4888 
THE BUBAL HEW-YOBKIR. 754 
farm 
SAVE THE POMACE. 
T. S. RUSSELL. 
Apple seed as profitable as clover seed; sev¬ 
eral ways of collecting it; pomace as a 
fertilizer; raising seedling apple trees for 
sale. 
After passing the apple pomace through 
the re-press process recently described in the 
Rural, it will be in quite a different condition 
from what it was when first it left the press. 
The acids are all removed and if intended for 
food or fertilizer its value has been greatly in¬ 
creased. It is not generally known that there 
is as good a market for apple seed as there is 
for clover seed; but it is true, nevertheless, 
and the prices for each are similar, ranging 
from $4 to $8 per bushel, in any quantity. I 
have received frequent orders, ranging as 
high as 500 bushels, from one firm. Of course, 
if all cider mills would save the seed there 
would be an over-supply and consequently 
prices would be so low that the seed could not 
be produced for them; but this will not be 
done; so if anybody wants to save some seed, 
and he has good water privileges, so that he 
can arrange matters conveniently, here is one 
way to do it. 
A stream of water is essential in the apple 
seed business. Construct a V-shaped hopper, 
as shown in Figs 376-377, varying the length 
according to the amount of pomace you de" 
sire to handle and your water supply, etc. 
Make the hopper of wood or galvanized 
iron water-tight, say four feet square at the 
top and six inches by four feet at the bottom, 
and four feet deep. Make one side of the 
hopper double and allow it to extend above at 
least six inches, space between the double 
walls one inch. Let this double wall extend half, 
way across the bottom, and leave a one-inch 
opening in the inside bottom in the middle. 
Now make a sieve of copper wire-cloth one- 
twelfth of an inch mesh, that will fit snugly 
two inches above the bottom of the hopper. 
Fasten it down on cleats with a button so 
that it can be removed easily. Now cause a 
stream of water to pass down the double wall 
of the hopper and through the bottom 
through the sieve When it begins to over¬ 
flow have your pomace loosened up and throw 
in a few scoopfuls; stir it a little. The seed 
will all settle to the bottom and the pomace 
will float off with the overflow After oper¬ 
ating this way a short time, turn off the sup¬ 
ply of water and by means of a two-inch plug 
in the bottom of the hopper drain it dry and 
lift out the sieve of seed and proceed again as 
before. This small device will clean from 
three to five bushels per day. Now spread 
the seed in the shade to dry, and if it is not 
entirely clean it can be run through a wind¬ 
mill and cleaned ready for market. Drying 
quickly in the sun or otherwise will discolor 
the seeds and frequently crack them. Let¬ 
ting the pomace lie in large piles to heat will 
spoil the seed; if the grater is very fine, it cuts 
and spoils them. Seedling apples furnish the 
most and best seeds. 
The seeds can be sold to any of our large 
seedsmen or direct to the nurserymen. A de¬ 
vice similar to the one described, was claimed 
to be patented some years ago, but I think the 
claim is doubtful. 
Another more simple process is after the 
plan of gold washing, as shown at Fig. 378. 
Make a trough 18 inches wide and six inches 
deep; place partitions across the bottom, 
about every 15 inches. They should be three 
inches high, and the length of trough—16 feet. 
Now, place the trough so that a stream of wa¬ 
ter will flow rapidly through or over it; throw 
the pomace in at the highest point, and as the 
water washes through it, the seeds will lodge 
behind the cross-partitions, from which they 
can be removed by stopping the flow of water 
and turning the trough over on the platform 
or floor. 
Either of these devices will allow the opera¬ 
tor to still save the pomace by causing it to 
drop from the seed-washer on a wooden 
screen, thus permitting the water to escape. 
The pomace should now be carted to a suitable 
place where it may be piled in heaps and 
mixed with an equal bulk of stable manure, 
leaf mold, ashes, decayed vegetation, lime, 
anything and everything that will rot. Have 
this heap of refuse forked over half a dozen 
times from fall to spring, and apply it to 
grain crops or fruit trees, on gravel or sandy 
land, and if the result will be as good as it 
has been with me, the pomace will never 
again be considered a nuisance. 
Then, here is another plan to get cash out 
of the pomace. Prepare a piece of good, rich, 
loose soil that is free from stones or roots. 
