m 
THE RURAL. MEW 
if 
1 
t 
Pain] 
LIVE STOCK INTERESTS IN ILLINOIS. 
Injurious influences of the drought on cattle '.; 
horse-raising a promising businessmore 
attention to carriage horse production; de¬ 
crease in sheep-raising, though profitable ; 
hog crop likely to be as big as usual, prices 
being fair ; poultry-raising advancing. 
PROP. G. E. MORROW. 
The severe drought of 1887, with consequent 
shortage of crops, had far-reaching effects on 
the farmers of Illinois. It is difficult to trace 
fl 
* 
<0$ 
Tct-nA 
•VvA.v 
v.-y.VM. 
nr 
LiVl-V'.VV' 
w 
P - 
■n 
Fig. 75. (See first page.) 
all these effects or to predict their continuance. 
These things had much to do with the exist¬ 
ing depression in cattle. Never before were 
so many cattle forwarded to Chicago and 
other Western markets, and rarely, if ever, 
has so large a percentage of those sent been 
half fatted. Over much of Illinois corn is 
worth nearly 50 cents, and feeders have had 
little or no profit. The advance in price 
anticipated by many immediately foliowiug 
the holidays, was not realized. At this date 
there has been but a slight advance for the 
ordinary grades of cattle. Naturally, many 
breeders are discouraged. Large numbers of 
cows and heifers are being forwarded to 
market. There is uncertainty as to the wisdom 
of buying steers for grazing and feeding. My 
own belief is that there is to be a change for 
the better in the comparatively near future. 
It is doubtful if this is not an exceptionally 
good time in which to purchase well-bred 
breeding cattle. 
The prevailing feeling concerning horse 
breeding is very different. Perhaps there has 
never been a more brisk demand or higher 
average prices for good grade draft horses 
than now. It is almost impossible to pur¬ 
chase good draft mares at any reasonable 
figures. There are many manifestations of 
increasing interest in breeding good carriage 
or coach horses. I think a larger number of 
mares will be bred in Illinois this year than in 
any former year. While I think this safe and 
advisable, I cannot accept much of the cur¬ 
rent talk and writing about the impossibility 
of overstocking the horse market. Without 
in any sense discouraging the breeding of 
heavy draft horses, I think the present revived 
interest in the production of good driving 
horses fortunate, and believe there is to be a 
good demand for this class. The mares on 
the University farms, and nearly all the 
mature horse stock consisting of brood mares, 
will be divided into about equal classes, one 
bred to draft, the other to road stallions. 
It is difficult to explain some customs in our 
farming. Thus it would seem Central Illinois 
farmers could fatten horses more cheaply than 
their more Eastern neighbors, but many hun¬ 
dreds of heayy horses are shipped from this 
region to Central Ohio or Pennsylvania, to be 
kept there until from 100 to 300 pounds’ weight 
each have been added by heavy feeding. There 
is much room for doubt whether the horses 
are any the better, but it is certain they sell 
more readily aud at higher prices. 
The number of sheep in the State is much 
smaller than it was a few years since, but it 
is also true that farmers who have had good 
fat sheep for sale have not done badly. It 
seems to me there may wisely be more atten¬ 
tion given here to raising early lambs for 
market. If this business gives a good profit 
in New York it ought to here. 
Naturally, the stock of hogs has been a good 
deal reduced, but in my observation this has 
not been done by cutting down the number of 
sows kept for breeding. Probably a more 
than usually small percentage of mature sows 
have been kept over, but I do not look for a 
diminished pig crop. Prices for pork have 
been and are fair, and where disease has not 
prevailed, hog growers are not discouiaged. 
Coming to a minor and too much neglected 
industry on most farms, there has been, in 
this locality at least, an unusually good de¬ 
mand for good breeding stock iu poultry. 
An all-round view of the situation shows 
much that is encouraging to Illinois farmers 
engaged in stock breeding. 
Prices of cattle are likely soon to rise, owing 
to the great drain to market the past year, 
and the heavy losses on the plains the past 
winter: horses will be always profitable; hogs 
pay better than any sort of stock, and good 
mutton sheep will always find a fair sale. 
“FOREIGN SALT IN THE DAIRY.” 
