7 io 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
OCTOBER 26 
imposed.for an offence proved (by chemical 
analysis—not by a “ lactometer,”) or by 
continuing to sell adulterated milk. Now, 
keeping in mind what the law in 
this particular is endeavoring to secure, 
according to its requirements, “whole” 
or “ pure milk ” is milk just as it 
comes from the cow. According to 
the spirit of our law, the milk test 
made at the Wisconsin Station shows that 
that milk was pure; but according to the 
letter of the law, a man selling such milk 
would be adjudged guilty of adulteration. 
The test at the Wisconsin Station is not by 
any means an isolated case, and there are 
gentlemen of reliability who claim that 
there are cows that will not by any course 
of feeding produce milk containing 12 
per cent, of milk solids. Mr. Browning, of 
Camden, says he knows it to be a fact that 
the quality of milk varies with the differ¬ 
ent seasons, and admits that sometimes the 
milk from his herd falls below the stand¬ 
ard fixed by law. On the other hand, Dr. 
Shippen Wallace, of the State Board of 
Health, says he “is thoroughly convinced 
that there is no herd of good, healthy cows 
(and if the cows are not healthy the law 
forbids the sale of their milk) in the entire 
State whose milk on analysis will show less 
than 12 per cent.” 
From the experiment at the Wisconsin 
Station, and other similar testimony, and 
taking Dr. Wallace’s statement into con¬ 
sideration, it is clear that milk from most 
herds should be thoroughly well mixed to¬ 
gether before canning and carting to mar¬ 
ket, and that no analysis of the milk from 
one or two cows only should be made to 
prove the standard of a herd, or the char¬ 
acter of the owner. 
In the case instanced above, if the man 
did not water the milk—and he claims he 
did not—he does well to become a martyr 
rather than pay an unjustly imposed pen¬ 
alty. Moreover, if this was his (?) first of- 
sense, and his cows’ milk fell below the leg¬ 
al standard for want of strong feed—grass, 
owing to so much rain has been very flabby 
this summer—if his character for honest 
dealing in his business life is established, 
he ought to have been released, free of cost, 
with an admonition to strengthen the feed. 
Otherwise every farmer must needs be a 
chemist or else send his ihilk often for ex¬ 
amination. And this suggests whether it 
would not be better to inspect the milk in 
order to have it produced pure and up to 
the required standard rather than to seize a 
sample now and then in a liap-liazard way 
in order to find milk that falls below the 
legal standard. This would require an oc¬ 
casional inspection of the dairy stables of 
milk-producers, as to their construction, 
ventilation, etc., their daily cleanliness, the 
condition of the pails, cans and milkers at 
milking time, the courses and varieties of 
feed, the character of water and the usual 
condition of barn-yard or stable surround¬ 
ings. Certain requirements of this kind, 
made of otherwise honest men, would, it 
seems to me, secure better milk from all 
herds and all the time, than can be obtained 
by the present method. Also, let samples 
of milk be taken from the stock of produc¬ 
ers and retailers of milk in all parts of the 
State quite frequently, and let the results 
of the analyses be published somewhat as 
the analyses of fertilizers are now publish¬ 
ed. This would have a tendency to drive 
poor milk from the market. 
Chemists admit, I believe, that they can¬ 
not determine whether the water in the 
milk is there through Nature’s work or 
owing to adulteration. If they could de¬ 
termine as to the latter point, the law 
would be just. Failing in this, it is assumed 
that pure milk should show 12 per cent, of 
solids. Now, much milk is produced in the 
State that will yield more than 12 per cent, 
of solids. If the standard of purity fixed 
by law is a certain per cent, of solids, are 
not the producers of such milk—as some of 
them claim—justifiable in watering their 
milk down to the legal standard ? The 
chemists cannot tell the difference, and yet 
if the milk-owner should be detected put¬ 
ting water in such milk, though it be 
above the standard, he could be arrested, 
and if proved guilty, must pay the penalty 
or go to prison ! Our “milk law” is not 
perfect, but I will not find fault with it un¬ 
til I am able to suggest a better one. A 
man who sells water for milk ought to be 
punished ; so ought the long list of adul¬ 
terates of other goods. Milk ought to be 
sold on its merits, from original packages 
from the dairy and the creamery. The 
quality of the milk being fixed at these 
two starting points, the retailer must be 
held responsible for what he sells. This 
whole subject is a very important one. It 
may be necessary to continue the discus¬ 
sion in a future issue of the Rural. 
