JULY 2 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER, 
435 
Jitlir top. 
THE CULTURE OF COEN. 
J. B. LAWKS, LL. D., F. B. S. 
* The eighth annual report of the New Jer¬ 
sey State Board of Agriculture contains a 
paper by Mr. Henry Stewart upon a subject 
which has occupied my attention for a great 
number of years, and which is now coming to 
the front as a great question of economy in 
commercial agriculture. It may be described 
briefly as *• Freight versus Artificial Fertility." 
Mr. Stewart says:—“It has been the fashion 
to believe, or at least to say, that the farms in 
the eastern parts of the country are exhausted; 
that agriculture here is in danger of ruinous 
competition from the newer lands of the West, 
and that It is cheaper to buy Western corn 
than to grow it in the East.” And he goes on 
to “ show the fallacy of such an idea as this " 
by the following figures :— 
Freight oil ft bushel of corn from Chicago to 
Now York.. 30 cents 
Cost of fertilizer to produce a bunhol of corn.. os) cents' 
The question here raised is not only one of 
importance with rofetcnce to the East and 
West of the United States, but also as re¬ 
gards the United Slates and Great Britain ; 
for though It is true that wc do not grow corn, 
it iB also true that our wheat is gradually being 
displaced by the cheaper-grown wheat of the 
States. 
Mr. Stewart goes on to say, “ Recent investi¬ 
gation and past experience have shown that 
while wheat requires from one-half to full 
quantity of all the nitrogen to be supplied in 
a fertilizer, dtpending upon condition of the 
soil, corn, on the contrary, requires, even ou 
comparatively poor soils, only about one- 
fourth the nitrogen to be supplied as compared 
to what the crop contains.” 
It would be very joyful news to our farmers 
in Great Britain If I could assure them that 
wheat requires only “from one-half to full 
quantity of all the nitrogen" contained in the 
crop to be applied in manure; or, in other 
words, that by the application, at the most, of 
one pound of nitrogen in manure, a pound 
could be recovered in the produce. So far, 
however, from my being able to accept this 
statement, I feel no hesitation in saying that 
whatever may be the nature of the recent “ex¬ 
periments and pAst experience” to which Mr. 
Stewart refers, if they assert, as a general ag- 
rieuUural fact, that the application of half a 
pound to a pound of nitrogen in manure will 
produce one pound of nitrogen in a crop of 
wheat, or that a quarter of a pound of nitro¬ 
gen iu manure will produce one pound of it in 
corn, they are based upon error. The only 
manner in which such a result might possibly 
be arrived at would be by the continuous 
growth of wheat or corn by means (1) of a 
mineral manure alone, and (2) by the same 
manure combined with salts of ammonia, if 
this were done with very great care, and for a 
sufficiently loug period; although 1 should 
even then expect more than a pound of nitro¬ 
gen would be required to produce one pound 
of that substance in increased growth, and that 
more nitrogen would be recovered by the corn 
than by the wheat. 
Mr. Stewart says, further, that Charles V. 
Mapes is opposed to my idea that corn should 
be placed iu the list of grain crops which re¬ 
quire to be supplied with a surplus of nitro¬ 
gen, but has insisted that it should be classed 
with clover and the leguminous crops which 
yield larger quantities of nitrogen in their pro¬ 
duct, but require a very inconsiderable sup¬ 
ply. 
The statement that ecru yields large quanti¬ 
ties of nitrogen, like the leguminous crops, is 
somewhat inconsistent with the table given by 
Mr. Stewart on the previous page (40) of the 
report, which shows that corn contains not only 
less nitvogeu than the leguminous crops, but 
even less nitrogen than wheat. My object, 
however, Is, not to find fault with Mr. Stewart’s 
statements, but to endeavor to correct what I 
consider to be erroneous in them. 
