336 
THE BUBAL NEW-YOBKEB, 
and remove any stray weed missed at hoeing 
time. 
Mangels are quite easily injured by very 
hard frosts, and should be harvested and 
stored before such occur. In Western New 
York they are pulled and housed as soon as 
possible after the middle of October. In har¬ 
vesting a man should have a one-fingered 
leather mitten on the right hand, and as the 
mangel is pulled a sharp twist with this hand 
removes the top. The roots from five rows 
should be thrown together, and in loading the 
wagou can be driven between two of these 
rows of piles. If teams enough are used in 
harvesting, so that one can be kept constantly 
in the field, it is the best way to have it driven 
aloug-sidu the mangels, the driver pulling one 
row, and each of two men taking two others; 
they can be loaded directly as they are 
pulled and topped. To remove all dirt from 
them, when unloading let them roll the length 
of a six or eight-foot shoot, made of strips one 
by two inches wide, placed lengthwise and 
one-aud-a-lialf inch apart, with side* one strip 
high. One end is to be laid on the wagon box, 
the other in the cellar window, hatch, or on 
the pile, if they are to he pitted. Mangels, if 
pitted, should be so protected that, they will be 
entirely exempt from frost, and it is a good 
plan to put boxes, or tiles, upright In the top 
of the pit at intervals of eight feet, so as to 
afford a passage for any dampness that may 
evaporate from the roots. These are to he re¬ 
moved, aud the holes to be filled on covering J 
the second time as cold weather approaches. 
Brother farmers, yovi cannot afford any 
longer to neglect the root crops. J. b. b. 
WHEAT BRAN FOR TARRED CORN. 
After throe or four years’ trial, I find wheat 
bran much better than plaster for drying seed 
corn after it has been tarred, as a smaller 
quantity is required, and it does not gum the 
hands lu planting; consequently, the hoe 
handle is clean. If prepared in this way one 
or two days before using and then sifted, tar¬ 
red corn can be drilled as well as that, not 
tarred. T. H. brown. 
farm Ccottomt}. 
WHEN TO CUT HAY. 
PROF. J. W. SANBORN. 
In the Rural of October 20, 1883, is a re¬ 
view of two years’, experiments in cutting hay, 
by Prof. Jordan, of the Pennsylvania State 
Experiment Station. The important facts 
evolved from these experiments were briefly 
summarized, as follows: 
1. The average growth of Timothy, after 
the period of bloom, in four experiments re¬ 
corded, was 540 pounds of dry hay per acre, 
or 18.5 per eent. increase. 2. This increased 
growth was entirely of the non-nitrogenous 
constituents of Timothy. 3, The yield of hay 
from clover In full bloom, was greater than 
at any succeeding stage of growth. 4. The 
composition of the clover hay from each pe¬ 
riod of growth, indicates a constant decrease 
in total nutritive value after the grass passed 
the period of full bloom. 5. The loss on weight 
after storing the hay in the barn, varied with 
Timothy, from 15 to 22.2 per cent, aud with 
the clover it varied from 25.7 to 44.7 percent., 
averaging 27.4 j>or cent. 
At the close of the review, the Rural said: 
"The experiments will be ooutiuued, aud it re¬ 
mains to be seen whether the above results are 
an indication of what generally occurs.” 
Considerable evidence is already accumu¬ 
lated regarding the points brought out in the 
trials quoted. In 1 877 1 began, aud continued 
for four years, experiments in cutting hay 
and clover at two and three different periods, 
aud feeding the same to stock. Those experi¬ 
ments gave greater gain, after bloom, for 
Timothy, than recorded in the Pennsylvania 
trials. For 1877 the gaiu was from 3,444 pounds 
with one-fourth of the heads in bloom, to 4,263 
pounds 10 days later. W ben fed out, the two 
cuttings stood, respectively, 2,760 and 3,538 
pounds, or a gain of 27.9 percent, bet ween the 
two periods, while the gain in the Pennsylva¬ 
nia trials was only 18.5 in todays. The shrink¬ 
age amounted to 10.0 and 17 per eent. respec¬ 
tively, while in Prof. Jordau's trials the aver¬ 
age shrinkage was 25,7 per cent, iu the early 
cut, and IS. 8 per cent, in the late cut. In the 
next trial, the weights stood, for bloom 
from July 0 to 19, to after bloom, 3,585 
pounds, against 4,555 pounds, or when fed out, 
2,673 pounds to 3,380 pounds, so that the 
later-cut hay had gained 26.7 per cent., the 
shrinkage being 25.4 aud 25.0 per eent. respec¬ 
tively. 