IS HAY, HAY ? 
Prof. F. E. Ladd, Geneva, N. Y.—The 
R. N.-Y.’s question, “Is a ton of Timothy 
hay of the same va'ue for feeding, regard¬ 
less of the soil upon which it is grown ? ” is 
one worthy of careful study. It is a com¬ 
mon saying among feeders, that “hay 
spends well this winter, or hay spends 
poorly,” which means that the feeding 
value of hay grown on the same farm 
varies more or less for different sea¬ 
sons. Thus the farmer has recognized a 
difference in the feeding value of different 
lots of hay. As yet there does not seem to 
be sufficient data to determine whether 
hay grown on different soils has a like 
feeding value. From observation and such 
experiments as have come under my obser¬ 
vation, I believe that Timothy grown in 
clay soil will be found to have a different 
feeding value from that grown on sand or 
muck. The difference in soil, however, 
does not seem to be so influential as that in 
the climatic conditions. Some investiga¬ 
tions at the New York Experiment Station 
at Geneva, as given in the sixth and seventh 
annual reports, seem to demonstrate that 
the feeding value of Timothy, and of the 
hay from other grasses as well, is quite 
variable, as judged from chemical analyses. 
It was found that the albuminoids or 
“ muscle-formers ” in Timothy from the 
same plots for two years were: 
PER CENT. 
Timothy 1886 . 4.69 
Timothy 1887 . 8.12 
For Orchard Grass and Tall Meadow Oat 
Grass we find the albuminoids as follows : 
PER CENT. 
Orchard Grass 1886 . 7.38 
“ “ 1887 . 8.94 
Tall Meadow Oat Grass 1886_ 6.75 
“ “ “ “ 1887.... 10.37 
In one ton of the above-named hays there 
would be of albuminoids. 
1886 1887 
Timothy hay. 79 lbs. 137 lbs. 
Orchard Grass hay. 124 “ 151 “ 
Tall Meadow Oat Grass hay. 114 “ 175 “ 
From the last table it seems very evident 
that the feeding value of the hay for the 
two years was very different and the com¬ 
monsaying, “Hay spends poorly or hay 
spend well, ” is justified. 
The examinations of hay from different 
localities made at the same station, show 
less variation in feeding value than for 
hays grown at the same place under differ¬ 
ent climatic conditions. From the analyses 
as given for Timothy hay, one ton, for 1887, 
would have of albuminoids: 
HAY FROM POUNDS IN 
ONE TON. 
Maine. 146 
New Hampshire. 135 
New York. 137 
Wisconsin. 123 
In the clover we have considered the al¬ 
buminoids only, and of course the carbo¬ 
hydrates would change somewhat the rela-^„ 
tive feeding value ; but as a whole the al¬ 
buminoids, (in hays cut at the same period 
of growth—full bloom—as in these experi¬ 
ments) may safely be considered a fair 
measure of the relative feeding values. 
The studies thus far made seem to indicate 
that the variation in the feeding value 
of hays from different localities and soils is 
not so great as upon the same soil under 
varying conditions of rain and sunshine. We 
may say that, often, all the climatic condi¬ 
tions are a more potent factor in determin¬ 
ing the quality (and sometimes the quantity) 
of the hay crop than are fertilizers of re¬ 
cent application. As a general conclusion, it 
would seem that, one season with another, 
on the same farm the maximum hay crop 
will have a minimum feeding value,and the , 
minimum hay crop a maximum feeding 
value. 
FEEDING CORN. 
P. H. Jacobs, Hammonton, N. J.— Com 
is probably the cheapest poultry food, but 
something depends on the season of the 
year, and also the climate. Where the 
winters are very cold a larger ration of corn 
may be given. The value of carbonaceous 
food depends not entirely on its adapta¬ 
bility for egg-production, but also on 
the supply of warmth it affords. Many 
persons attribute the increase of eggs to 
corn, when, in fact, the corn has induced 
egg-production more by keeping the hens 
warm rather than through the supply of 
egg elements afforded, and as warmth in 
winter is essential to the production of 
eggs, corn, wheat or any carbonaceous food 
is valuable. Corn alone will not produce 
eggs. A hen that is fed exclusively on corn 
will be unable to [supply, the .mineral ele¬ 
ments of the eggs, and though she may, by 
eating largely of com, find sufficient nitro¬ 
gen for an egg, she will, in time, from the 
excess of carbon, become excessively fat. 