First, then, with regard to corn: That it is a 
graminaceous plant aud possesses all the prop¬ 
erties of that order, I have not a shadow of 
doubt; all the plants coutuining large quanti¬ 
ties of silica in the ash possess properties in 
common, one of which is that, when liberally 
supplied with nitrogen, they are cupuble of 
outgrowing and overpowering all other 6pecios 
of plants. It is quite true that corn is less de¬ 
pendent upon an artificial supply of nitrogen 
than wheat, oat6 or barley, and the reason for 
this fact 1 have frequently pointed out, viz., 
that after the othor crops are ripe, corn con¬ 
tinues its growth during the exact period when 
the liberation of nitric acid in the soil is most 
active, and it is this circumstance that enables 
the United Slates farmer to sell corn so much 
cheaper than wheat. 
At Rothamsted wu have abundant evidence 
to show how large Is the quantity of nitric acid 
liberated during the Summer months. For 
example, the water collected from the drains 
of our experimental wheat-field in July con¬ 
tained no nitric acid, while the soil of the 
adjoining field, where no crop was grown, 
contained in September as much nitric acid as 
would have supplied the nitrogen contained in 
50 bushels of corn. 
The United States farmers are now embark¬ 
ing largely iu the use of artificial manures, and 
therefore possibly may be glad to hear the 
views of one who has been studying their prop¬ 
erties for more than 40 years. 
First, they will find a very great difference 
between the amount of ingredients which is 
supplied in a manure and that obtained in the 
produce; then two of the ingredients generally 
supplied in manure, viz , phosphoric acid and 
potash, enter into very fixed compounds with 
the soil, and are ouly recovered over long pe¬ 
riods of time. In confirmation of this fact I 
may say that at Rothamsted we are at the pres¬ 
ent moment taking np in our wheat crop phos¬ 
phoric acid and potash which were applied 30 
years ago; some considerable addition, there¬ 
fore, iu the shape of interest, must be charged on 
the cost price of these substances by the farmer 
who employs them as a manure. With regard 
to nitrogen the case is different. It appears 
probable that nitrogeu, applied either as am¬ 
monia or nitric acid, does not permanently en¬ 
ter into any fixed combination iu the soil, un¬ 
less it has become a part of living vegetation; 
and It may be considered an established fact 
that wherever nitrogen is need as a manure 
there will be a considerable loss of the amount 
applied, although the amount of snch loss will 
vary with the seasons and other causes at pres¬ 
ent unknown. 
In consequence of the severe competition to 
which the British farmer is now exposed, the 
question of artificial fertility has been recent¬ 
ly occupying my attention, and I have come to 
the conclusion that, as artificial manures can 
be purchased quite as cheaply in this country 
aB in the States, the crops grown by their aid 
cannot be produced more cheaply in one coun¬ 
try than in the other. What we are suffering 
from in Great Britain is the competition of 
crops grown by means of natural fertility, 
which is cheaper than the fertility that can be 
supplied in any other form. 
The views of Mr. George Ville with regard 
to the sources of nitrogen, and the properties 
possessed by the various crops for gathering it 
from the atmosphere, appear to have found 
much favor In some parts of the United States. 
We have not thought it necessary to bring foi- 
ward any formal evidence to disprove these 
views; but I may say that, as expressed by Mr. 
Ville, they are entirely opposed to the facts 
that have been established by the result of the 
experiments at Rothamsted. 
• Wo are much indebted to Mr. P. T. Quiun, Secre¬ 
tary of tlio New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 
for this above articlo, which has not until now been 
published. 
♦ • 4 - 
NOTES FROM THE RURAL FARM. 
What is the advantage of hilling up corn ? 
Wa should much like to know. Until two 
years ago wc, in common with the farmers 
about us, planted our corn in checks and 
BILLING SYSTEM.—F1Q. 317. 
hilled up. Two years of experience with level 
cultivation have well-nigh convinced us that 
drilling in the seed In rows aud level cultiva¬ 
tion are to be preferred for the generality of 
seasons, for light lands at least. There is a be¬ 
lief among farmers that hilliug np helps to 
support the corn plant and consequently pre¬ 
vents lodging by high winds. Our experience 
does not confirm this belief. The Chester Co. 
