IBS* 
r'Sff RURA1 NFW-YORKER. 
343 
oat hulls and small pieces of hay and straw of 
from one-quarter to eue-half inch in length 
kept continually flowing from the nostrils. 
This flow varied, being sometimes heavy and 
sometimes light. Its odor was very offensive. 
He had a staggering gait and seemed ready 
to drop when attempting to walk. He ap¬ 
peared to be in no perceptible pain. His 
breathing was good and clear, but a rumbling 
sound was noticeable throughout the bowels, 
and there were tremblings and twitchings 
about the breast. The following day he be¬ 
came more restless and hi3 general appear¬ 
ance was worse. The next morning he was 
in very great pain, lying down about half the 
time and groaning so as to be heard quite a 
distance. A part of the time his breathing 
was quite good. He made several strange 
movements as if trying to vomit. The symp¬ 
toms remained about the same, only growing 
worse until nine o’clock at night, when he 
died. What was the disease and what should 
have been the treatment' 
ANSWERED BY DR. F. L. KILBORNE. 
In my opinion the horse died of rupture of 
the stomach. While the symptoms are not 
those that commonly follow an extensive rup¬ 
ture of that organ, in which case death usually 
results in a few hours, they are the symptoms 
of a form of rupture th»t occasionally occurs, 
in which the stomach is only partially or 
slightly ruptured. With ruptures of this 
kind the horse may live two or three days. A 
careful autopsy ought to have been made on 
the animal. There is no treatment for rup¬ 
tured stomach. The lesion is fatal. When 
the animal is in great pain, the suffering may 
be relieved by hypodermic injections of mor¬ 
phine. All medicines by the mouth usually 
aggravate the sy mptoms. Since rupture of t he 
stomach is almost invariably fatal the atten¬ 
tion must be directed to preventive measures 
rather than treatment. The lesion occurs 
most frequently in the heavy draft horses and 
in all classes usually is the result of faults in 
diet or management. It is very liable to oc¬ 
cur when the stomach has been overloaded 
with food upon which it is unable to act. Fer¬ 
mentation results, gases are formed which 
distend aud finally rupture the stomach. 
Other common causes that may be mentioned 
are, a too sadden change of feed; drinking a 
considerable quantity of cold water on a full 
stomach, and severe labor aftei a full meal. 
The walls of the stomach may become weak¬ 
ened by chronic indigestion or other imflum- 
mation so that they are more easily ruptured. 
In fact any gastric derangement renders the 
horse more liable to a ruptured stomach be¬ 
cause more susceptible to the various causes 
that tend to produce the lesion. 
TO PREVENT A COW FROM SUCKING HERSELF. 
L. R. H., Dighton, Kan.— 1. I noticed that 
the brush on the tails of some of my heifers 
was twisted. On examination I found a soft 
place about two inches from the end of the 
tail, which gave the appearance of being un- 
joiuted. Does this indicate disease, and if so 
whatf 2. What will break a cow of sucking 
herself? 
A ns —1. It is of common occurrence, and 
does not indicate disease 2. One of the 
simplest and most effectual methods employed 
to prevent a cow from sucking herself, is a 
block worn on the nose. For this purpose 
take a block four by six inches and one-half to 
five-eighths inch thick, of basswood or other 
light, tough wood. Near one edge bore two 1}^- 
inch auger holes, so that they will overlap 
about one-half inch.and cut within about three- 
eighths inch of the edge. Then cut an opening 
five-eighths to three-fourths inch across,accord¬ 
ing to the size of the animal’s nose, through to 
the edge of the block. Carefully round all 
the corners so that they will not make the 
nose sore. Drive two wire nails to prevent 
splitting. To attach the block, hook one 
point in one side of the septum of the nose, 
and crowd the septum through into the open¬ 
ing, so that the block will hang on the nasal 
septum. This will prevent the cow from 
reachiug her teats with her mouth, but will 
not interfere with eating. Should the block 
be lost or broken apply another. 
CUTTING “ SEED ” POTATOES. 
c. S. H., Holabird, Dak .—When is the 
best time to cut seed potatoes ? Should it be 
done immediately before planting or some 
days before ? How do large and skillful po¬ 
tato growers cut the “seed ?” 
Ans —The R. N.-Y. has experimented 
somewhat; the N. Y. Agricultural E. S. has 
also made quite thorough experiments in this 
matter of Determining how long before plant¬ 
ing the seed should be cut. Our opinion is 
that nothing is gained by cutting the seed any 
considerable length of time before planting. 