I find the cheapest egg food in winter, 
and the most complete in the proportions 
of nitrogen, carbon, and mineral matter, is 
a mixture of clover (chopped into half-inch 
lengths and scalded), corn-meal and bran. 
This ration supplies bulky food (or an equiv¬ 
alent of green food), promotes digestion, 
and costs less than any other food. It af¬ 
fords a variety, and com may be given also. 
Experiments show that, as long as the hens 
are kept in exercise, corn may be fed liber¬ 
ally, but though one may attribute all the 
beneficial effects to corn, yet the amount of 
food of a various kind picked up by the 
hens in winter, is greater than may be sup¬ 
posed, especially if they have access to the 
barnyard, as they will pick up clover heads, 
leaves, the blades of corn-fodder, and other 
food required. 
The best indicator is the hen herself. 
When she refuses corn and seeks something 
else, it denotes that she wants some ele¬ 
ment not fully provided by corn. In like 
manner she will reject other foods and eat 
corn. The best results are obtained from a 
varied diet, and though the hens may do 
well oil corn, yet they may do better on va¬ 
riety. Milk in this section is too expensive. 
Wheat is used more than corn here, though 
corn is regarded as the cheaper grain. Meat 
is the best egg-producing food, but it is ex¬ 
pensive. It should be fed in connection 
with grain, however. My advice is to feed 
corn, as the hens would get but little else 
in some sections, and it is almost indispen¬ 
sable to egg-production in winter, in cold 
climates. The Rural’s suggestion to use 
milk is excellent, but such a diet, exclus¬ 
ively (milk and corn), would compel the 
hens to drink to excess to secure the de¬ 
sired amount of solids, while the continued 
feeding of curds would affect the bowels. 
Hens should not be fed on a concentrated 
food any more than cows or horses. Clo¬ 
ver, potatoes, milk, meat, with plenty of 
corn, are better than any single article. It 
is not an easy matter to make up a “per¬ 
fect ration ” for a hen. If she ceases to lay 
regularly, corn will soon cause her to be¬ 
come useless, but as long as she is produc¬ 
ing eggs she will use a vast amount of 
“raw material” for that purpose. Milk, 
daily, added to other food, will largely as¬ 
sist in supplying many elements not ob¬ 
tainable so easily from other sources. 
IMPROVEMENT IN POTATO DIGGERS, ETC. 
P. M. B., Ringtown, Pa.—F. A. B., Ris¬ 
ing City, Nebraska, says that he is inter¬ 
ested in potato-diggers. When people 
write for publication, or for any other 
moral purpose, and, more particularly, to 
give or ask for information about farming, 
about which there should be no secrets, 
why not give the full name and address, so 
that if any one wished to write to them he 
could do so ? I have no digger to advertise, 
but would like to correspond with him 
about one. A few years ago, I made a 
small model of a digger, of the success of 
which I felt quite sanguine at the time' t 
has no shaker, but instead, a revolviilt 
cylinder. A working one should be two 
feet long and two or 2)4 feet in diameter, 
with two-inch meshes. I had some doubts 
about the row going into it, but none what¬ 
ever of its working. It would clean the po¬ 
tatoes, leaving them free from earth, ex¬ 
cepting those that would go through a two- 
inch mesh. Now I think I can overcome 
the difficulty of getting the potatoes into 
it, and I think it can be made to work 
where the ground is pretty clear of weeds. 
R. N.-Y.—There are several reasons, more 
apparent to editors than to the general 
public, for not publishing the names and 
addresses of correspondents. Many seek 
free advertising in this way, and it is un¬ 
fair to our regular advertisers who pay for 
the space they occupy, to give space to 
others. Then many correspondents do not 
wish to be subjected to the aunoyance of 
answering the numerous letters which 
thoughtless persons are likely to in¬ 
flict upon them and which are many 
times entirely needless. Then again, 
there are numerous sharpers of all kinds 
ever on the outlook for the names and ad¬ 
dresses of farmers; for, these once ob¬ 
tained, they are sure to tempt or bother the 
people with alluring circulars and specious 
schemes, and if the names and addresses 
are given in the paper the rascals are pretty 
certain to utilize them. The editor must 
be the judge of the extent to which these 
rules may be suspended. If our friend has 
a novel and valuable improvement in pota¬ 
to-diggers he should have little difficulty 
in inducing some implement manufacturer 
to take hold of.it, as there is considerable 
chance for improvement in these valuable 
implements. 
MORE ABOUT THAT MONTANA BOOM. 
