4589 
tl/m RUBAI NEW-YORKER. 
349 
are good in their way, and do well what they 
undertake to do. The present inquiry is, 
What are they good for? What relation do 
they sustain to the practical agriculture of 
the country? And what relation do they sus¬ 
tain to the general educational interests of the 
country? 
In the first place, we all understand that 
agricultural colleges are not necessary to agri¬ 
culture. Agriculture existed and flourished 
thousands of years before agricultural colleges 
were ever thought of. Plants will grow 
whether we understand the method of their 
growth or not. They will feed themselves 
from the earth and air whether we under¬ 
stand t he science of plant food or not. It has 
been known for ages that animal manures in¬ 
crease the fertility of tho soil, and the general 
principles of cultivation have also been long 
understood. A few simple facts and princi¬ 
ples like these constitute the basis of success¬ 
ful agriculture, and experience and common 
sense will furnish the best rules for applying 
them. Agriculture, then, is absolutely inde¬ 
pendent of the agricultural college. 
We cannot say the same of surgery and 
medicine, or of law, or of theology, or of en¬ 
gineering, or of mechanical construction. 
Everything that can properly be called a pro¬ 
fession or trade depends on scientific attain¬ 
ment or acquired skill, and an apprenticeship 
of some kind must precede capable work in 
every kind of mechanical occupation. The 
farmer’s boy can scarcely fail to get a suf¬ 
ficient apprenticeship in farming on his fath¬ 
er’s farm; and, beyond this, energy, industry 
and good judgment are his best resources, 
though it must be admitted that successful 
agriculture makes an unusual demand upon 
their natural gratification. A good farmer 
must at least have good common sense. 
But given this apprenticeship and these 
natural qualifications, what can the agricul¬ 
tural college do for the farmer’s son? It is an 
easy inference and an easy mistake to sup¬ 
pose, because a law school is good to make 
lawyers, and a medical school is good to make 
doctors, that an agricultural school must be 
good to make farmers. And it is doubtless 
true that some of our agricultural colleges 
were founded upon this folly, implied if not 
expressly stated in the terms of the Morrill 
Land Grant Act. 
There need be no question that science has 
done much for agriculture. It was a con¬ 
siderable gain when the elements of plant 
food were discovered together with the differ¬ 
ing proportions required by different products, 
resulting in the preparation of special and 
general commercial fertilizers. But this was 
done by the chemist in his private laboratory, 
or in connection with a university proper, 
not in an agricultural college; and when the 
facts, however discovered,are once known, it 
does uot need an agricultural college to teach 
them. There has not been so much gain from 
the analysis of soils, and all the desirable re¬ 
sults in this direction can be obtained by the 
intelligent farmer through simple experi¬ 
ments on his own land. 
Agriculture owes much to the entomologist; 
but if the said professional will tell us the 
natural history of the potato bug and flea 
beetle and other noxious insects so as to ex¬ 
pose their vulnerable points, and if the chem¬ 
ist will tell us how and when to dose them, 
that is about all we want to know, and we 
can get all this from the published reports 
and the agricultural papers. 
We can say about the same for the botanist, 
but probably not so much for the professor of 
veterinary medicine. His skill is not so easily 
communicated. Still if a farmer’s son knows 
enough to take decent care of his animals, he 
would probably forget all he may have learn¬ 
ed of veterinary medicine at college, before 
having au occasion to use it, and beyond a 
few simple remedies, would be foolish to trust 
his own skill if he did not. 
If he wants to become a veterinary surgeon, 
or a professor of agricultural chemistry, or 
an entomologist, or a botanist, that is another 
thing and I have nothing to say about that. 
But to suppose one must become au adept in 
all these sciences before he cau be a successful 
farmer, is nonsense of no ordinary kind. And 
to suppose he will be much more successful as 
a farmer because of such knowledge of these 
things as he will get iu an agricultural col¬ 
lege, looks very much like nonsense of the or¬ 
dinary kind. All that farmers need to know 
of these matters they will easily get in the re¬ 
ports of experiment stations, and especially in 
the agricultural papers. 