Our readers will remember that on page 
802 of the Rural for 1887, we published an 
article by T. D. Curtis under the above cap¬ 
tion. Mr. Curtis argued that American salts 
“are not as pure and reliable, nor of as uni¬ 
form grain, nor in as good condition for the 
use of dairymen as the best English dairy 
salts.” Mr. Curtis gafve his reasons for mak¬ 
ing this statement, saying that it was “due to 
natural causes which can be overcome only at 
great risk and expense.” He went on to 
argue that the tariff should be removed from 
foreign salt, because it was a necessity to all 
makers of fine butter. Mr. James Wood, page 
851, controverted the statements of Mr. Cur¬ 
tis, making the following claims: 1. Mr. Cur¬ 
tis is the paid agent of an English salt com¬ 
pany, and consequently wrote the article for 
the purpose of injurying the reputation of 
American salt, which is rapidly supplanting 
the imported article. 2. Analyses of a lead¬ 
ing American salt and the salt with which Mr. 
Curtis is connected, made by Dr. Engelhardt, 
of Syracuse, N. Y., show a decided advantage 
in favor of the American. The American salt 
does not lump, while Mr. C.’s does; the Amer¬ 
ican is always clean, while Mr. C.’s is usually 
more or less discolored. 3. The brine from 
which this American salt is made is formed 
and obtained exactly as is that in England. 
An official chemist in New York has stated 
I 
«•{ 
JcinJt: 
mm 
m 
i 
1MWXMIT 
a 
if 
^ , 
- V 
Fig. 76. (See first page.) 
that the English salt has a greater excess of 
alkali than thg American. 4. At the last 
meeting of the National Butter, Cheese and 
Egg Association, at Manchester, Iowa, Mr. 
Curtis introduced these same salt claims. At 
that very meeting, out of 15 premiums award¬ 
ed on butter, 13 were given upon packages 
salted with American salt, and many other 
like instances can be given. 5. American 
salts have come to stay, and will stand or fall 
in competition with foreign goods solely upon 
their merits. 
The above articles were published that both 
sides might be heard. Mr. Curtis thinks that 
his veracity has been questioned, and that he 
should be permitted to reply to the statements 
of Mr. Wood. The Rural desires to have the 
truth made known. Whatever is right and 
best for Americans shall always receive our 
support. We, therefore, print the following: 
I am accused of misrepresenting because 
of personal interest. James Wood is presi¬ 
dent of a salt company—at least, he told me 
so! 1 am accused of a desire to injure the 
reputation of American salt. Has it acquired 
a reputation that can be injured? If so, why 
do the importations and use of foreign dairy 
salt annually increase, in spite of the heavy 
tariff on it? And why does James Wood want 
to continue that tariff? Is it to punish our 
best dairymen for their folly? If the reputa¬ 
tion of American salt is all right, it certainly 
needs no protection. Its lower price is pro¬ 
tection enough. James Wood probably be¬ 
lieves in the proposed national salt trust com¬ 
pany, and other monopolies for extortionate 
purposes. 
Some analyses are presented as a guaranty 
of the superior jiurity of American dairy salt. 
These may or may not be honest aualyses. I 
have seen even better ones for American salt 
thau those James Wood gives. But what do 
these prove? Simply that the samples were 
good—nothing more. They are no guaranty 
of purity, of uniformity, or of proper condi¬ 
tion for dairy purposes. I know of a noted 
case where samples were “taken from com¬ 
mercial packages,” with most favorable re¬ 
sults for the American—but nobody was more 
astonished at the results than the manufac¬ 
turers themselves 1 That same salt swept 
nearly all the premiums at a magni ficent na¬ 
tional dairy show in the State of Wisconsin, 
where it then held almost a monopoly. Now 
very little, if any, of that salt is sold in Wis¬ 
consin or the West. This premium Business, 
so far as indicating the value of dairy salt, is 
a humbug—mere clap-trap. The vilest salt is 
difficult to detect in fresh made butter. Time 
alone tells the story. 
I am first accused of misrepresenting the 
character and mode of obtaining the brine in 
what is known as the Genesee region, but it 
is admitted that my remarks may apply “in 
other localities!” Where are they if not in 
the region indicated? 
