W0¥ 24 
THE BUBAL HEW-Y©BHEB, 
Much is immediately sold to large companies. 
Our first frost was on October 24th. The 
long, dry fall ripened corn, beans and toma¬ 
toes first-rate. The last are an uncertain 
crop most years. Squashes are fine. Cab¬ 
bages are big and bursting. Potatoes are 
abundant at 25 to 40 cents a bushel. D. N. 
ANSWERS 1 TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name 
and address of the writer to Insure attention. Before 
asking a question, please see If it Is not answered In 
our advertising columns. Ask only a few questions at 
onetime. Put questions on a separate piece of paper. 
ILL EFFECT OF FEEDING COTTON-SEED MEAL 
ON THE MILK YIELD. 
“ Subscriber ” (No address). I have a 
Guernsey heifer three years old. She dropped 
her first calf a year ago last July, when 
about 23 months old and did well. She went 
dry six weeks and dropped a nice heifer calf 
Sept. 3rd. Her bag filled out well and swelled 
very little, and sne cleaned well. As I wanted 
to raise the calf I did not let her suck. The 
cow milked well for a day or two, and gave 
about 12 quarts per day. Then I began to 
have trouble in getting her milk. Sometimes 
I would get two or three quarts and then 
eight or nine quarts and some days only three 
or four quarts. Her bag appeared to have a 
lot of milk in it, but I could not get it in 
any way. I tried feeding grain when milking, 
but it made no difference. Once in a while I 
thought I got her bag empty. She is not 
nervous, but very quiet and kind, and as 
healthy as any cow can be. She continued to 
milk in this way until two weeks ago, when 
she was in beat. I let the bull serve her, 
thinking perhaps she would do better. She 
did for a few days, but gave only eight quarts 
per day. She milks now about the same as 
she did before she was in heat, and to-day I 
got six quarts. Sometimes I have thought 
her bag was swollen, and rubbed it, but it is 
not a bit tender. It seems to be growing more 
fleshy. When I milk her I get about three 
pints in good streams, and the rest comes 
slowly, amounting to abeut three quarts. Her 
feed has been three quarts of bran, one quart 
of corn meal and one quart of cotton-seed 
meal and good hay. Her milk is all right and 
T% pounds of it make a pound of butter. 
What is the matter, and what should be the 
treat ment? Will it pay to keep her, or should 
I fatten her for beef? 
ANSWERED BY HENRY STEWART. 
The cotton-seed meal is probably the cause 
of the trouble. I have had so much of the 
same kind of annoyance in my dairy in years 
past when feeding cotton seed meal, that I 
abandoned the use of it. Some cows cannot 
take it without this result, which is due to en¬ 
largement of the minute milk glands and 
stoppage of the milk secretion. In time the 
glands become indurated and cease to yield 
milk, forming fatty tissue of a solid consist¬ 
ence. Probably a change of feed to bran and 
corn meal only, doubling the present allow¬ 
ance of the meal, might remove the trouble. 
If not, give only the bran with the hay cut 
and wetted for a time. The cow is too val¬ 
uable for beef. 
PUMPKIN SEED FOR COWS: A FOUL WELL: 
CORN AFTER CORN. 
J. A., Fitchburg , Mass. —1. Do pumpkin 
seeds hurt cows? If so, how? 2. How shall 
I purify a well, the water from which the 
cattle wouldn’t drink last November. I 
pumped up pieces of what looked like snake. 
The water hasn’t been used since, but I would 
like to use it this winter. 3. Shall I plant a 
field that bore corn this year, with corn next 
year? It was a piece of sod ground broken up 
in the spring of 1887, and planted two-thirds 
to c&bbage and one-third to potatoes, and this 
year it has produced Indian corn. 
Ans. —1. The seeds of pumpkins have a diu¬ 
retic effect and consequently tend to decrease 
the flow of milk. They act also as a vermi¬ 
fuge, destroying tape-worms, but in this 
respect they do no harm when these creat¬ 
ures are absent. When fed with the pump¬ 
kins, whole and not cut up, there need be no 
apprehension of harm to the cows, but if you 
would rather not give the seeds, it is an easy 
matter to take them out wheu the pumpkins 
are broken up or split as they should be. 
Just here it might be well as a caution to say 
that splitting the pumpkins injhalves is safer 
for the cows than breaking them into frag¬ 
ments, one of which might choke an animal. 
