cultural, and some other good papers are re¬ 
ceiving large additions to their subscription 
lists. 
University of Illinois. 
“HOW FARMING PAYS.” 
I saw in the Rural for December 24 an 
account of how farming pays in Ohio, and 
also what G. I. G., from New York State, 
says. The latter is all right and shows that he 
is a good farmer. I am one of the Rural 
farmers, and am proud to say it. On Septem¬ 
ber 20, 1880, I sowed '6% acres of wheat that 
was planted in late potatoes. I took 630 
bushels from the patch. The soil is flint and 
limestone. It was manured very heavily. 
The season was dry and I did not plow the 
patch after the tubers were dug. I gave it 
one good cultivation and went over it once 
with the smoothing harrow. I sowed a little 
over five pecks to the acre, and sowed with 
the wheat about 400 pounds of Williams & 
Clark’s bone phosphate. The expenses were 
not much, as I did not plow it again and I got it 
ready in one day and cut it with a reaper and 
three men in half a day. From this patch I 
took 105 bushels by measure, or 107 by weight 
of 00 pounds, and sold 90 bushels for §1.25 per 
bushel. Now I leave the Rural readers to 
form an estimate of my expenses. The va¬ 
riety of wheat is called Fulcaster; it has a 
red grain and is very hard, somewhat larger 
than the old Lancaster. It stands up well 
and yields better than any other we have in 
this section. 
In connection with this I would say that 
the Rural has done me much good. I have 
taken the Rural for a good many years and 
like it. As there is no visitor so welcome as 
the Rural, I feel like claiming relationship 
with it, and give it a hearty shake of the 
hand. Farmers have money for tobacco and 
whisky, but not for a good farm paper. 
They stay in the old ruts year in and year 
out, and raise less wheat, potatoes, corn and 
oats every year. They do not feed their land 
and don’t know what reason to assign for the 
failure of their crops, and as a general thing 
blame the seasons, when with some better in¬ 
formation as to how crops grow they could 
raise as much as ever ou fewer acres. 
The same is true in fruit culture. They plant 
trees and that is the last they do. They are 
left to shift for themselves. The Rural is a 
noble paper and is doing a grand work. 
G. s. s. 
AN IOWA VIEW OF CORN FODDER. 
Hay scare\ much fodder corn shocked; but 
not needed , as millet did well; cutters and 
barns being scarce, the fodder is fed uncut 
in the field; labor too dear, corn too cheap 
to make corn-fodder cutting profitable-, lo¬ 
cal methods best suited to local conditions. 
We had a very dry summer iu 1887 and 
1886, but we had an excellent crop of corn, 
bringing now 33 cents per bushel. There was 
an entire failure of tame and upland prairie 
hay, and slough hay is very scarce in this sec¬ 
tion. A. sort of mania took possession of our 
farmers to heed the advice of old heads and 
the Eastern agricultural papers in the matter 
of cutting up corn for fodder, and this section 
will average 10 acres of shocks in the field to 
the farm. Late-sown millet did well, however, 
and the fodder was, after all, unnecessary. It 
would amuse Eastern folks to note the disposi¬ 
tion now made of the corn shocks. In some 
sections the shocked corn is thrashed out, we 
are told, with the ordinary grain thrasher. 
Hereabouts some was hauled to near-by pas¬ 
tures and fed on the ground as feed got scarce. 
No one has undertaken to husk from the 
shock, and but one man in two counties, so 
far as can be learned, has a cutter, and is cut¬ 
ting his fodder: 
My nearest neighbor, in disgust at the 
trouble of handling the shocks, has turned the 
cattle iu to make, with the hogs, an end of 
the business. The whole thing is voted a 
nuisance, so thai; much missionary work will 
have to be done and other ways must be de¬ 
vised for handling fodder before the system 
will be largely adopted in this corn-producing 
section. The fact is, ’tis not a method adapted 
to this region, Mr. Bucephalus Brown, mainly 
because of the unusually high price of help 
and the usually low price of corn. At three 
cents per bushel for husking, 50 bushels per 
day—the usual amount gathered—§1.50 is the 
standard price for corn-gathering. The team 
counts for nothing when in this business. The 
job of gathering corn lasts far into the winter, 
by which time the shocks are half buried in 
snow or frozen to the ground. Where barns 
do not exist, the task before one to get, say, 
10 acres of corn husked from the shock iu 
the field, at §1.50 per day per man, is a weari¬ 
some ami expensive one. On the other band, 
the fodder must all be handled without ma¬ 
chinery, without even forks, and the butts in 
the feed yard utterly prevent the use of scraper 
in spring when the yards are cleaned up. 