Plow and pulverize it to a depth of 10 or 13 
inches. Now make flat furrows about two in¬ 
ches deep and six inches broad, and three feet 
apart; take fresh pomace and scatter it 
thickly in these furrows and cover with one 
inch of soil. Do this before winter. Next 
spring the seed will come up, and now comes 
thinning out to about two inches apart, and 
careful weeding and plowing until fall. These 
seedling apple treess,will be from one to three 
feet high, with nice, straight roots 13 inches 
long, and there will be from 200,000 to 500,000 
on every acre thus planted, that will sell 
readily for from $4 to $6 per 1,000. Talk to 
any leading nurserymen about it, aud see how 
quickly you can contract for all you desire to 
raise. 
HUSKING CORN. 
PROFESSOR J. A. SANBORN. 
Husking does not increase the nutritive 
value of com while it involves three-fold 
expense, amounting to 27 per cent of the 
value of a bushel; does husking pay? 
Better use the whole plant unhusked for 
feed like Timothy hay, properly balancing 
the ration with other foods; analysis of 
com; great value of corn stover; a ques¬ 
tion that demands discussion. 
In connection with my suggestions in the 
Rural regarding binding grain or the use of 
the reaper, I remarked that husking corn is 
a question of farm economy well worthy of 
the attention of the farmer. I am asked to 
explain what I meant by this assertion. 
Husking is a mechanical operation which 
adds no nutrition to the corn or fodder, but 
involves a threefold cost, These costs are, 
first, labor, which is a variable amount, de¬ 
pending upon whether the fodder is saved 
and the method by which it is saved. If the 
fodder is not saved, the cost will be three 
cents a bushel for husking and cribbing, and 
on the assumption that corn sells for 30 cents 
a bushel—this is above the average for the 
country west of the Mississippi River—then 
the food must be 10 per cent, more effective 
to simply repay us for the cost. If the fodder 
is saved, the cost of husking will be doubled, 
and 20 per cent, will have to be added to the 
efficacy of the food to balance the cost of the 
process, and more must be expected if a profit 
is to be received. 
The second additional cost will be the loss of 
leaves as the result of husking in the field 
after the fodder is partly dried. This loss is a 
material one, and involves the most digesti¬ 
ble part of the food. It is difficult to estimate 
the value of this cost, but when added to the 
third loss, or the risk of the influence of rain 
with its leaching effect on the fodder through 
necessary delay in housing the fodder while 
husking the corn, it is safe to say that $1 
per acre is involved, or two cents to three 
cents a bushel of corn. It should be also con¬ 
sidered that if the com is necessarily detained 
in the field too long, a loss is involved in over- 
drying, if the season is such that no rains 
occur. 
Then 20 per cent of the value of a bushel of 
corn is involved in husking, without having 
added one ounce of nutritive value to the 
corn. If we assume the corn crop of Missouri 
to be worth $60,000,000, then a good number 
of millions are involved in the process in 
question. Does it pay? Certainly more is 
involved in it than in the binder question. I 
am inclined to let the readers of the Rural 
answer the question from their own practice 
if they deem it worth consideration. 
How shall we use the corn unless it is husk¬ 
ed? Just as we use Timothy hay whose seed 
we do not stop to thrash out before feeding. 
Last year I put several acres of the whole 
plant of corn into the barn and fed just 
enough of it daily to give the amimals the 
desired amount of corn, making up the rest 
of the ration of other foods to balance it for 
the stock fed in its nutritive ratio. In the 
Mirror and Farmer I recently recast the fig¬ 
ures of analysis of fodder and corn by Prof. 
G. H. Cook, of New Jersey, which showed 
that his whole corn plant gave one pound of 
albuminoids for 13.8 pounds of digestible car¬ 
bohydrates, and that American analysis of 
hay showed a ratio of 1:9.11, not much better 
than the corn; indeed 40 samples of Timothy 
analyze no better than the corn plant. 
There seems to be no necessary reason for 
separating the corn from the stubble and then 
returning it again when we feed out the fod¬ 
der, or for using some other food in part to go 
with it while the com is placed with straw or 
hay, neither of which analyzes enough better 
to make with corn a good nutritive ratio. 
But, beyond this consideration, we can easily 
put a nitrogenous food with the whole corn 
plant and bring it easily to Its desired nutri¬ 
tive ratio. 