As soon as a potato is cut and exposed to the 
light and air, the cut part begins to shrivel 
aud soon to dry up or decay. This is avoided 
by means of the soil moisture. If potatoes 
are cut more than a day or so before they are 
planted, it is probably well to roll them in 
piaster which, in some degree, will lessen 
evaporation. The smaller the pieces in which 
the seed potatoes ere to be cut, the more we 
should object to cutting thpm long before they 
are to be planted. The R. N.-Y. does not 
hesitate to advise its inquirer that nothing is 
lost by planting freshly-cut seed. 
Miscellaneous. 
J. H. M. y Huntsville , Texas .—On page 232 
in answer to L. E. H., regarding a sterile cow, 
the Rural says: “Then let the cow be served 
immediately by a common or grade bull— 
not by a thoroughbred.” Under the circum¬ 
stances, why should not the cow be served by 
a thoroughbred bull ? 
Ans. —Because owing to the more vigorous 
powers of procreation usually possessed by a 
good common or grade bull,as compared with 
a thoroughbred, there is more certainty of 
securing a fruitful service, if the cow is not 
really sterile. 
DISCUSSION. 
COLLAPSE OF THE GREAT MEAT SYNDICATE, 
AND BEEF INSPECTION LEGISLATION. 
T. H. T., Sioux City, Iowa.— In the 
Rural of April 20, an editorial tells of the 
collapse of the American Meat Company, and 
Armour is blamed for the checking of this 
new monopoly. In this I think the Rural is 
mistaken; for I believe that the popular feel¬ 
ing against these meat companies, as evinc¬ 
ed by ithe growing interest in the passage 
of the State Inspection Bills, as adopted by the 
St. Louis Beef and Pork Convention, has 
cooled the ardor of the meat ring, for they 
know that the farmer, the King of this Na¬ 
tion, is against them. Armour, as a monopo¬ 
list, seeing what was for his best interests, no 
doubt advised the stopping of any more in¬ 
vestments that would tend to centralize the 
beef trade, and I think that, instead, he will 
now build small killing houses wherever the 
State passes the Inspection Bill. This new 
mode of monopolizing the meat trade will be 
very hard to control and the result will be 
the forcing of the meat trade into the hands 
of the many who will have their agents in 
various parts of the country conti acting 
their beef, or cattle rather, weeks ahead of 
delivery, thus making a more safe and rea¬ 
sonable basis on which farmers, feeders and 
consumers can depend. Then the profit 
will be more evenly divided between the 
grower and feeder, the butcher and the con¬ 
sumer, legitimate operators who should, with¬ 
out the action of any monopolists, co-operate 
for the mutual benefit of all. New York 
should pass the Inspection Bill such as Minne¬ 
sota and other States have. For the first 
time has the farmer discovered a method by 
which the meat monopolists can be controlled. 
I say “the farmer,” for this is true. No 
butcher should receive the credit of this won¬ 
derful move. It is the farmer and no one else 
who originated it. The beef ring desires that 
the local butcher should be considered the 
originator of this movement, thinking by 
these means to make it unpopular; but his at¬ 
tempt will not succeed; for it is not the local 
butcher but the farmer who demands State 
inspection. 
R. N.-Y. Although the popular feeling is 
very decidedly against monopolies of all sorts, 
yet it was certainly, as a general thing, in 
favor of the establishment of the “ American 
Meat Company.” The reason for this is on 
the surface. The “ Big Four ” now hold a 
monopoly odious aud oppressive alike to the 
producers and consumers. Within the period'of 
their reign they have depressed the price of 
beef cattle so much in the East as well as in the 
West that there is only an infinitesimal mar¬ 
gin of profit to reward the producers. Abso¬ 
lutely controlling the two greatest.cattle mar¬ 
kets in the country—those of Chicago and 
Kansas City—and partly controlling the other 
Western live stock markets, Western stockmen 
are forced to sell to them at their owu fig¬ 
ures. If they refuse to do so at Kansas City, 
and carry tneir stock to St. Louis or Chicago, 
they are there met by the agents of the same 
parties, who have been advised of the trans¬ 
actions at Kansas City, aud the unfortunate 
recalcitrants find, at the end of their journey, 
that, taking into account the freight charges 
aud other expenses between the two places, 
they must accept for their cattle considerably 
less tbau was offered to them on the Kansas 
line. Recent Congressional investigations 
have shown that the stockmen of the West 
have lost millions of dollars through the un¬ 
scrupulous machinations of this giant 
monopoly. It is also destroying altogether or 
greatly injuring home markets by supplying 
dressed meat from Kansas City or even 
Chicago as far west as Colorado cheaper than 
meat can be profitably furnished by local 
butchers who pay a fa r price for their stock, 
although the syndicate’s meat may come from 
animals raised in Colorado, and have paid 
freights both ways. The enormous profits of 
the monopolists enable them to do this for a 
time, so as to break down the local dealers, 
and then they can put up prices high enough 
to make large profits besides making up for 
what they failed to gain during the period of 
depression. 