E. B., Merchantville, N. J.— I write to 
thank the Rural New-Yorker for pulling 
the scales from my eyes as to the Montana 
land boom now occupying so much space in 
many journals hitherto considered reliable 
and truthful. With me it has been an enig¬ 
ma why so much space was devoted to the 
laudation of this new sister State. I nat¬ 
urally supposed that the space was paid for 
by some land syndicate or railroad corpora¬ 
tion. But it was not until the R. N.-Y. 
laid the matter open to its readers that I 
fully comprehended the cause of such ex¬ 
tended puffing. I extend to it my personal 
thanks for its bold exposure of these de¬ 
signing editors, and feel that 1 hazard noth¬ 
ing in saying that it has proved a benefactor 
to more than one young farmer in its family 
of readers who were seriously contemplating 
going to try their fortunes in this far dis¬ 
tant land. The editor of the Orange Judd 
Farmer has for years been an especial friend 
of mine and his misfortune with the Ameri¬ 
can Agriculturist aroused my deep sympa¬ 
thy, so much so that I discarded the Agri¬ 
culturist and subscribed for the Prairie 
Farmer under his management, Since his 
retirement from that journal I have been 
an object of his generosity by receiving the 
Orange Judd Farmer gratuitously. I had 
about made up my mind to subscribe for it 
regularly. I like to have a Western farm 
paper among the many I now take, and 
dislike to have a paper that is not worth 
paying for. The R. N.-Y.’s exposure has 
so thoroughly laid bare the position of the 
journal in question that I shall order it dis¬ 
continued. 
USE OF ROTTED POTATOES. 
Henry Stewart, Macon County, N. C. 
—Some weeks ago I stated in a communica¬ 
tion to the Rural that I was feeding rotten 
potatoes to pigs and cows as a test of their 
healthfulness, or otherwise. Two cows, 
milking, have had each a peck of the least 
damaged potatoes daily for more than three 
weeks, and four pigs have been turned into 
the potato field where they eat the diseased 
and rotten tubers that were rejected at the 
digging. Nothing in any way unusual has 
been observed in the cows or in their milk 
or butter, nor has anything unusual been 
observed by close examination of the milk 
and butter under a microscope of 500-diam¬ 
eter power. The pigs are doing excellently, 
fattening on their ration of milk, with the 
potatoes, and now of corn and have cleaned 
up every tuber without any repugnance 
and with the usual good appetite of thrifty 
young pigs. I have myself eaten potatoes 
that were quite black when cooked, several 
times, taking the dose with shut eyes, but 
willingly as a test of this question ; so far 
nothing has happened to me. 
SURE DEATH TO L1VEFOREVER. 
W. H. C., East Freetown, N. Y.—I 
have found a much easier and more effective 
way of destroying liveforever than that de¬ 
scribed by W. H. D., in the Rural of Octo¬ 
ber 5. First procure a root of diseased live- 
forever and set it out in a bed of livefor¬ 
ever and it will kill the pest for rods 
around, the first year, and continue to 
spread and kill it as long as any remains 
in the field. When it once gets started in 
a field, liveforever is sure to go. Not a 
branch of it will be left to mark the spot 
where once it had perfect sway. 
HAY FROM DIFFERENT SOILS. 
G. M. O., Meadville, Pa.—M y observa¬ 
tions, extending over a period of 14 years, 
lead me to the conclusion that hay has not 
always the same feeding value, varying with 
the soil on which it is grown. My farm is 
situated in a valley, and I have both bot¬ 
tom land or flats and hill-side; the flats are 
clay land and sandy loam, the hill-side 
gravel: the hay raised on the gravelly soil 
while not always as heavy a growth, always 
gives the best results in feeding. You can 
satisfy the cattle with it and they thrive bet¬ 
ter than on hay raised on the flats. The hay 
on the flats is always lighter and the cattle 
do not always like it as well and they eat a 
greater bulk of it (I think t he cold nights es¬ 
pecially when moist, have something to do 
with it). We can raise more hay on our flat 
land, and the meadows are smoother, so 
we are move apt to cut our hay there, but 
it is not as good to feed. I have always 
had my cows shrink in their butter when 
turned into pasture on the flats from off 
hill pasture. There may be some deficiency 
in the flat soil that causes the difference in 
the feed, flavor and feed value. I know that 
when we want good, well-flavored potatoes 
for our own use, we do not plant them on the 
flats; they are not dry and mealy as raised 
on our gravelly soil, or as good-flavored. 
There is a .vast difference in small grain 