Having thus shown what the agricultural 
colleges are not good for, let us now consider 
what they are good for. If a young man 
studies botany at au agricultural college he 
unquestionably derives a certain benefit from 
the study,though he may never apply it in his 
business. He will get an educational, if not a 
practical benefit from it. He acquires a more 
intelligent understanding of things with 
which he is in daily contact. He learns to 
observe, to appreciate, to remember, to classi¬ 
fy ; and his mental power generally is en¬ 
larged by the study. He is a better man if 
not a better farmer; and he will enjoy his ex¬ 
istence more and have a higher value and 
greater influence among his fellow men. The 
same may be said if he studies chemistry, or 
even bovine anatomy. His intelligence and 
mental capacity are developed by his efforts 
in all these branches of study. He will not 
be a much better farmer, but he will be a good 
deal more of a man. 
Is it not a good thing, then, for a farmer to 
send his sons to an agricultural college? Of 
course it is a good thing; but generally, it is 
by no means the best thing; and a thing good 
in itself may become relatively bad when we 
compare it with things that are better. The 
chief value of study in an agricultural college, 
is, as we have seen, its effect in general cul¬ 
ture ; and for general culture other courses of 
study are vastly better, and might and should 
be equally accessible. Indeed the agricul¬ 
tural colleges were not established for general 
culture, and would never have been established 
at all but for their supposed beneficial rela¬ 
tion to practical agriculture. 
They’are, to say "the least, not necessary for 
the latter purpose, and are by no means the 
best for the farmer, being in this latter re¬ 
spect in no wise comparable to the usual 
academical course in other colleges. There is 
indeed one view in which the agricultural 
colleges are positively detrimental to agricul¬ 
ture. As at present managed, their influence 
is to take young men away from the farm, 
who would otherwise have been farmers. 
Take a boy from his father’s house and farm 
at the period when his habits and tastes are 
most rapidly forming ;~dress him up like a 
gentleman and send him to college to mingle 
for three or four! years with other boys simi¬ 
larly treated; even in vacation when he|come 3 
home as a visitor, coddle him with the notion 
that he .has been studying so hard that he 
needs all the time for rest and recreation—for 
that is what vacations are for—and what have 
you done to make a farmer of him even if he 
has been spending these three or four years 
in this gentlemanly way at [a so-called agri¬ 
cultural college? Not much surely. But you 
have done a good deal [to give him a disposi¬ 
tion to keep up his gentlemanly habits, and 
to keep away from the farm forever. 
Now this is not a mere fancy sketch. It is 
rather a representation which can be backed up 
by solid facts. Of the nearly SOOgraduates re¬ 
ported up to the commencement ot the current 
college year at the Massachusetts Agricultur¬ 
al College, less than one quarter have devoted 
themselves to agriculture in any of its 
branches. Now it is a fair presumption that 
most of the young men intended to become 
farmers; else why should they go to an agri¬ 
cultural college? And the college instead of 
helping to make them farmers, actually took 
them away from the farm, and sent them into 
other pursuits. Of those who took only a 
partial course it is probable that a much 
larger proportion returned to the farm. Prob¬ 
ably some of them staid at the college long 
enough to decide that what they were learn¬ 
ing would be of little use to them as farm ers, 
and so wisely went about their business with¬ 
out further delay. But is this the advantage 
to agriculture which our representatives in 
Congress expected when they devoted so 
many millions of the people’s money to estab¬ 
lishing agricultural colleges? Most assuredly 
not. 
Well, it will, of course, avail little to 
mourn over or find fault with the past. Peo¬ 
ple have generally to learn in the“school of 
experience, and we shall not deserve such 
credit for wisdom if we fail to learn some¬ 
thing from an experience as expensive as that 
which the history of our agricultural colleges 
furnishes. What then ought we to do ? I will 
give my opinion as directly and briefly as 
possible:— 
First. Turn the agricultural colleges into 
schools of general culture, assimilating their 
courses of study largely to the academical 
courses in regular colleges. If you cannot 
learn agriculture at a college, there are other 
things you can learn which will be even more 
important. 
Secondly. But do not [take the boys away 
from the farm even to learn these things. 