The same year, on another section of land, 
hay cut in bloom weighed 3,470 pounds, and cut 
10 days after bloom it weighed 4,530 pounds; 
in Winter the first weighed 2,324 pounds and 
the seoond 2,923 pounds; the gain of late-cut 
hay over eurly-cut hay was, therefore, 25.9 
percent. The same season clover cut July 1 
and July 9, weighed 4,875 pounds and 4,825 
pounds respectively, and in Winter, 3,600 
pounds and 3,707 pounds. The shrinkage in 
hay cut at the different periods was for clover, 
25.9 per cent aud 23.3 per cent. Thus the clo¬ 
ver, despite the fact that its leaves are easily 
removed, lost no more in drying than the hay. 
That the dried clover contained but little more 
water the analysis confirmed. 
In 1880 the results were similar to that just 
stated. In case of Timothy, cut eight days 
before bloom and 18 days after bloom, the 
weights, when fed in Winter, were 2,268 
pounds aud 3,716 pound* respective’y. 
For 1881, the difference was but small be¬ 
tween the early and late-cut hay. Whether 
this fact was dne to an uneven stand of grass, 
or the season, I do not know. It was the only 
trial of the three in which the periods of cut¬ 
ting were so far apart, being 21 days. The 
experiment with clover of this year was very 
decidedly in favor of the later cut. In all 
these trials, the second crop was taken, to note 
the influence of early cutting on the develop¬ 
ment of a second crop. The result depended 
wholly upon the season. If favorable, the 
later cut gave as good a second crop as the 
early cut. If the early cutting was followed 
by drought, then I got most hay after the first 
cut on the second crop, but always the greater 
aggregate from the latest cut hay. 
G. M. Gowell, Farm Superintendent of the 
Maine Ag’l College, tried, for 1882, similar 
experiments, and got for early-cut hay, on 
Winter weight, 8% per cent, of shrinkage over 
the harvest weight; and 2,675 pounds of hay 
cut 20 days later, gave a winter shrinkage of 
15% per cent, and a weight of 2,602 pounds. 
In the Pennsylvania aud Maine trials, the 
difference in growth found from early to late- 
cut hay. was much less than thutfound by me. 
Why? Both allowed their hay to stand longer 
than I did, save in my last year, when I al 
lowed 21 days, and got no gaiu over early-cut 
hay. 1 believe that plants, after obtaining 
their full growth, begin to lose weight, not 
only by loss of water, but by loss of organic 
matter also. I believe the pluut has no period, 
at least of any considerable length, when it is 
not undergoing a change in weight. 
While attention has not been particularly 
drawn to this point, wo ure not without facts 
gathered in other lines of inquiry, that ap¬ 
pear to confirm this view; nor are we without 
physiological reasons that support a belief that 
our plants not only may, but must lose in 
weight aftei growth ceases. It is assumed, in 
the trial under review, that the apparent acre¬ 
age loss of albuminoids was due to the shelter¬ 
ing of drier parts. 1 am inclined to think it 
is duo to a law of plant life, and will ulways 
be found in all grasses or plants. 
I will give a single specimen of several that 
have come to my attention. Prof. Kedzle 
found, in his valuable wheat analyses and in 
vestigations, that in both varieties, at a cer¬ 
tain stage, the albuminoids decreased iu acre¬ 
age amounts. While attention is not called to 
the fact, I notice that the acreage yield of 
carbohydrates was beginning to decrease, in 
his earliest variety under test, at the close of 
the nineteenth day after cutting. 
In my personal experience 1 have noted facts 
that lead me to believe that both Prof. Jordan 
and Superintendent Gowell cut their hay too 
late, aud that from bloom to the period of 
maximum weight, a growth of 25 per cent, 
can be depended upon. For several practical 
and theoretical reasons, 1 believe that huy 
should not be allowed to stand until the seed 
hardens. My observation iu this .State is, that 
a vast amount of haj r is allowed to stand uncut 
beyond this period, entailing a heavy loss. 
Between the two periods in which I cut my 
experiment hay, both Professors Collier and 
Johnson found an acreage increase of albu 
minoids, save in the cutting of 1881, which, 
unfortunately, was not analyzed. 
The suggestion is made, in Prof. Jordan's 
trials, that the youngest grass furnished the 
largest quantities of the most valuable ingre¬ 
dients of cattle food.” The question of the 
value of the changes that a maturing plant 
undergoes, is rapidly coming into notice as 
one of very great practical importance. The 
changes in the amide and the albuminoid 
groups, in the many proximate constituents 
that make up the so called carbohydrates, are 
beyond the powers of chemistry to give nu¬ 
tritive measures to. For this reason, I re¬ 
sorted to feeding experiments for each of the 
four years named, and in about 10 trials I 
found the later-cut hay the better; but I be¬ 
came convinced that I had cut as late as was 
desirable. Professor Henry, of Wisconsin, 
some two years ago, also tested the feeding 
value of late-cut hay, obtaining figures quite 
as pronounced in favor of the hay cut after 
bloom. 