2. The well should be wholly emptied and the 
bottom cleaned. Every well should be close¬ 
ly covered to prevent the entrance of worms 
and small animals. It is a common error 
that wells require ventilation. They do not. 
A driven well is not ventilated, and it sup¬ 
plies the very best of water because it is per¬ 
fectly closed against all surface contamina¬ 
tion. 3. There is no reason why you should 
not plant com again next year after corn this 
year, beyond this, that the condition of the 
land should be such as to yield a profitable 
crop. With sufficient plant-food in the soil, 
com may be grown for a succession of years, 
with no bad result beyond the encouragement 
of smut, unless this is avoided by proper 
care. 
SKIM MILK FROM A SEPARATOR AS STOCK 
FEED. 
.7. E. S., West Concord , N. H. —1. Is the 
skim-milk from a separator valueless for feed¬ 
ing purposes? 2. If so; why? 3. Would it 
pay to draw it three miles over a level road 
when it can be bought at the separator for 
15 cents per 100 pounds? At present the 
separator is daily running 400 gallons of skim- 
milk into the sewers, and the common report 
is that it is no good. 
Ans. —Separated milk differs in no respect 
from any other kind of skim-milk except 
in that it is practically free from fat (butter). 
But milk set in the Cooley creamer averages 
only one pound of fat in 1,000 pounds of milk 
and it is doubtful if the best separator does 
better than this. At 15 cents per hundred 
pounds skim-milk gives eight pounds of 
digestible solid matter at less than two cents 
per pound. In feeding pigs with 361 pounds 
of corn-meal and 2,000 pounds of skim-milk, 
the pork at five cents per pound paid 
$22,50 per ton for com meal and 18 cents per 
100 pounds for the milk. In thus feeding skim- 
milk it has really a higher value than this be¬ 
cause it balances the corn meal and the mixed 
food is healthful and makes better meat. At 
60 cents a bushel for corn and 15 cents per 100 
pounds for skimmed milk, pork could be made 
for four cents per pound. The value of the 
skim-milk is therefore certain, and it is worth 
drawing it three miles at the price.mentioned. 
It is a pity that so much useful matter goes to 
waste as in this case; the milk is worth using 
as a fertilizer. 
PREPARING A THRASHING MACHINE TO 
THRASH CORN. 
J. M. W., The Palms, Cal. —1. What 
changes, if any, are made in the ordinary 
thrashing machine to thrash corn? 2. How 
many bushels can one thrash per hour? 3. 
Does it clean? 4. Are the cobs separated 
from the fodder? 5. If the new machine for 
thrashing is completed, where can I get it and 
what is the price, etc? 
Ans. —Leave only one row of teeth in the 
concave and if all the corn is in the fodder 
remove enough of the cylinder teeth so as not 
to cut the grain. 2. Our correspondents 
report 20 to 25 bushels of grain per hour. 3. 
Yes .4. No, the cobs go into the stack with 
the crushed fodder. 5. A machine man¬ 
ufactured by the Keystone Manufacturing 
Co , of Sterling, Ills, is designed to husk corn 
and crush the stalks and leaves. It seems to 
have been quite successful, though a more ex¬ 
tended experiment is to be given before the 
machine is advertised extensively. 
sheep. Since then 1 have learned that they 
have foot-rot. How long must I leave the 
lot before turning my sheep into it? 2. What 
will kill fleas on a dog, without injuring the 
dog? 
Ans. —1. Foot rot is of two kinds; malignant 
and simple. The former is rare in this coun¬ 
try where the dry summer and cold winter 
destroy the virus. The latter is not well 
named; it is nothing more than soreness of 
the feet caused by inattention or neglect. It 
is most probable that these sheep had been 
overdriven, and their feet having been 
neglected and undergrown with loose horn 
had become filled with sand or gravel and 
made very sore so that they would go about 
on their knees. In this case the pasture will 
not be affected. If otherwise, and the suppur¬ 
ating, virulent disease was existing in the 
flock, the pasture should be dressed freely 
with freshly burned lime, air-slaked, so as to 
completely whiten it,—40 bushels per acre 
would do this. The lime will do more good to 
the grass than would pay for it, and any risk 
of contagion would be avoided. 2. Scotch 
snuff steeped in gin is an infallible remedy 
against the pests; but it must be carefully 
used. Not over a teaspoonful of snuff should 
be used with a pint of gin. If overdone, it 
is a deadly poison. A liberal use of pyretbrum 
powder well rubbed in would perhaps be a 
safer remedy. 