Mammoth and Blount’s Corn are both tall- 
growing kinds—taller than any of the varieties 
which were last year cultivated by our neigh¬ 
bors. And yet, though we had high winds 
while the corn was in bloom, and again when 
the graiu was glazing, our corn Btood fully as 
well as theirs. Does billing up give support 
to the stalk. Before answeriug this question, 
one should consider what part the lateral roots 
take in supporting the plant, as it is from 
about these that the soil is taken to heap about 
the stem. If these lateral roots are severed by 
plowing, hilling up may be advantageous— 
but when shallower cultivation alone is followed 
the stalks receive all of the support which a 
full, natural root system can give; and hence 
it is, we believe, that our plmta ten feet high 
stood as well as onr neighbors’ which were not 
so tall by a foot or so. 
FLAT CULTCUIt.—FIG. 318. 
Great crops of Indian corn have been pro¬ 
duced by plow cultivation and hilling np. But 
possibly, had the cultivation been shallow and 
level, those crops would have been greater. 
It may be admitted that land is sometimes so 
rich that root-prnning (plowing) serves to re¬ 
press stalk and leaf growth and to favor the 
formation and development of graiu. We do 
not know, never having had a field so rich. 
But if it were otherwise we should, with our 
present experience, still pursue the drill-row 
system and the flat cultivation, though careful 
to plant our seeds aud to mark our drills fur¬ 
ther apart. We have full faith that the sun 
and air and thorough shallow culture would 
effect all that any interference with the roots 
would effect. 
In drill-row cultivation, of course, neither 
the cultivator nor plow can be run but one 
way. The narrow belt on which the plants 
grow must be hoed or the weeds suffered to 
grow. But it may be considered that if the 
rows are straight the cultivator may bo run so 
near to the plants that very little hoeing is 
really necessary. This narrow bolt which de¬ 
mands hand labor is the only objection to drill- 
rows that we have yet discovered. It is plain 
on the other hand that corn plants one foot 
apart in the drill will thrive better than when 
three or four plants are crowded together as 
in the check system. Very likely ou hillsides 
level cultivation would prove impracticable, 
and as onr experience has been only in the cul¬ 
tivation of ground level or nearly so, it is of 
this alone wc speak. Onr illustrations are 
Intended as a help towards placing before the 
thoughtful reader more forcibly the question 
as to the advantages or disadvantages of hill¬ 
ing up or level cultivation ; plowing or culti¬ 
vating near the surface only—leaving the en¬ 
tire root system of the plant as nature intended 
it to grow. At l-l, Fig. 317 the roots, though in 
an exaggerated way, are shown to be severed 
by the plow and more exposed to the action of 
the sun’s rays. It would seem, therefore, 
that the plant as shown at 2—2 in Fig. 318 
should have a greater power to resist drought, 
siuce it has a more widely exteuded root sys¬ 
tem which is more evenly watered by rain. 
-- 
CUTTING AND CURING CLOVER. 
It is generally understood among farmers 
that clover should be cut a short time before 
full blossom in order to preserve its juiciness 
and flavor. Though there may be an increase 
thereafter in weight and bulk, the addition ia 
not in nutritive elements but iu woody fiber 
which for feeding purposes iB of no great 
value. Early cutting also gives the second 
growth, or aftermath, a better chance, so 
that if desirable, it may be mown again. In 
curing clover, I believe the proper course to 
be to put it np in cocks on the afternoon of 
the day on whieh it ia cut, If the weather per¬ 
mits, and not to haul it to the barn at once. 
Glover put up in good shape in this way will 
cure during the time it is in the cock 
nearly as much as it would if exposed to the 
sun, so that ou opening in the morning the 
Bun will 6oon dry out the *‘ sweat,” and the clov¬ 
er after a light shaking, will befit for the mow. 