They pursue the same policy in the 
East with regard to the dressed meat 
trade. The enormous savings they now 
make at the slaughtering centers,owing to the 
low prices which they pay for cattle; the 
great economical improvements made of late 
years in the methods and appliances for 
slaughtering, and the utilization of every 
particle of “offal” much of which formerly 
went to waste,would enable them to sell meat 
to consumers at an extremely low figure; but 
they offer it at prices only a trifle lower than 
those of local butchers—just enough lower to 
break down the latter; but even this decrease 
is sufficient to depress the prices of home- 
raised stock to such an extent as to render 
the raising of butchers’ cattle in the East 
hardly profitable save under exceptional con¬ 
ditions. For these and some minor reasons, 
the Big Four monopoly, which buys over half 
the cattle offered in Kansas City and two- 
thirds of those offered in Chicago, has incur 
red a great deal of odium among the general 
public, aud especially among stock raisers. 
The public therefore was disposed to look 
upon the new enterprise less as an addition to 
the monopolies from wnich it is suffering than 
as a hopeful rival of the odious Big Four. 
Rivalry is death to monopoly when rivalry 
is of a brisk, healthy and powerful character. 
The new enterprise promised close competi¬ 
tion in the near future within a wide area, 
with a strong tendency to constant increase. 
Moreover, the success of one undertaking of 
the kind would be a strong incitement to the 
organization of others, just as the success of 
the Southern Cotton-Seed Oil Company,start¬ 
ed a little over a year ago, is just putting into 
the field a number of the other rivals of the 
hateful Cotton-Seed Oil Trust. Armour, as 
a clear-headed, extremely skillful business 
man, saw all this, and, very properly from 
his own 8tand-point,used all his influence,not, 
of course,personally-for he was then in Eu¬ 
rope—but through his agents to smother the 
threatening rival, like a baby, at the hour of 
its birth. 
With regard to the “ Beef Inspection Bills” 
which have, within the last few months, been 
introduced into the legislatures of many 
States, they are all substantially, if not verb¬ 
ally, of the same character, being all formu¬ 
lated on the basis agreed upon by the joint 
committees of the conventions of butchers and 
cattle-growers, held last winter at St. Louis. 
Tne main object of all Is to protect the butch¬ 
ers and cattle owners of each State from the 
disastrous competition with the Big Four, 
though, equally of course, due regard is 
paid to the health of beef consumers, liable to 
be endangered by the possibly deleterious na¬ 
ture of the dressed meat supplied by the 
monopolists. So far as heard from, the bills 
have been passed by the legislatures of New 
Mexico, Colorado, Kansas,Missouri and Minne¬ 
sota, and rejected by those of Ohio and Penn¬ 
sylvania; while they are still before those of 
New York and several other States. Judg¬ 
ing from past experience, the proposed legis¬ 
lation will probably meet with success in 
those States in which the raising of beef 
cattle is a dominant industry and where the 
population of the country is more numerous 
or influential than that of the towns; while it 
is likely to meet with defeat in those States 
where these conditions do not exist. What 
the Big Four will do in States where inspec¬ 
tion of beef cattle is provided for by law at 
the places at which they are slaughtered, re¬ 
mains to be seen; but, judging by the latest ad¬ 
vices from Minnesota, it is not unlikely that 
they will establish slaughter-houses at various 
points within the borders of these States, 
where such depots would be likely to pay. 
CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS IN OHIO. 
T. B. Terry, Summit County, Ohio.— 
Some weeks ago the Rural had a “sym¬ 
posium ” on the value of chemical fertilizers 
for Western farmers. In Ohio we have con¬ 
siderable land that is quite level and very 
rich. Then again, we have land that is gently 
rolling, but clayey and not considered very 
fertile. Also in part of the State, the country 
is very rolling, or hilly, and the soil when 
brought under the plow is now exhausted of 
its fertility to such an extent that it does not 
bring paying crops. Now at the institutes wo 
hear almost nothing about chemical ferti¬ 
lizers when in counties where the soil is of the 
first kind. In fact plenty of the farmers do 
1 not yet save their home-made manure with 
any care at all. Tile draining is the all-im¬ 
portant subject with them. Fertilizers would 
seldom show where they were put, and less 
often pay on such soils. On lands of the 
second kind fertilizers are more used, and 
more than half of the farmers who express 
their opinions at our institutes think they 
pay. The more clayey the land tne better the 
results, as a rule. I have heard of numerous 
instances, and seen some, where on such soils 
fertilizers were the making of the wheat 
crop. On a strip where none was used the 
wheat was a failure. This was in a poor ypar 
for wheat—when it winter-killed badly. On 
lighter soils in the same locality, fertilizers 
usually seemed to do no good whatever. 