Miscellaneous. 
DISCUSSION. 
Rural of Nov. 3, Mr. Dow claims that “nice, 
young cockerels,” that weigh three pounds 
each m the fall, can be caponized and fed 
liberally till March, when they will weigh, 
dressed, from eight to 12 pounds each. 
For several years I have grown Light 
Brahma cockerels to about the above weights, 
and marketed them before the first of Febru¬ 
ary—a gain of two months over the capon. 
Capons in our market would bring no more 
than well fatted cockerels. Where then is 
the advantage of caponizing? Why inflict 
needless cruelty? 
M. G., Grisson’s Landing, Ky.-W ere the 
40 potatoes weighing 3%" pounds referred to 
in a late Rural, produced by seed-balls 
from one hill? I planted seed-balls in April 
and got a yield of 22, nine of which were 
marketable, from one hill. 
R. N -Y.—Our 40 potatoes were from one 
hill, the product of true seed sown in 
February. They weighed 3% pounds. It is 
the largest yield we have ever had from seed. 
M. G., Kingston, Pa.—Y our inquirer “H. 
S. B.,” page 747, has reference to Isaac F. 
Tillinghast, La Plume, Pa. He advertised 
potato seeds (true seed.) 
W. S. B., Rochester , N. Y .—You cau get 
an excellent binder for a volume of the 
Rural from A. L. Shipman’s Sons, New 
York. 
C. H. Pontiac, Michigan .—What will 
“sweeten” an old pork barrel that has held 
spoiled pork? 
Ans —Scald it out with boiling water, and 
with a broom scrub it well with soap and 
sand. Put a little light hay in the bottom 
and let it burn quickly, taking care not to let 
the sides of the barrel char too much. 
F. C. M., York, III .—I want to try the 
Trench Method of raising potatoes next 
spring; but I am so situated that I can’t get 
chemical fertilizers; would liquid manure do 
instead? I have high prairie land, as well as 
sandy and black loam river bottom; on which 
should I plant? 
Ans. —We should be afraid that the liquid 
manure would induce a growth of vines 
rather than of potatoes. We can hardly ad¬ 
vise as to the soil. That which is moist and 
yet well drained would be our preference if a 
large yield were desired. 
N., Dutchess Co., N. Y. —1. Two days ago 
a drover hired of me pasture for a lot of 
VALUE OF MANURE FROM CATTLE FEEDS. 
Prof. I. P. Roberts, Ithaca, N. Y.—Mr. 
II. H. Hayes asks whether the manure 
made from feeding certain kinds of feed as 
set forth in the Rural of Oct. 13th, is really 
worth the amount given. No one can tell 
what a given amount of manure or fertilizer 
is really worth to any one. What is meant 
Is that if fertilizers must be purchased in some 
form in the open market then the nitrogen, 
potash and phosphoric acid are worth the 
amounts stated. Numerous feeding experi¬ 
ments have been conducted in the last twenty 
years, both in Germany and America. These 
experiments go to show that milch cows take 
from their food about 20 per cent of its 
manurial constituents: young animals about 
10 per cent, and fattening animals five per 
cent. Now we have hundreds of analyses of 
the various kinds of fodders used, so that we 
are enabled to strike a general average of the 
composition of most of our forage plants and 
feeding stuffs. Deducting 20, 10, or five per 
cent, from their known composition before 
they are fed, we have the manurial value 
after they have been fed. This ground has 
been gone over often and found to be a fair 
statement; therefore, by common consent 
these tables are used and relied upon, although 
in any given case they might be slightly in¬ 
accurate, as both fodders and animals vary 
to some extent. A miller may go into the 
open market and buy wheat at current prices; 
but bis mill may be so poor and his business 
abilities so bad, or his market for flour so far 
away, that he will lose money. Apply the 
above to the purchase and use of the various 
plant foods and you have a parallel ca3e. As 
a rule, commercial fertilizers act more quickly 
than farm manures and the beneficial effects 
to the land for subsequent crops are less 
marked than when the same amount of plant 
food is applied in the form of farm manures. 
binding grain. 
F. D. C., Charlton, N. Y. —Where grain 
is grown on a big scale the self-binder is, no 
doubt, a necessity, as labor could not be ob¬ 
tained to do the work. The points of Mr. 