Contrast the economy of this way of getting 
fodder with the cost of plowing, sowing, cut¬ 
ting with a mower, hauling with horse 
rakes and hay forks, say, three acres of mil¬ 
let to get an equal amount of fodder, and you 
see the Western farmer is no slouch because 
he cannot see his interest in cutting up the 
corn. The millet makes a good crop sown 
after oats are off the ground, about Aug. 1st. 
Harrison Co., Iowa, “an iowa farmer.” 
R. N.-Y.—A little farther east of you, 
farmers begin to get a little more respect for 
corn fodder. Fodder cutters are slowly but 
surely working west. They go with good 
barns. A few successive crops of millet with¬ 
out manuring will tell another story. 
FEEDING FOR LEAN AND FAT. 
JOSEPH HARRIS. 
A mistake of Professor Roberts; doubts that 
nitrogenous foods produce lean, and car¬ 
bonaceous foods fat meat; instances to the 
contrary; Professor Henry's experimental 
reports defective; animals prefer carbona¬ 
ceous foods; Professor Henry's experi¬ 
ments do not bear out his theory; milk as 
a pig nutrient; inconclusive results. 
In a late number of the Rural New-York¬ 
er Professor Roberts says that the prices real¬ 
ized from the prime cuts of meat have “led 
feeders into the habit of feeding for fat rather 
than for flesh and quality.” He overlooks the 
fact that these “prime cuts” are not them¬ 
selves fat, and I do not see how the fact that 
these choice pieces are in demand at good 
prices should induce farmers to feed for fat. 
“Professors Henry and Sanborn,” continues 
Professor Roberts, “have both shown that the 
quality of pork may be greatly changed by 
judicious and intelligent feeding-” No one 
doubts this. But what is judicious and intel¬ 
ligent feeding? As I understand the matter, 
Professqrs Henry and Sauborn think that 
food rich in nitrogen produces lean meat, 
while corn, which it is claimed is too poor in 
nitrogen, produces animals which have too 
large a proportion of fat. There may be 
something in this. But, so far as I have seen, 
the experiments do not prove half that is 
claimed for them. 
1 have not seen the original reports of Prof. 
Henry’s experiments—only an abstract of 
them, as given in several agricultural papers, 
and at this moment I am not able to lay my 
hands on any of them. I may do Prof. 
Henry injustice, but I am very far from wish¬ 
ing to do so, as I have a very great respect 
for him and all other careful investigators. 
But, as I recollect the matter, the experiment 
was defective, or badly reported. Half a 
dozen pictures were given showing cross- 
sections of three pieces taken from the pigs 
“fed for lean” and three pieces of the pigs 
“fed for fat.” There was a discrepancy be¬ 
tween the statement given of the feeding and 
the statement attached to the pictures. But 
this, we may suppose, is merely an error of 
the proof-reader, though it occurs in all the 
accounts I have seen published in the papers. 
None of the editors seem to have noticed the 
mistake. 
Assuming, however, that the pigs “fed for 
fat” had the most fat and the pigs “fed for 
lean” had the most lean—admitting, iu short, 
all that is claimed, I still think that it is not 
proved that what we call a nitrogenous food 
necessarily favors the production of lean 
meat. It is admitted, of course, that an 
animal cannot grow on food containing no 
nitrogen. But there is not a plant growing iu 
the world that does not contain nitro¬ 
gen. Clover contains much more nitrogen 
than our best grasses; but when we turn our 
cows into a field of clover they walk all along 
the fences and eat down the grass growing on 
the old, unplowed sod before they touch the 
clover. Peas and beans contain twice as 
much nitrogen as oats: but I doubt very 
much whether a horse fed on clover and peas 
or beans will have any more muscle than a 
horse fed on Timothy hay and oats. I have 
for many years fed large quantities of malt- 
sprouts that are specially rich in nitrogen 
and phosphates, but I have done this because 
their consumption makes rich manure and 
not because they produce a rapid growth of 
lean meat and bone. I do not believe they do 
anything of the kind. I know that my men 
who feed the sheep and pigs when they want 
to make the lambs or young pigs grow rapidly 
always ask for corn-meal to mix with the 
malt-sprouts. 