It is better when cured in this way for the 
reason that it is brighter iu appearance and 
the clover leaves are left intact. This, ex¬ 
perience has shown, is not the case when the 
clover is cured altogether in the hot sun, or 
when it ia left standing until out of blossom, 
and until the stalk is void of juice. An in¬ 
cidental advantage accruing from putting up 
hay, especially clover, iu this way, is, that, in 
case of a rain during the night, it is in good 
shape to withstand it, and is much better out- 
of-doors than in the mow half-cured, to mold 
and heat. j. w. d. 
- » »♦ — 
NAME OF CORN. 
In the Rural of Jane 4, Professor Blount 
says: “For the benefit of Waldo Brown and 
others who think they have discovered a great 
secret,” eto. I think the Professor referB to a 
statement that i found the Peabody Corn and 
Blount’s Prolific to be identical. I would not 
ou any account do the Professor injustice, and 
write now asking that I may be set right, if 
wrong. The first I ever saw of this corn was 
in Wayne Co., Ohio, in September 1879, and I 
was at once much interested in it. A stalk 
having seven perfect ears on it, was exhibited 
at a local fair, and I also saw a half acre of it 
growing. 1 bought five bushels of the seed, 
and sent out 1000 small packages free, under 
the name of Peabody Corn, which was what 
the man called it who fnruiahed me the seed. 
In the Spring of 1880, a subscriber to the Ru¬ 
ral sent me a few ounces of the Blount’s Pro¬ 
lific Corn, which he had grown from seed sent 
out by you, and I planted it at one end of my 
acre of Peabody Corn. I coaid see no diffei- 
ence in the two, whatever, and so naturally 
concluded they were identical. I believe that 
to Professor Blount belongs the honor of hav¬ 
ing originated this corn, aud had I known 
what I now do, I should have advertised it in 
his name, and given him all dne c:edit, for I 
believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to the 
men who by careful experiment are improving 
onr grains and vegetables. I hope the Profes¬ 
sor will accept this apology. 
Waldo F. Brown. 
Jam fojjirs. 
THE WEIGHT OF COW DUNG. 
Mr. Bliss in his remarks made week before 
last, on page 402, replies to onr statement in 
regard to the weight of cow dung, but he by 
no means disproves it. Instead of explaining 
his view of this rather insiguificant question, 
he insinuates that our reply to his objections 
was quibbling. We gave some facts which 
may be repeated in a succinct manner as fol¬ 
lows, to show that the weight of authority is 
against Mr. Bliss’s position and supports our 
first statement as regards the weight of cow 
manure, and to utterly disprove Mr. B’s charge 
of quibbling. 
1. There is nothing that enters into the com¬ 
position of cow dung that has a higher specific 
gravity than water. 
2. An analysis of cow dang given in a work on 
calico printing showB that the specific gravity 
of the component parts of the dung is actually 
somewhat less than Lhut of water. 
3. Geo. E. Waring, a thoroughly competent 
authority, gives the weight of cow manure to 
be 7.080 pounds to the cord; or 920 pounds 
less than an equal bulk of water. 
4. We gave, on the authority of Joseph 
Harris, taken from his “Talks on Manures,” 
the weight of well trodden horse manure at 
4 800 to 5,000 pounds to the cord. 
5. We stated that on a trial with freshly 
dropped cow manure we found it to float, and 
not to sink, as Mr. Bliss very confidently 
stated it would always do. 
Now in addition to all this, the writer has 
had weighed a load of 64 cubic feet of solid 
cow manure free from Utter, which has been 
lying In the bottom of a barn cellar for six 
mouths, and is very solid, aud whieh was thor¬ 
oughly well trampled in the wagon box, and 
the weight is 3.428 pounds, making the cord to 
weigh 15,856 pounds. There might have been 
some little water added to this manure, but 
not mnch, to completely saturate it, as all the 
liquid from the cows pours from the gutter 
and the trap-doors above on to the manure in 
the cellar. 
It is rather annoying to be compelled to go to 
all this trouble to discuss such an unimportant 
question as this and to gather all these facts to 
support our first statement in reply to an in¬ 
quiring friend, for no other purpose than to 
show that Mr. Bliss’s objection to our statement 
is not based ou any other authority than his own 