Hiram Smith against binding the grain are 
all true in some respects; but at the same 
time objections to them may be pointed out 
from the same practical stand-point. 1. If it 
does take one more hour to run a self-binder, 
than a reaper the work is finished. 2. If it 
does take three times as long to dry out the 
grain that has been bound, it is in a safer con¬ 
dition than if unbound and not set up in 
stooks, and it would be in this loose condition 
if unbound. Again, there is not so much 
waste by shelling in binder-bound grain, as 
the work is done before the grain is over-dry. 
3. There is less point to his objection, that it 
takes “double time” to handle the bundles in 
thrashing. It may and it may not, with the 
weight of practice on the side of the “may 
not ” Anyway the work can be more cleanly 
done, and the saving will be greater even if 
the work can’t be done fully as fast. 4. If 
there is no gain in thrashing, there is gain in 
space in which to store or stack the grain, and 
with no loss in thrashing there is no objection, 
so we hang up point 4. Small farmers 
may take note of Mr. Smith’s points and not 
invest in a big machine when smaller and 
less expensive ways will do as well. 
WHY CAPONIZE? 
E. R., Belchertown, Mass.—I n f,he 
SIR JOHN B. LAWES ON THE BRITISH WHEAT 
CROP. 
Sir J. B. Lawes has just published bis an¬ 
nual estimate of the wheat crop of the United 
Kingdom. It is based on the mean yield of 
the wheat experiment plots at Rothamsted, 
where wheat has been grown continuously 
for 45 years. He assumes that, as several dif¬ 
ferent methods of treatment are applied on 
the several plots, one having never been 
manured during the whole period of experi¬ 
menting; while others have received annually 
different quantities of farm-yard or artificial 
manures, always the same for each plot for 
37 years, all the different styles of farming in 
the country are represented. Now, as Brad- 
street’s remarks, it is true that very poor, 
moderate, good and very high farming are all 
represented at Rothamsted; but such differ¬ 
ences in soil and climate as prevail through¬ 
out the Kingdom are not and cannot be rep¬ 
resented on the same farm; and, therefore, it 
is reasonable to assume that the produce of 
this particular field will not closely approxi¬ 
mate to the average yield of the whole wheat 
crop throughout the country. That the re¬ 
sults are not identical is shown by a compari¬ 
son of recent estimates by Sir J. B. Lawes 
with the estimates of the Department of 
Agriculture, based on the reports of thou¬ 
sands of estimators in all parts of the country, 
who have ascertained the results of thrashing 
to a great extent before sending in their re¬ 
ports. For the past three years the two esti¬ 
mates have diverged as follows, the figures 
representing bushels per acre: 
Differ- 
Lawes. Official, ence. 
1885. 29!^ 31.24 1.74 
1386 . 29*4 26.89 2.36 
1887 . 2831.97 3.60 
In each year, it is generally acknowledged 
that the estimates formed by the judges at har¬ 
vest time have been closer to the actual pro¬ 
duce than the Rothamsted estimate has been. 
The mean yield at Rothamsted this year is 
27% measured bushels per acre, or 26J^ 
weighed bushels of 61 pounds, which latter is 
a standard of weight nowhere outside Roth¬ 
amsted, but one used there for comparative 
purposes during 36 years or more, and there¬ 
fore rightly adhered to. On the other hand, 
the estimate of the crop as a whole made by 
other experts varies from 23 to 25 bushels, 
with a preponderance of opinion in favor of 
24 bushels, so that Sir J. B. Lawes’s estimate is 
over 2% bushels per acre more than the high¬ 
est outside estimate. There are in the King¬ 
dom 2,663,430 acres under wheat, so that 
according to the measured estimate of Sir J. 
B. Lawes, the crop would be 73,577,447 bush¬ 
els, or 71,579,912 bushels according to his 
weighed estimate. From the latter estimate 
he deducts two bushels per acre for seed, leav¬ 
ing 66,252,968 bushels for consumption. The 
mean population for the current harvest year 
is put at 37,771,175, and the consumption is 
put at 5.65 bushels per head, including con¬ 
sumption by cattle on farms, the human con¬ 
sumption being bushels per head. At 5.65 
bushels per head the total consumption would 
be 213,407,136 bushels. Deducting the sup¬ 
posed available home produce, 147,154,188 
bushels are left “to be provided from stocks 
on hand and imports;” according to Sir John. 
Stocks on hand are unusually low, so that at 
least the same amount will be on hand ft year 
hence; thus the full amount above estiujftted 
