practical 
Farmer says :—“We consider the best time 
to apply lime is in the fall succeeding har¬ 
vesting of the wheat crop. It should then be 
spread on the surface at the rate of 30 to 50 
bushels per acre. The young grass will thu9 
get the whole benefit, the young roots will 
be stimulated and strengthened, so that the 
grass crop will be Increased for the whole 
period it may lay, till again plowed down. 
If plowed immediately down, us J. Ferris 
proposes, but very slight, if any good will 
result- The tendency of lime it; to descend 
into the lower stratus of soil. It will be 
washed down deeper by rains, so as to be be¬ 
yond reach of the surface growth, or will be 
carried off entirely in the streams. When 
spread on the surface it comes into immediate 
action, and continues to act on the various 
elements, constitut ing what is usually spoken 
of as the surface soil, contributing greatly to 
its fertilization. It is very probable that our 
farmers may have been mistaken in the 
amount of lime required for an acre of land. 
In this section, 50 to 100 bushels have been 
applied, the latter quantity on strong lands 
and often on limestone soils. With what 
experience and observation we have had, we 
should not care for more than twenty-five 
bushels per acre, and it may be found here¬ 
after that a few hundred pounds per acre, as 
plaster is now sown, will be all-sufficient.” 
cipdd <&\\0p. 
HOW I INCREASED MY WHEAT CROP. 
I bought 80 acres of land ; that part in 
cultivation was in small fields rather wet, 
fence rows grown up in bushes and briars ; 
the fields were so small that they could not 
be drained ; besides they were pastured in 
wet weather. The land when in wheat 
raised a little over 8 bushels to the acre and 
when cultivated in corn, it did not raise 
esough to pay for cultivation; and it was 
with difficulty that the place could be rented 
at all, it was so unproductive. 
I enlarged the fields, cleaned the fence 
rows of bushes and briars, plowed the land 
so that, it would drain itself, and no surface 
water would stand on it. I so wed it to clover 
2 years and then to wheat. The first crop of 
wheat weighed between 29 and 30 bushels of 
good wheat to the acre ; besides there was 
over 5 bushels, 1 am sure, left on each acre. 
Now how was this done ? 1 will tell you. I 
fortunately saw a number of Moore’s Rural 
New-Yoreek that had a cut of a three horse 
double tree. 1 got one made and instead of 
scratching the lund 3 or 4 inches deep, I 
plowed it 8 or 10 inches deep. The seeing of 
that one cut of the three-horse-double-tree 
has been over $100 advantage to me. 1 think 
that I get more for the $3 50 that I pay for the 
Rural New-Yorker than for any twenty 
dollars I spend during the year. Now Mr. 
Farmer you see how I increased my yield of 
wheat threefold and over; many of you can 
do likewise if you will. I advise you to keep 
out of debt, and if you have but 10 acres of 
land in the world to raise wheat on, sow half 
of it in clover. Always sow wheat on a 
clover sod. A Farmer. 
Livingston, Clark Co., Tils. 
♦ ♦♦- 
ON PICKING POTATO BLOSSOMS. 
A correspondent of the Rural New- 
Yorker, referring to the fact that blooming 
is n heavy tax on the vitality and vigor or 
plants, concludes that potatoes would be 
more vigorous and yield larger tubers if the 
buds and blossoms "were picked. Whether 
the increased yield would compensate one 
for th© lalwr and expense is a question which 
perhaps it might be well for farmers to in¬ 
vestigate, If (licking the blossoms adds to or 
pre-serves the vigor of the plant, what would 
be the effect in enabling it to withstand the 
attack of the rot ?—.Y, E, Farmer. 
Nothing comes from nothing in the vege¬ 
table any more than in the physical world. 
Flowers are produced at the expense of 
force and material, which, if not used in this 
way, might be expended in other directions. 
And nature manages this very thing occa¬ 
sionally, as in some plants which take to 
propagating very freely by bulbs or offsets, 
or underground shoots, but flower sparingly 
or set no fruit. “The economy of nature” 
iB a most truthful phrase in various senses. 
For example, who ever saw ripe pods and 
seeds of Horseradish f and who that is famil¬ 
iar with our Northern woods in Spring and 
their floral treasures has not noticed that 
when our Addertongue (Erylhronium) mul¬ 
tiplies very freely by its bulbs, its flower is 
correspondingly rare ? 
Moreover, the consumption of material and 
of vigor by flowers amounts to a great deal 
more than what it takeB to make them. 
Their keep Is expensive. Every day, as long 
as they last, they consume good material, 
which otherwise might, be turned to some 
better account. Still more, in most instances, 
goes to the fruit and seed, which in the case 
of the potato is all lost to us. So much for 
the science of the matter. The practical 
question is whether it would pay to cut off 
the flower-buds over a potato-field as fast as 
they appear. We have not figured this out; 
but, as a guess not wholly at random, we 
should say that the boy who tends the field 
upon this principle would In the meanwhile 
eat about as many potatoes os he would 
save. 
The query as to the effect in enabling the 
potato-plant to withstand the dry-rot, opens 
another question upon which our conclusion 
would be equally in the negative. But this 
involves considerations about “wearing out 
of varieties,” and the like, which we may 
touch upon hereafter.— N. Y. Tribune. 
- 4 -*-#- 
POTATO PROFESSORS. 
The London Gardener’s Magazine, expres¬ 
ses itself in the following lively manner con¬ 
cerning the cause of the potato disease As 
for the fertility of the fancy in discovering 
explanations of potato disease, it is really a 
matter demanding the instant attention of 
psychologists, for it is evidence of wide¬ 
spread stupidity or insanity or vanity, or 
something equally dreadful, that should be 
cured by the Social Science Congress. The 
past season has been characterized by con¬ 
tinuous sunshine, and potato disease was 
unheard of until the sunshine failed, and 
then the crops still in the ground became 
more or less diseased. There is no mystery 
about the potato disease ; It is a question of 
sunshine from first to last, and if Mr. Torbitt 
is resolved to eradicate it he must go to the 
sun and abolish his spots and make such 
other arrangements as shall ensure to this 
globe uniform and favorable cosinical influ¬ 
ences. A wet, cold summer makes potato 
disease, a hot dry summer makes a healthy 
crop of potatoes. Thu iaots are patent, and 
yet there is a crowd of clamorous people 
always ready with some nonsensical and 
injurious fancy to explain the cause and 
cur© of the murrain that decimates the noble 
root. 
The Chess Question —In our issue of Oct. 
31, we published a statement of the remarks 
of Mr. Thomas Meehan on the question of 
whether wheat turns to chess, or Triticum 
to Bromus and his presentation of specimens 
in proof that it does and their reference to 
the microscopical section of th© Academy for 
the determination of the question. In the N. 
Y. Tribune, of Nov, IS, we find this statement 
of the results of that Investigation :—“ The 
Microscopical Committee havenow reported, 
and it appears that the whole thing is a trick 
and a suare. The ches* was neatly inserted 
into the wheat stalk, and held there by a 
substanoe ‘ which the Committee believe to 
be gum tr&gacanth.’ ” 
3 