When we consider that for every 56 pounds 
of corn we grow nearly 100 pounds of air-dry 
I fodder or stover, and that the nutritive mat- | 
ter of the food is nearly equal to that of the 
corn, and that this under our present system 
is practically wasted, it will at once appear 
that the use of the two in conjunction will 
vastly extend the food material used in the 
West. It seems to be difficult to make it 
understood that our fodder,and,of course,corn 
with its fodder can be well saved here in the 
West. I have the whole corn plant, dried 
seven to 10 days in the little shocks of which I 
have so often written and discribed for West¬ 
ern use, now safely in our new barn. This 
gives us about six tons of well dried corn and 
fodder capable of keeping about double the 
number of steers kept by the ordinary system 
of dealing with the fodder, and at least three 
per acre for the winter. 
As my purpose is not to make a detailed 
presentation of the subject nor to press advice; 
but rather to suppose this is at least an open 
question, I will leave it for more critical an¬ 
alysis by others. 
Columbia, Mo. 
A JERSEYMAN’S JOTTINGS. 
WARMING WATER FOR STOCK. 
I have been considerably interested in the 
articles which have appeared in my agricultu¬ 
ral papers about the advantages of heating 
water for stock. Some people have waxed 
eloquent in their advocacy of this idea. As 
nearly as I could understand the matter, the 
warm-water folks conclude that because a man 
likes a cup of hot coffee in the morning, a cow 
ought to like warm water. That seems to be 
about the chief argument. 
Persons with patent tanks or steam-heating 
arrangements to sell, easily, figure out a profit 
in giving warm water to dairy cattle. Such 
testimony is good “ as far as it goes.” I have 
seen some records of experiments that went 
to prove that hot water was just about equal 
to grain for making cows give milk. But in 
most of these experiments, little was said about 
the place where the animals were kept. They 
may have been housed in warm stables or they 
may have been obliged to huddle around a 
straw stack. I made up my mind that I would 
wait until I found how the animals were pro¬ 
tected from the cold before I fed my cows hot 
water. From the reports of the last experi¬ 
ment, I am inclined to think I hit the pith of 
the matter. 
The latest facts bearing upon this subject 
are found in Bulletin No. 4 of the Minnesota 
Experiment Station. I always try to keep up 
with these bulletins as far as I can. By spend¬ 
ing the time in looking them over that some 
other farmers spend on the daily papers, I 
manage to keep up. I find a good deal of what 
appears to me to be nonsense in them; but 
now and then I strike a good, sound fact. 
The conclusions reached by Prof. Porter in 
this oulletin seem to be among the most sensi¬ 
ble ideas we have had from these stations. 
They are just what I have always claimed; 
no doubt, that is partly why I consider them 
so very sensible. Prof. Porter took two lots 
of cows for his experiment. One lot had ice- 
cold water to drink, and the other lot had 
water heated to 70 degrees. A record was 
kept of the total amount of water drunk, the 
total amount of hay and grain eaten, the 
amount of milk yielded, and of the butter 
made from the milk. It is safe enough to say 
that if a man should conduct an experiment 
of this kind, he would naturally want to have 
the warm water come out ahead. Everybody 
seems to think that warm water is a fine thing 
for cattle, and manufacturers will make a fine 
thing by selling tanks and heating appliances. 
But the warm water didn’t come out ahead in 
this experiment—in fact, the cold water beat. 
Here is what Prof. Porter has to say about it: 
“ With a warm stable and little exposure to 
cold during the late winter and early spring, 
milk cows did somewhat better on ice-cold 
water than those for which the water was 
warmed to 70 degrees F. Doubtless water at 
50 degrees would have given better results 
than either of these extremes under the con¬ 
ditions of the experiment. The point made is, 
that any benefit arising from warming water 
in cold weather (and we believe there is a ben¬ 
efit), must come from the combined ill effect 
of cold applied externally and internally at 
the same time, as the latter alone gave no bad 
results. Cold water in common practice, 
doubtless adds much in ill effects to the exter¬ 
nally appled cold, recently strained through 
barbed-wire fences, or even the silent, un¬ 
adulterated below-zero weather of our north¬ 
ern wniters. Cold, water may be the last 
straw which breaks the back of profit.” 