In practice, 1 have no hesitation iu advising 
Rural readers to cut their Timothy after 
bloom, when the seeds are well formed, but yet 
soft—ordinarily, about 10 days after full 
bloom. I think that if the Rural will invite 
those who do not believe in cutting Timothy 
in bloom, to say so in its columns, and promise 
that no one shall be permitted to langh them 
out of the field as “old fogies, having the 
moldy smell of the past age,” its readers will 
be surprised at the number of men that other¬ 
wise pass as sensible, who practice this method. 
State Ag College, Columbia, Mo. 
[We invite all our friends to give honestly 
their experience in all farm operations, and 
we never permit ill-natured ridicule or dis¬ 
courtesy in our columns.— Eds ] 
A COPIOUS WATER SUPPLY ESSEN¬ 
TIAL TO SUCCESSFUL FRUIT 
GROWING. 
B. F. JOHNSON. 
Perhaps no revolutionary idea proposed to 
be introduced into horticultural practice, has 
ever gained ground faster than that which re¬ 
commends for the location of apple orchards, 
low land sites, where the water supply is more 
abundant, in preference to high and dry land 
sites, where it is less plentiful. Reduced to its 
lowest terms, the new departure means simply 
this—that the fruit failures of the Volley of 
the Mississippi al>ove Cairo, if not for the 
whole country, are due rather to a deficiency 
of moisture lu the soil than to its poverty, and 
that when once there is water enough about 
the route of fruit trees to make the necessary 
plant-food solution, then health and fruitful¬ 
ness are secured. The question, having for 
the first time been raised by the writer a short 
time ago, it was introduced for discussion at 
the Annual Meeting of the Illinois State Hor¬ 
ticultural Society in December. The follow¬ 
ing are some of the facts elicited: 
A. C. Hammond: “Is the theory that the 
highest aud driest are the best locations for 
orchards, correct? As a society, we have al¬ 
ways advocate*! and practiced it, but the ex¬ 
perience and observation of this season have 
shaken my faith in it. In Hancock County, 
the large commercial orchurds are about 
equally divided between dry, rolling, and flat, 
moist land. Those on the flat lands passed 
through last Winter with the greatest safety, 
and have, the past season, produced more and 
finer fruit than the others.” 
T. McWherter: “1 am glad to bear these 
remarks. Trees do not attain the size and 
longevity when grown on the bluffs or high 
ground, where we thought they would do much 
the best, as where grown on low land." 
H. K. Vickrey: “My observation corrobo¬ 
rates these opinions. Apple trees do best on 
low lauds.” 
J. W. Robinson (an extensive and uxperi 
cuced orchardist of Tazewell Co.): “ I am also 
glad to have these facts come out. My orchard 
is on both kinds of laud. 1 have trees twenty- 
five years old, still productive on low lands, 
while those on ground twelve feet higher, are 
not so healthy or fruitful. On ten acres on 
laud on which water stands nearly a mouth 
every Spring to within a foot of the surface, 
I gathered from 200 Winesap trees 2,000 
bushels of apples.” 
Prof. Burrill, of the Illinois Industrial Uni¬ 
versity: “I have always supposed that our 
high lauds were the best for orchards; but for 
the last three years the orchards on the flat 
lands have done better than those on the 
ridges. I know one 20 years old, that has 
been giving immense crops of apples; soil very 
rich, common black prairie. Now, on some 
of the high ridges,the apple orchards have been 
doing exceedingly poorly. 1 ' 
At a recent meeting of the Warsaw (III.) 
Horticultural Society, the essayist, discuss¬ 
ing On the location of apple orchards, said: 
“The idea has always prevailed in this West¬ 
ern country, that the highest aud driest loca¬ 
tion—even if the surface was rough and the 
soil worn and poor—were the best for orchards. 