I am accused of “assumptions of wisdom” 
in regard to the purifying of American brines 
by chemical process, and my statements are 
pronounced incorrect, but he does not attempt 
to show wherein I am incorrect. Will he say 
that American brines do not have to be chem¬ 
ically purified? 
It is in substance claimed that all salts are 
alkaline in their reaction, and that a certain 
brand of English salt is more so than the 
American sample which he had analyzed. 
Samples are pretty sure to turn out well when 
they are selected by the president of the com¬ 
pany, or under his direction. If James Wood 
is correct, then the August Bulletin of the 
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Sta¬ 
tion is wrong, and the man who wrote it does 
not understand his business. It speaks of a 
too liberal use of lime in the home manu¬ 
facture of salt, for the purpose of making it 
white and fine-grained. “The consequence is 
an alkaline reaction of the salt, which is most 
objectionable * * * since it hastens the 
decomposition of the butter.” It adds: “The 
Bulletin pronounces a good dairy salt ons 
that is of a neutral reaction and of a pure 
saline taste.” Professor L. B. Arnold, late of 
Rochester, N. Y., visited the works in Eng¬ 
land where the brand of dairy salt is made 
which James Wood attacks, and the Professor, 
in a paper read before the New York State 
Dairymen’s Association, at Norwich, a year 
ago last December, said: “After examining 
every detail in its manufacture I became satis¬ 
fied that the (naming the brand) is just what 
it claims to be—a very clean, pure aud hon¬ 
estly-made salt, uniform in quality and in as 
good a condition for dairy purposes as any 
salt ever offered to the public.” 
It is complained that at Manchester, Iowa, 
I introduced the subject of salt “into an 
address on a subject altogether foreign to 
salt.” “Some Important Factors in Dairy¬ 
ing,” was my subject, and the use of pure 
salt and coloring material was advised. Was 
this out of place? At that same convention 
James Wood would have been glad to deliver 
a State tariff speech which he had on tap. 
His particular brand of salt “never lumps!” 
There is no salt that will not lump, if it is 
exposed to moisture and then dried—unless it 
may have in it an excess of lime! Will James 
Wood acknowledge this? t. d. curtis. 
FERTILIZERS FOR SMALL FRUITS. 
NOTES FROM E. WILLIAMS, P. M. AUGUR, C. A. 
GREEN, AND W. A. SMITH. 
Opinions vary as to the comparative values 
of commercial fertilizers and barnyard 
manure; all agree that the former is most 
profitable as a supplement to the latter-, 
apply manure in fall and winter, fertiliz 
ers in late winter or early spring ; fertiliz¬ 
ers easier of application, quicker in effect, 
better balanced in ingredients, and freer 
from noxious weed seeds; some fertilizers 
much too high-priced; comparisons of con¬ 
stituents and values of fertilizers and 
manures; best fertilizers the cheapest ; loss 
by over-fertilizing; kinds to use and man¬ 
ner and time of using; great value of 
barnyard manure for its mechanical 
effects in favoring tilth, porosity,aeration 
and decomposition of inert plant food in 
the soil ; its value varies greatly, some 
hardly worth hauling-, applicable to all 
soils and easily handled by all-, com¬ 
posted manure best; wood ashes; kainit; 
bone-dust; nitrate of soda,’ etc. 
FROM E. WILLIAMS. 
The use of commercial fertilizers for small 
fruits is to be commended for their ease of 
application, quick action, and effectiveness, 
and also for their freedom from noxious weed 
seeds. For strawberries ordinary barn-yard 
manure is very objectionable on this account, 
and where employed it will be found much 
the cheapest plan to retain the plants only for 
one crop. The expense of cleaning and keep¬ 
ing clean a strawberry bed for a second crop 
where stable manure has been used, or even 
in soils well seeded with weeds where com¬ 
mercial fertilizers are used, will be found 
heavier than the cost of setting a new bed. 
Stable manure of good quality generally con¬ 
tains a larger proportion of nitrogen to its 
other constituents than is desirable, tending to 
increase the plant growth rather than fruit 
development. Where cultivation is kept up 
during the season, the objection to stable 
manure on account of the weed seeds contain¬ 
ed therein is not so great as cultivation de¬ 
stroys the weeds. Still my experience has 
been very favorable to the use of commercial 
fertilizers generally for small fruits of all 
kinds. For strawberries I generally use the 
stable manure as a covering applied iu winter, 
but I would prefer clean straw or marsh hay 
even for this purpose, simply because neither 
conveys any foul seed to the ground. 