For 40 years or more, some eminent chemist s 
have been urging us to eat and feed more nit¬ 
rogenous food, but it is a curious fact, if the 
theory is true, that they have not succeeded 
in convincing either man or animal to eat 
more nitrogen and less carbon. The men who 
complain that our beef is too fat eat butter on 
their steak and oil with their salad, and they 
take kindly to sugar and other purely car¬ 
bonaceous foods. 
Professor Roberts alludes to beef “sur¬ 
rounded by an inch or two of hard tallow.” 
There is a great difference between tallow 
and fat. But it is very doubtful whether the 
kind of food an animal eats has anything 
to do with it. 
Professor Henry’s experiments afford the 
strongest and most real evidence yet adduced 
in favor of a rich nitrogenous diet, or in favor 
of the idea that we can feed for lean or feed 
for fat. In brief, as I recollect them, the facts 
are as follows': 
A litter of seven pigs were allowed to run 
together till, they were 100 days old. They 
had the rich milk which the sow furnished,and 
in addition had all the sweet skimmed cows’ 
milk and shorts or meal they wanted. When 
100 days old, three of the pigs were put into 
one pen and three into another pen. One pen 
of pigs continued to receive all the sweet 
skimmed mild they wanted and the other pen 
had water. Both pens ate about the same 
quantity of solid food, or from three to four 
pounds each pig per day. They had all they 
could eat,and the above quantity of solid food 
was probably all they could digest. But you 
will recollect that the pigs in the one pen had 
milk in addition, and, if I recollect right,each 
pig drank three or four quarts of it per day. 
And we may assume that this sweet skimmed 
milk from the University farm of Wisconsin 
was pretty good milk—possibly as good as 
much of the new milk furnished the poor 
children in our cities. At any rate the pigs 
thrived well upon it. If they were in adjoin¬ 
ing pens, those confined to meal and water 
must have longed to get through the bars and 
join their brothers and sisters who were en¬ 
joying a full breakfast, dinner and supper of 
sweet milk and other food. 
The result was what every pig feeder would 
anticipate. The pigs having the milk grew 
faster than those having water. They had 
more hair, more flesh, more blood, more liver, 
more heart, and no wonder. Furthermore, 
the bones were tested and proved to be strong¬ 
er. Why should they not be? The pigs were 
stronger and larger. But why call this “feed¬ 
ing for lean” and “feeding for fat?” 
If one pen had been fed milk and pea meal 
and the other milk and corn meal; or if one 
pen had been fed pea meal and water and the 
other corn meal and water, we should have 
had some evidence as to whether corn is de¬ 
ficient in nitrogenous matter—the peas con¬ 
taining about twice as much nitrogen as the 
corn. 
The fact is this milk is the best of all foods 
for young pigs, and if they have all the milk 
they want the kind of other food is of com¬ 
paratively little consequence—whether corn 
or wheat or barley or peas. I have for many 
years kept from 20 to 50 breeding sows and 
the great difficulty always has been to get 
milk enough for the young pigs after they 
were weaned. It is a question of digestion 
and not of nitrogen. 
I forgot to mention—and iu fact it is of little 
consequence—that the pigs that had the milk 
in Professor Henry’s experiments, were fed 
shorts and dried blood—one pound of dried 
blood and six pounds of shorts, stirred up with 
12 pounds of sweet skim-milk—while the pigs 
that had the water were fed on corn meal. 
They call the latter “feeding for fat” and the 
other “feeding for lean.” The details of the 
experiment I have not seen. But I should ex¬ 
pect that when the pigs that had nothing but 
water and meal were first shut up they would 
miss their previous diet of milk so much that 
they would gain but little for some weeks, 
while the others, with their accustomed milk, 
would keep on growing—though I should ex¬ 
pect them to have grown still faster if they 
had had a little corn meal in place of a portion 
of the shorts. 
DEHORNING. 
PROFESSOR a. j. cook. 
Rapid spread of the practice; advantages 
of it; not cruel; when and how to dehorn; 
objections. 
I have had occasion to travel some in 
McHenry County and other parts of Northern 
Illinois and Southern Wisconsin, and I am 
much struck with the large number of herds 
of cattle that have had their horns cut off. 
