JULY 
THE RURAL WEW-YORKER 
phosphate, when not needed, and especially 
■when used year after year on the same land, 
may check nitrification by sterilizing the 
germs or by converting the available lime of 
the soil into phosphate of lime. True, the 
results in 1874 show that superphosphate did 
good rather than harm, but the deficiency 
of plants throws doubt on the experiments 
this year. 
In 1875, the second crop without any cross¬ 
dressing, Plot 3, continuously unmanured, 
produced five tons nine cwt. of roots per acre; 
and the plot next to it, which had received 
nothing but nitrate of soda in previous years, 
and this year and the previous year no man¬ 
ure of any kind, produces nine tons five cwt. 
of roots per acre. The fact is worthy of con¬ 
sideration. It is supposed that when nitrogen 
is converted into nitrate, all the nitrate that 
is not t aken up by the plants is washed out of 
the soil during the heavy rains of winter and 
spring. It is clear, however, that in this case 
there was available nitrogen left over from 
the previous applications of nitrate of soda. 
There are two ways of explaining the facts in 
this case: First—The rains do not wash out all 
the unused nitrate; or, secoud, the plants in 
1875 got nitrogen from the decomposing leaves 
that had been plowed under in previous years. 
It will be remembered that while nil the roots 
are removed from the land, the leaves are an¬ 
nually spread and plowed in on their respect¬ 
ive plots. During the first three years, there 
were plowed in on the plot without manure 
five tons four ewt. of leaves per acre, and on 
the plot adjoining, where nitrate of soda alone 
was used, 18 tons 0 cwt. per acre. In 1874, 
when both these plots received no manure, no 
increase was obtained from the previously 
nitrated plot—a result not surprising in such 
a dry seasou. But the next year, still without 
manure, an increase of nearly four tons of 
roots per acre was obtained. This result is 
undoubtedly due—iu part, at least—to the in¬ 
creased cpiantity of leaves which had been 
plowed under for manure. 
It would seem that beets are good “scaven¬ 
gers;” or perhaps we may call them “gross 
feeders.” At any rate, they seem to be able 
to avail themselves of the farm-yard manure 
used the previous seasons. It will be seen 
that two years after the manure had been 
used, there was an increase of ten tons of roots 
per acre due to the farm-yard manure left iu 
the soil. I believe beets and mangel-wurzel 
can often be used to great advantage as scav¬ 
engers. True, we cannot grow excessively 
large crops without the direct use either of 
large quantities of farm yard manure or arti 
Hcial fertilizers; but we can obtain moderate 
and often quite profitable crops without the 
direct use of any manure at all, depending on 
the manure left in the soil from previous ap 
plications. 1 have had a fine crop of mangel- 
wurzels on such soil without manure of any 
kind; while by drilling iu with the seed 150 
pounds of equal parts nitrate of soda and sup¬ 
erphosphate per acre, 1 had last year the most 
profitable crop of mangels I have ever grown. 
Of course, such a small quantity of nitrate 
could do little exceptto give the plauts a start; 
but when well started they were able to Hud 
a sufficient quantity of nitrate and other 
plant-food m the soil for a fair and profitable 
crop. _ 
ination are so apparent, and generally appeal 
to the olfactories so powerfully that any one 
at all inclined to be decent will quickly ter¬ 
minate their existence; but the worm and bug 
invasions are apt to be overlooked, and are, 
moreover, more difficult to provide against. 
Many people flatter themselves that the 
water in their wells is as pure as the pearly 
dew-drop, while at the same time half a-dozen 
or so of angle-worms and various bugs are 
tumbling into it daily. These pests cannot be 
excluded by an ordinary wall, because the 
brick or stone cannot be laid sufficiently close 
to make it worm-proof. The most effective 
method of keeping them out is to lay the 
upper 10 feet of the wall in cement, or to back 
it with the same material, as shown at Fig. 
243. Backing is the safest and best plan. As 
at a time. If this is not thought sufficient, 
then a row of 2x4-inch scantling can be set up 
with tarred paper on each side, over which 
siding can be put, leaving an air space be¬ 
tween, and making a durable separation. A 
door-way can be cut through, and instead of 
doors, strips of boards can be put crosswise on 
both sides of the door-way, as the filling pro¬ 
gresses, and can be as easily removed when 
the feeding takes place. 
The matter of preservation of the wood¬ 
work is of much importance. When the stud- 
dings go down to the ground it is best to fill 
in between them to the depth of a foot or more 
with concrete made of four or five parts of 
sand, to one of cement. This, if made thin, 
will act as a preservative of the wood and 
exclude moisture. The facing of the 
silo can be either painted with a heavy coat 
of iron-clad paint, a wash of two parts of 
kerosene, and one of linseed oil, or a paste 
made of water-lime cement, put on with a 
white-wash brush—as many coats as the 
owner may desire. The second season while 
the silo stands empty, there will be a consid¬ 
erable shrinkage of the inside boards w hich 
the cement will tightly close. 