Let them understand that they can be just as 
much gentlemen, in the true sense, on the 
farm as in other pursuits, and that culture is 
just as useful and just as enuobling there as 
elsewhere. To this end let the college course 
be arranged so as to consist of at least four to 
six-mouths’ winter terms, leaving the sum¬ 
mers entire for other uses. The advantage of 
this arrangement would be that the boy would 
not be taken away from the farm long enough 
to acquire a distaste for it and a disposition to 
lead an easy, effeminate and, as he thinks, 
gentlemanly life. In fact, he would not be 
taken from the farm at all. He would be 
there every summer, and all summer long, | 
helping his father with the extra zest and the 
acquired manliness that his winter’s oppor¬ 
tunity had given him. His tastes, habits, am¬ 
bitions and opportunities would still be on the 
farm. Another and a very great advantage 
would be that the expense of a college course 
by this method would not be more than a 
quarter as much as by the usual method, and 
the college would be accessible to four times 
as many young men. Allow a boy fair wages 
for his work during the summer, and his sav¬ 
ings would generally pay his expenses at col¬ 
lege during the winter. 
Thirdly. Turn the institutions now called 
agricultural colleges into farm schools and 
experiment stations during the summer. In 
these let every branch of agriculture be car¬ 
ried on and illustrated in the best possible 
manner, and let the work be done of prefer¬ 
ence, and, as far as* possible, by young men 
who desire to become proficient [impractical 
agriculture. Let these young men be paid as 
much as other men would be for the same 
amount of work. 
There is much to be learned in market 
gardening, fruit culture and landscape gar¬ 
dening which cannot well be learned from 
books, and of which the ordinary farm fur¬ 
nishes no illustration. Dairying and the care 
of stock should also be exemplified according 
to the most approved methods, as also general 
farming in all its branches. To carry on all 
these departments of agriculture extensively, 
would furnish opportunity for the employ¬ 
ment of a great many young men; and all 
who enjoy the privileges of the school should 
be expected to labor at least five hours a day 
and longer if they will. The other part of 
the day should be devoted to inspecting the 
various operations of the farm, garden and 
dairy with note-book in hand. No study 
should be required and no recitations be 
heard. The sole literary exercise should be 
one lecture a day, after dinner or before 
supper, devoted by the professor to an ex¬ 
planation of the reasons and principles of 
what is then going-forward in the department 
under his charge. One season from seed time 
to harvest at a farm school of this kind, 
would be worth tenfold more to agriculture 
than a full four years’ course at the ordinary 
agricultural college. 
If any of our young men desire to become 
specialists either in agricultural chemistry, or 
botany, or entomology, or veterinary medi¬ 
cine and surgery, it would doubtless be well 
that provision should be made in the agricul¬ 
tural college for students of this class, unless 
it might better be done in the university 
proper; but such courses of study should be 
especial and optional, and should’ not be in¬ 
cluded in the regular course. 
If our agricultural colleges could be con¬ 
ducted upon this plan, they would be of in¬ 
calculable benefit both to agriculturists and 
to agriculture, and we should have no oc¬ 
casion to regret the vast sums which have 
been expended in their foundation. 
New Haven County, Conn. 
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
[Every query must bo 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 
one time. Put questions on a separate piece of paper.] 
BEANS AND BEAN VINES FOR STOCK. 
Several Subscribers .—We understand that 
in the bean-growing sections of Western New 
York farmers feed quantities of beans to 
stock and that bean vines are also considered 
valuable as stock food. Will the Rural tell 
us about it? 
Ans.—S ome idea of the magnitude of the 
bean-growing industry in Western New York 
may be gained front the following note from 
a single firm in Genesee county: 
“We pick out from 3,000 to 3,000 bushels of 
damaged beans in the course of a year, which 
we sell to farmers for feeding purposes. 