The brands of commercial fertilizers I gene¬ 
rally use for strawberries, grapes, etc., are 
those containing a large percentage of potash, 
such as the pdtato specials. Yet all of the 
high-grade brands will be found beneficial. I 
have known people on light soil to use Peru¬ 
vian guano in the early spring in preference 
to any other application on account of its 
quick action, aud where there is likely to be a 
deficiency of foliage the practice is to be com¬ 
mended. Wood ashes of good quality have 
probably no superior for strawberries. ■ On 
heavy soils fall or winter applications are not 
objectionable, but February aud March are 
generally the times selected for the applica¬ 
tion, just as the frost comes out, so that the 
spring rains will carry the fertilizer down to 
the roots of the plants. If application is de¬ 
layed till after growth has commenced, care 
should be taken or the foliage will be injured. 
The intrinsic values of stable manure and 
commercial fertilizers differ widely. Much of 
the former is dear for the hauling, while an 
occasional brand of the latter is sold at four or 
five times its chemical value. But, thanks to 
our experiment stations, the standard is much 
higher now than formerly. 
In the Report of the Connecticut Board of 
Agriculture for 1877, page 214, I find a table 
compiled from European sources giving ana¬ 
lyses of sundry manures, commercial fertil¬ 
izers, materials, etc. (the first coming to hand 
in my search): 
Among these is stable manure fresh, moder¬ 
ately rotted, and thoroughly rotted, as follows: 
Per ton. 
lbs. 
lbs. 
lbs. 
Water. 
14-10. 
1500. 
1580 
Organic matter, 
Ash. 
492. 
384. 
290 
88.2 
116. 
130 
Nitrogen (in organic matter) 9. 
10. 
11.6 
Ingredients of ash: 
Potash, 
10.4 
12.6 
10. 
Soda, 
3. 
3.8 
2.6 
n 6 
Lime. 
11.4 
14. 
Magnesia. 
2.8 
3.6 
3.6 
Phos. acid. 
4 8 
5.2 
•6. 
Sulph acid, 
2 4 
3 2 
83.6 
2 6 
Sil>ca and sand. 
25. 
34 
Chlorine and flourine 
3. 
3.8 
3 2 
Assuming that this analysis of the moderately 
rotted sample represents a fair average of this 
class of manure, let us see how it will com¬ 
pare in value with a sample of potato fertilizer 
analyzed at the Connecticut Experiment 
Station, taking the three most valuable con¬ 
stituents. 
Stable manure, 1 ton; nitrogen, 10 pounds; 
phos. acid, 5.2 pounds; potash, 12.6 pounds. 
Potato fertilizer, 200 pounds; nitrogen, 8.45 
pounds; phos. acid, 25.32 pounds; potash, 
13.64 pounds. 
Now, estimating the nitrogen at 17 cts. per 
pound; the phos. acid at six cts; and the pot¬ 
ash at five cts., in both cases, we have the fol¬ 
lowing values: 
One ton stable manure; nitrogen, §1.70; 
phos. acid, §0 31: potash §0.63. Total §2.64. 
Two hundred pounds potato fertilizer; nitro¬ 
gen, §1.45; phos. acid, §1.51; potash, §0.68. 
Total §3.64. 
The excess of phosphoric acid more than 
makes up this difference. At the meeting of 
the Am. Inst. Farmers’ Club ou Feb. 7, it was 
stated that stable manure cost §3 to §3.50 per 
load, by the car load at the R. R. Station, aud 
at the city stables where it was made, §1 to 
§1.50 per load. Allowing §2 per load or ton 
for hauling it five miles (which is a moderate 
allowance for a man and team if they have any¬ 
thing e'se to do) the cost would be §3.50 iu 
either case, which is the lowest price at which 
it can be bought delivered in this vicinity, 
so that 200 pounds of potato fertilizer costing 
§4.50, are worth a dollar more that the ton of 
stable manure, with the labor of application 
and immediate availability for the use of the 
crop in its favor, and for potatoes it is worth 
much more. Taking a sample of complete 