It has been suggested that the wooden frame 
and an inside lining of boards, and then a 
course of hard brick up the interior, and over 
this a coat of cement, will be the coming silo, 
and with readily available lumber, it could 
probably be built for about $1 per ton 
of storage capacity. I have jin mind one 
silo that was built as described on 
LAWES AND GILBERT’S EXPERI¬ 
MENTS—NO. 4. 
the wall is being built, it is set in an inch from 
the sides of the well, and the space between 
them is carefully filled with cement. If this 
is well'done, the wall will be absolutely worm 
and bug-proof. 
The finishing of the top is an important 
matter. It should be laid perfectly even and 
smooth, and covered with a close-fitting plat¬ 
form of two-ineb plank. Near each end of 
this platform a 2x4 scantling is fnsteued, upon 
which a second platform of two-inch plank is 
spiked. This is designed to shelter the lower 
platform from the sun, and thereby prevent 
it from shrinking, warping or spliting. It 
makes a perfectly safe platform, and one that 
will effectually prevent all kinds of bugs, 
worms and vermin from entering the well at 
the top. 
Old wells may readily be rendered worm- 
proof by having 10 feet of the wall taken out 
and backed with cement as relaid. It will 
pay every person who uses well water to at¬ 
tend to this matter. 
WALL AND PLATFORM FOR WELLS, 
FRED. GRUNDY, 
That the use of impure water is the cause 
of a great deal of sickness among farmers is 
attested both by physicians and by our own 
observation. The principal causes of the im¬ 
purity of the water in farm wells is found in 
the close proximity of the numerous duck- 
puddles, bog-wallows and cess-pools, which 
abound in the yards of many farmers, and 
which are regarded as of so little import that 
they are rarely filled up or removed. Another 
source of pollution is the burrowing beetles 
and worms, especially angle-worms, w T hich 
enter the well through the chinks in the wall, 
fall into the water and sink to the bottom, 
where they die and decay. Duck-puddles, 
hog-wallows and other like sources of eontam- 
WIIEAT AND RYE HYBRIDS, 
AN ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE HYBRIDS 12 
YEARS AGO. 
On April 8 , 1875, Alex. S. Wilson, of Scot¬ 
land, presented to the Edinburgh Botanical 
TABLE 7.—SUGAR BEETS, WITH NO MANURES EXCEPT MINERALS 
SERIES 5. 
As Scries 1, and cross- 
dressed with 2,000 lbs. 
rape cake In previous 
years. 
Series 3. 
As Series 1, and cross 
dressed with 400 lbs. 
ammonia salts In pre 
vlous years. 
Series 2. 
As Series l, and cross 
dressed with 030 lbs. 
nitrate soda In pre¬ 
vious years. 
Roots. 
Roots. 
Roots, 
Tons. Cwt 
Tons. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
Fourth Season —1874.* 
1 -Without manure-1874 aud 1875 (farm-yard manure in ’71, ’72, ’73), 
2 .—334 cwt superphosphate (with farm-yard manure, 71, 72, 73), . 
3 *_Without manure—1848, and since, . •••• •;;* .- 
4 _ 3 i 4 ewt superphosphate, 5001b. sulphate potass, 2001 b. chloride sodium (common 
salt), 200 m. sulphate magnesia, . 
5. -334 cwt. superphosphate, .... .... 
6 , —314 cwt. superphosphate, 500lb. sulphate potass, .... . • •••• 
7 _ 3 tl cwt. superphosphate, 50U lb. sulphate potass, and ammonia salts -1, 73 , 
8 .—Unmanured, 1853 , and since; previously part unmanured, part superphosphate, 
Fifth Season— 1875.4 
1. —Without manure-1874 and 1875 (farm-yard manure in ’71, ’72, ’73), 
2 . —334 cwt. superphosphate (with farm-yard manure, <1, 7t, t6), . 
3 _Without manure, 1846, and since, .... •••• •••• "*■ 
4 _ 31 / cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, 200 lb. chloride sodium (common 
1 salt), 200 lb. sulnhute magnesia, .-. 
5 . -314 cwt. superphosphate, .. .. 
6 . —334 cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, .... .. *••• , 70 ‘■,«„ 
7 _334 cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, and ammonia salts 1 1, 7~, 7,1, 
8 '.—Unmanured, 1853, and since; previously part unmanured, part superphosphate, 
Series 1. 
No croBS-dresslug. 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Tons. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
10 16 
5 6 
13 3 
5 9 
5 2 
1 5 
6 10 
1 8 
5 19 
1 7 
5 11 
1 5 
6 14 
1 3 
5 0 
1 2 
17 5 
2 11 
15 11 
2 2 
5 9 
1 1 
5 9 
1 0 
5 11 
1 2 
5 4 
1 0 
5 11 
1 1 
4 15 
1 0 
Series 4. 
As Series 1. and cross- 
dressed with2,000lbs. 
rain- cake and UJUlbs. 
ammonia sal's in pre- 
vlous years. 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Toub. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
13 7 
9 17 
12 5 
7 7 
2 11 
2 10 
10 12 
4 16 
7 15 
5 4 
9 10 
4 13 
11 14 
4 11 
7 6 
4 7 
22 7 
3 12 
20 9 
3 5 
14 1 
2 13 
12 14 
1 14 
13 17 
2 8 
12 8 
2 3 
11 17 
1 17 
12 2 
2 11 