In a ride of 13 miles this morning from Ma¬ 
rengo to Harvard, I did not see a single herd 
that were not artificial polls. This seems re¬ 
markable, especially when we remember that 
this innovation is so recent in its origin. 
This of- itself is an argument in favor of re¬ 
moving the horns of our cattle. 
The matter comes up for discussion at nearly 
every one of the Wisconsin farmers’ institutes 
and there is hardly a man who has practiced 
dehorning who is not emphatic in its recom¬ 
mendation. The arguments urged are: First, 
it prevents those frequent and often terrible 
accidents which result from the use of horns 
by some yicious animal. Secondly, it is af¬ 
firmed that dehorned cattle can be turned lose 
in a shed or stall, and though quite crowded 
they will do well and make far better gain 
than when tied up as they must be unless de¬ 
horned. Thirdly, it is asserted that dehorning is 
not a serious operation. It is even said that the 
cattle seem to object to the confinement of 
their heads even more than to the actual saw¬ 
ing off of the horns. More than this, it is 
said that the animal goes to eating at once 
after the operation, and does not fall off at 
all either in condition or milk in consequence. 
It is urged that dehorning is far less painful 
than-other operations universally practiced; 
indeed, some enthusiasts assert as their opin¬ 
ion that the animal is really the gainer by the 
operation: that the worry and actual suffering 
caused by hooking are more than that caused 
by cutting off the horns. 
The general expression is that it is far bet¬ 
ter to dehorn after the first year—in the 
spring of the second year of the life of the 
animal. It hurts the older animal much less, 
and there is then no danger of the horns start¬ 
ing out again. It is stated that to make the 
work satisfactory with calves a piece of the 
skull must be gouged out. This seems to hurt 
the calf cruelly. This is as we should expect. 
In the calf the growth and activity of the part 
are very great, and of course the larger num¬ 
ber of nerves required add greatly to the 
sensitiveness. We can readily believe that 
when the horn is a completed organ, both 
nerves and consequent sensitiveness would be 
at a minimum. The practical conclusion is, 
not to dehorn an animal till the horns are in 
the way of the best comfort and thrift of the 
herd, as the later the operation the less the 
pain, up to the time when the horn is a prac¬ 
tically completed growth. 
To dehorn the animal, it is placed in stanch¬ 
ions or its head is otherwise made fast. Then 
the horns are sawed off close to the hair. 
Here there is a softer place, and less pain is 
caused. Then very little blood will escape, 
and the animal will show almost no disturb¬ 
ance. There are very few objectors at the 
institutes; the arguments used by those who 
object are looks and cruelty. The first is 
certainly a valid objection iu case one has a 
fine herd of Short-horns or Herefords. The 
second one seems not valid in the light of the 
testimony of such men as Prof. Henry and 
many others who have tried the practice. 
RAISING BROILERS IN A NUTSHELL. 
P. H. JACOBS. 
The incubator ; temperature of incubator and 
brooder-,feed for chicks-, warmth ; bowel 
disorder-, warm, water-, more animal food 
needed early by some breeds than others ; 
choice crosses; cost and growth; sale of 
broilers; best soils for a broiler farm;body 
lice. 
To conclude the subject of broilers, and to 
enable those interested to have a handy num¬ 
ber for reference, I will endeavor to condense 
my experience in a small space, believing that 
the inexperienced will find it useful in many 
ways: 
1. Any kind of an incubator that will per¬ 
mit of keeping eggs at the proper temperature 
will hatch them if attention is given to it by 
the operator, observing, of course, the proper 
conditions for moisture. 
2. The temperature for hatching eggs is 103 
degrees and the temperature of a brooder 
should not be under 90 degrees the first two 
weeks, nor under 80 degrees until the chicks 
are six weeks old. 
3. No food is required for the first 24 (or 
even 36) horn’s. Then keep granulated (pin¬ 
head) oatmeal in a little trough, always with¬ 
in their reach, giving soaked bread and milk 
three times a day, until they are three days 
old, when they may be given a little chopped 
meat once a day. 
4. An excellent bread may be made for them 
by combining equal parts of ground oats, corn 
meal, middlings, and ground meat, baking 
the mixture in an oven. Stale bread of any 
kind,crackers, or other cereal food are also ex¬ 
cellent. 
5. As soon as the chicks are able to eat 