Now, isn’t that common sense ? Keep the 
cows warm and comfortable, and the temper¬ 
ature of the water they drink makes mighty 
little difference. Turn a cow out into the 
cold and make her shiver over a hole in the 
ice, and boiling water might seem good to her; 
but keep her in a warm stable, well-fed and 
well-protectedjfrom the cold, and she will want 
water straight from the bottom of the well. 
In the winter when I am warm and com¬ 
fortable in the house, I find I don’t go hunting 
around for warm water to drink. I want 
cool water, and if the water in the house is 
warm, I always go to the well for a fresh 
bucketful. If I have any money to spend on 
the comfort of my cows, I shall make the 
stable warm, and not put in any steam pipes 
or oil stoves. I like to give a horse or a cow a 
good hot bran mash now and then when they 
come in wet from a chilling rain. As for 
fussing every day to heat water for stock 
housed in a comfortable stable—it’s all non¬ 
sense. JERSEYMAN. 
lUoman s IDorK. 
CONDUCTED BY EMILY LOUISE TAPLIN. 
CHAT BY THE WAY. 
Quite a discussion has been held lately, in 
some of the New York papers, relative to the 
proper care of the complexion. Advice has 
been given by a lot of the most prominent 
actresses and “beauty women,” telling howto 
preserve or purify the skin. But they all 
agree on one point at least—that is, that good 
health is th9 first requisite for a good com¬ 
plexion. “Out-door exercise and plentiful 
bathing,” says one pretty singer. A good 
many of these women, however, say that they 
never actually wash their faces, a peculiarity 
we should be very slow to copy. There is no 
doubt, however, that to preserve a delicate 
bloom one should be sparing of ice-cold water, 
it should be tepid water; either very hot or 
very cold should be avoided. Rubbing a 
lather over the face is injurious to many deli¬ 
cate skins; a little in the water should be 
sufficient for cleanliness, and the skin is softer 
if it is rubbed with the hands, instead of a 
coarse wash-cloth. 
* * * 
As to cosmetics, many women declare that 
a little powder is perfectly harmless, and no 
doubt it is, if it consists simply of some prepa¬ 
ration of starch, devoid of any mineral in¬ 
gredient. Only the wearer of even this harm¬ 
less powder must always wash it off before 
retiring. But we always think that any 
trace of powder looks decidedly unclean; it is 
not altogether ladylike to our old-fashioned 
ideas, and we think any girl does well to 
leave it alone. 
* * * 
To keep the face and lips soft and smooth, 
they should be annointed daily with cold 
cream or glyceri ne and rose water—a little 
experience will prove which is best suited to 
one’s use. The cold cream may be made at 
home, at a decided saving, from druggists’ 
charges. The formula is as follows: two 
ounces of spermaceti, one ounce of white wax, 
two ounces of almond oil, two ounces of rose 
water. Put the spermaceti, wax, and oil, in 
a china vessel on the back of the stove, until 
they are all dissolved. Lift it off and stir in the 
rose water, continuing to stir until the com¬ 
pound has dissolved. This is excellent and 
comforting for chapped hands. It should be 
rubbed on the face just before retiring. Dur¬ 
ing the winter, it is an excellent plan to rub a 
little cold cream or glycerine on the face be¬ 
fore going out into a piercing wind; it is a 
preventive of chapping. 
* * * 
This is all vanity, some of you may say. 
But a clear and rosy skin not only means good 
health; it is often the index of good tempe r 
into the bargain. Bad temper, fretting and 
worrying are usually quite as detrimental to 
the complexion as bad health. We can’t all 
be angelic in disposition, but we can at least 
take life easily. Advice to the girl who 
wants to cultivate or to keep a good complex¬ 
ion may be easily summed up: Don’t fret. 
Don’t chew gum. Don’t stay in-doors more 
than you can help. Don’t drink too much 
tea or coffee. Don’t eat all manner of trash, 
and too much of it at that. Don’t neglect 
regular and frequent bathing. Don’t stay 
up late, but have regular hours for sleeping 
as for everything else. Bear in mind all 
these “Don’ts, ” and you will have little use 
for powder. 
HOUSE KEEPING us. HOME KEEPING, 
There is a distinction and a very import¬ 
ant difference between house-keeping and 
home-keeping. Notwithstanding the great 
number of people who live on what might be 