These beaus have to be picked out, one bean 
at a time, which will give some idea of the 
amount of labor required to accumulate this 
quantity of culled beaus. We usually handle 
about 50,000 bushels a year, and employ from 
50 to 75 hands hand-picking these beans from 
September 1st to May 1st. We have several 
bean-planters with phosphate attachments, 
which we rent to the farmers in the spring, 
and also several bean-pullers, which we rent 
to them in the fall, to assist in harvesting 
their crops. The culled beans are usually 
sold at 30 to 40 cents per bushel, which by 
making allowance for the quantity of waste 
material, such as stones, lumps of dirt, etc., 
makes the cost to the farmers about the same 
as corn would cost them. Many farmers pre¬ 
fer a good fair quality of damaged beans to 
corn at the same price. They are fed to 
sheep, in the natural state, or ground and 
mixed with corn meal, and fed to cows or 
boiled and fed to hogs, making excellent feed 
in all cases ” 
As everybody whose ancestry traces back 
to New England or New York State knows, 
the bean is one of the most nutritious forms 
of vegetable food. American agriculture 
would be considerably advanced if farmers at 
the West would substitute beans for a portion 
of their pork. Using beans as food for stock 
is a new idea to those who live outside of the 
bean-growing districts. It is the Rural’s 
business to secure information. So we sent 
the following questions to a number of 
farmers who ought to be able to answer. 
1. What kind of stock will eat beans? 
3. Do you grind or cook them? 
3. What quantity can you safely feed? 
4. How do they compare in value with 
grain? 
5. What do you feed with them? 
6. What stock do best on beans? 
7. Would it pay to grow beans exclusively 
for feeding purposes? 
8. Are the vines of any value? 
Here are the answers: 
FROM ADDISON TERRY. 
I have Dever fed beans to anything but hogs 
and store sheep. They were whole and raw, 
but one must be careful in feeding, for unless 
they are fed in small quantities, they will 
cause the scours. I think there is not much 
good in them for sheep; but there is no doubt 
that they are good for cattle. Milch cows 
increase their milk yield wonderfully if they 
start with about a quart mixed with corn- 
meal, and in one week they will eat them 
without the meal; the feed can be increased to 
eight or 10 quarts a day without doing any 
harm. 1 start hogs like cattle. After one 
week or 10 days I can give them all they 
will eat. Beans are worth half as much as 
corn as feed for hogs. In all cases they must 
be cooked as well as if intended for the table. 
Then I think one bushel of them is as good as 
one bushel of corn as feed for hogs, but 
boiling them takes time and wood or coals. 
For boiling them I have a kettle that holds 130 
gallons standing on a kind of stove. It is 
under a shed on each side of which are the 
hog-pens. The water is conducted into the 
shed close to the kettle in a two-inch pipe so it 
is very handy. I fill the kettle half full of 
beans, then fill up till it is about two-thirds 
full of water and beans; let them stand over¬ 
night, and in the morning the kettle will be 
about full. 1 then build a fire and boil them 
until they are done, which will be in about 
four hours. If mixed with shorts, middlings or 
meal, it would be an advantage; but owing to 
the trouble in preparing them properly, feeding 
them hardly pays unless one has the right sort 
of appliances for the work. 
Genesee County, N. Y. 
FROM S. TAINTOR. 
1. Beans are a favorite feed for sheep,both 
the seeds and the vines. 3. Without cooking 
or grinding. 3. A pint a day can be fed safe¬ 
ly to a sheep. 4. They are equal to, I think, 
and more “hearty” than corn. 5. When I 
feed to hogs or horses I grind them, using two 
bushels of oats to one of beans—feeding three 
quarts of the mixture at a meal. 6. Sheep. 
7. Marketable beans are too valuable to feed. 
8. Cows and sheep like the vines and eat them 
up clean. 
Livingston County, N. Y. 
FROM GEORGE W. EASTMAN. 
1. Sheep, cows and hogs. 
3. To sheep we feed whole beans, while we 
cook them for hogs. 
3. We begin by feeding lightly and after a 
few feeds, we feed them the same as corn. 
4. They are richer than any of the grains. 
5. We generally mix them with corn. 
6. Sheep. 
7. It would not. 
8. The vines make an excellent feed for sheep 
or cows in connection with hay or straw. By 
refuse beans I mean beans the weight of which 
will not shrink more than six pounds per 
bushel if the stones, dirt and rotten beans are 
all removed. The value of refuse beans for 
feed depends upon the relative prices of beans 
and corn por bushel. 
Wyoming County, N. Y. 
FROM GEORGE F. LOWE. 
1. Sheep, cattle, hogs. 
3. Whole for sheep; ground for cattle; 
boiled for hogs. 
3. One pint to four sheep, whole. For cattle 