And a large majority of our orchards have 
been planted with this thought in view; but 
iu uearly every ease they have failed to meet 
the expectation of the planter. The experi¬ 
ence of the past season is that orchards on 
dry ridges, especially where the soil is thin, 
have almost universally failed, while those on 
flat, moist laud have been more or less pro¬ 
ductive. Some of our theoretical horticultur¬ 
ists tell us that the cold Winter of 1382-3 so in¬ 
jured the roots of these low ground orchard 
trees, that their growth was checked, which 
caused them to bear immensely last season. I 
do not accept this theory, but rather am of 
the opinion that orchards on dry, 'poor ridges, 
where no effort has been made to enrich the 
soil, hare, during the last few years, suffered 
for nutrition, and are therefore incapable of 
perfecting a crop of fruit. Twenty years ago, 
we had good apple crops at least three years 
out of four, but of late we scarcely get one in 
four. The trees usually bloom and the fruit 
forms, and grows to the size of peas, when it 
begins to drop, and in a few days is gone. I 
have given this subject some attention, and 
have observed that, where trees have stood in 
moist, rich soil, or have been thoroughly cul¬ 
tivated, they have retained their fruit, while 
those which have suffered from starvation, 
have universally lost their crops.” 
J. L. Piggott. “Thirty years ago we thought 
the prairie too flat for orchards; but we are 
now changing our views. All over the State, 
orchards have been planted on these low 
lands, and are doing as well as, if not better, 
than those on other sifce6.’’ 
J. M. Berry. “This is a day of advance¬ 
ment and of new developments and new theo¬ 
ries. In my old orchard in New England, the 
best trees were in the low places, where the 
soil had been improved by the washings from 
the adjacent slopes. The essayist has come 
to his conclusions from long experience, and 
if present to-day, he would probably be able 
to defend them successfully.*’ 
But not alone in Illinois has t.he close con 
neetion between abundant water supply and 
successful fruit growing attracted the atten¬ 
tion of horticulturists. In Florida, with its 70 
inches of annual rainfall, its rainy summer 
season, and its atmosphere so continuously 
moist, hard-wood trees are heavily draped 
with moss, the orange growers have lately 
made the discovery that the orange will be 
more productive and profitable if highly 
fertilized and copiously irrigated. 
Says a lady correspondent of an agricultu¬ 
ral publication of very large circulation: 
Orange trees will grow slowly, with but little 
cost; but in order to get quick returns, you 
must give them food aud water without stint, 
and water, I believe, is as necessary as food. 
Many persons are awakening to the necessity 
of water, and force pumps or wind-mills are 
becoming not iufrequent.” 
But the water question is becoming even 
more prominent and pronounced on the other 
side of the Atlantic. After fighting the 
oidium, the phylloxera or root louse, the 
mildew, and 1 know not how many other ene¬ 
mies of their vineyards, and with only a 
moderate amount of success, the proprietors 
have all at once, as it were, come to under¬ 
stand that their vines are in the course of star¬ 
vation, and attacked with lice and fungus 
growth because the}- are weak from deficient 
nutrition. The success of the remedy of sub¬ 
mersion during the cold season, in killing the 
phylloxera, suggested further trials in the 
same line, und the result is, they have found 
high fertilization in connection with heavy 
manuring and copious summer irrigation, will 
successfully combat the attacks of every enemy 
of their vines. 
Champaign Co., Ill. 
farm topics. 
“STOCK SEEDS” FOR THE FARMER. 
Every Spring our seedsmeu proclaim al¬ 
leged new and wonderfully Improved varieties 
of corn, wheat, oats and barley, which, they 
say, are more productive than the old varie¬ 
ties, and for which they ask and receive very 
high prices. These novelties, 1 think, usually 
give better yields for a time after they are 
procured and grown by the farmer. But as a 
rule, we cease to hear about them soon after 
the catalogues and newspapers stop advertis¬ 
ing them. Grown under the average condi¬ 
tions of the common farmer, they soon be¬ 
come of average productiveness. Why is 
this so? 
In considering the methods pursued in de¬ 
veloping these improved varieties, we have a 
hint that may, perhaps, account for their tran¬ 
sient vigor. Sometimes their increased vigor 
is secured through cross-fertilization, but I 
suspect by far the greater number are ob¬ 
tained, by selecting with care, the best-de¬ 
veloped heads from very vigorous plants 
through a series of years. Marvelous results 
have been obtained in this way. But when 
these highly-developed samples of seed are 
handed over to the average farmer, who no 
longer gathers the finest heads for propaga¬ 
tion, the small part of the product that pos¬ 
sesses superior vigor, is soon neutralized by the 
far greater portion that has only average pro¬ 
lificacy, and the standard rapidly falls. 
Seed growers are in the habit of making, 
from all their varieties choice selections, 
which they call “stock seeds.” These they 
grow by themselves, and the product is used 
a* seed for the main crop. It is through this 
means, and this means only, that the standard 
of their varieties is kept up. If it is money in 
the seed grower’s pocket to take this trouble, 
why is it not in the farmer’s? Farmers are 
now paying from £100 to $300 per bushel for 
new varieties of grain raised in this way, and 
after they have secured their dearly-bought 
treasure, they soon lose all benefit from it, by 
neglecting to practice the selection by which 