In the Southeast part of Ohio, where we 
could walk for days just up and down hill, 
almost without finding a level acre, commer¬ 
cial fertilizers seem to have usually paid well 
for a time. But we cannot help doubting the 
wisdom of plowing such lauds and cropping 
them any more than is necessary for reseed¬ 
ing purposes. To sum up all that I have 
seen and heard in regard to use of fertilizers, 
I would advise every farmer to test the mat¬ 
ter on his own farm and know what he do¬ 
ing, in the first place. It is the fashion to use 
fertilizers in some parts of our State, and very 
many follow the crowd, and doubtless often 
to their loss. I know some high authorities 
have taught that chemicals are just as truly 
plant food as stable manure. Theoretically 
this is so. Practically there is a hitch some¬ 
where. I have seen fertilizers make a good 
crop (there being a total failure where none 
were put), and within two miles a first-class 
complete fertilizer, freely applied, showed no 
result whatever. Good stable manure would 
have shown where it was put, and if for any 
reason it did not do so in the first crop it 
would surely in the following ones. Do not 
Dave a little strip without fertilizers and 
guess at the difference in yield. Make your 
experiments by the acre and give the scales 
and half-bushel a fair chance to tell the story. 
I have seen two fields of wheat side by side, 
one looking far better than the other; but 
the other turned out the most grain. 
In the second place, if fertilizers brought 
enough extra crop to pay on my farm, I 
would not get into the habit of depending on 
them too much. 1 would rather use them to 
get a good grain crop and a heavy stand of 
clover, on our poorer soils—to give me a start 
—and then depend on the clover and the care¬ 
ful saving of all home manures as much as 
possible. I would recognize the fact that I 
had to compete with thousands of farmers 
who had rich farms, and who paid out noth¬ 
ing for fertilizers, and that if I wanted to 
live as well as they, I couldn^t give a large 
slice from every crop, to outsiders. Probably 
no ordinary farmer in Ohio, ever put on to 
an acre of land at one time in the shape of 
fertilizers as much real fertility as is con¬ 
tained in an acre of heavy clover roots. 
Should he attempt to cover his farm with 
chemical fertilizers, at any such rate, he 
would probably “not only have to mortgage 
it, but the sheriff would foreclose the mort¬ 
gage and some one else would have a rich 
farm.” But if he only uses a little fertilizer 
to give him a wheat crop and a heavy growth 
of clover, he gets his soil filled with fertility 
almost without cost,and can have a rich farm 
himself, particularly if he pay close atten¬ 
tion to the saving of home made manure. 
From the above can, perhaps, be gathered a 
hint why commercial fertilizers do not pay 
on my farm. After several years of careful 
experimenting I would not pay the freight on 
a car ot fertilizers for all the good it would 
do. Three tons or more of clover roots per 
acre (dry weight,* turned under once in three 
years, with what manure we can make, is 
heavy feeding. To buy what these clover 
roots contain would cost me hundreds of dol¬ 
lars a year on my little farm. 
Now I state only what I know when I say 
that the farmers in the sections of Ohio where 
fertilizers are most used, almost universally 
waste more or less of the home-made manure 
under or around their barns. This loss in 
very many cases amounts to one-half or more. 
What sort of business management is this? 
So carried away do some get as to say that 
they can hardly afford to draw out their 
stable manure. Of course, when reeling in 
this way they will pay little or no attention 
to the saving of the liquid or most valuable 
part. What would they think of a dairyman 
who should milk his cows, set the milk, throw 
away the cream, save the skim-milk, aud then 
buy his butter? But that is essentially what 
they are doing when they let the cream of 
their manure go to waste aud then buy fertil¬ 
izers. 
DO I KNOW WHAT I’m TALKING ABOUT ? 
L. T. P., Indianola, III.— While paint¬ 
ing at the home of a wealthy farmer, he said: 
“What will you paint about an acre of 
shingled roof for I” 
