42 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
THE 
RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY. 
Address 
RURAL PUBLISHING CO., 
78 Duane Street, New York City. 
SATURDAY JAN. 4. 1879. 
We will be pleased, to send one or more copies 
of the Rural New-Yorker fret,to any of our 
subscribers sufficiently interested in its welfare 
to be willing to hand them to their neighbors for 
inspection. An intimation by postal card will 
suffice. 
Our readers who apply will have the Beauty 
of Hebron potato sent to them separately, be¬ 
cause to send this with seeds makes an awk¬ 
ward package, and also, because the seeds may 
be forwarded at any time regardless of the 
weather, while the potatoes may be injured by 
fro6t. We mention this for the reason that our 
friends receiving the potato only, may think 
the rest of their selection has been overlooked. 
We earnestly request that all letters containing 
money , or any communication intended for the 
Business Department of the paper, l)e addressed 
to The Rural Publishing Co., and not to any 
individual. We cannot otherwise guarantee the 
prompt, entry of names upon our books, or the 
acknowledgment of money. 
Our readers are particularly requested to 
read the particulars of our free seed distribu¬ 
tion on p. 17, under publisher’s notices, before 
ordering seeds. 
We offered, some time ago, to sell the cuts 
used in this Journal for twelve cents the square 
inch. Many have requested us to send proofs 
of our cuts. As we have upwards of ten thou¬ 
sand, we could not undertake to do so. Per¬ 
sons wishing to purchase, must select from 
files of the Rural New-Yorker. 
CHEESE AS FOOD. 
The very low price of good cheese and 
its production in excess of demand have 
led the manufacturers into a serious con¬ 
sideration of the methods by which the 
home consumption can be increased; and 
this, of course, brings up the question of 
the value of cheese as food. Is it true, as 
is claimed by a leading stock journal, that 
cheese contains at least fifty per cent, 
more nutriment in a given weight than 
beef ? As the two retail at nearly th e same 
price, this is an exceedingly interesting 
question. 
Let us first look at the matter from the 
point of production. It has been lately 
shown that a fattening steer and a milch 
cow eat yearly nearly the same amount 
of food for a given weight and time, and 
that the products of gain in beef on the 
one hand and milk on the other, are of 
almost identical food value. In the light 
of such facts, does it seem reasonable 
that the cheese producer can go to the 
extra labor of milking and manufacturing 
the cheese and still undersell the beef 
producer by thirty-three and one-third 
per cent.? In a time of great depression 
nke the present, beef as well as cheese 
must be sold at very nearly the cost of 
production; and as both are largely ex¬ 
ported, we must consider the effect of 
this on the price to be nearly the same 
with each. If, under such circumstances, 
the cheese-maker can give us fifty per 
cent, more food for our money than the 
beef raiser, it is a most interesting ques¬ 
tion for all agriculturists to know how he 
can do it, 
Bischof, Henneberg, Stohmann, Grou- 
ven and others have found the compo¬ 
sition of pure lean flesh to be about 
twenty per cent, of nitrogenous matters 
and from four to ten per cent, of fat; but 
as E. Smith remarks, in his work on food, 
this is not a fair way to arrive at the 
food value of any part of the beef. For 
in every case a certain amount of pure fat 
is attached, which is used as food and in¬ 
creases the value. The only proper way 
to arrive at the food value of beef is to 
accept the results obtained by Lawes and 
Gilbert in determining the percentage of 
fat and flesh used as food when the whole 
carcass is considered. These gentlemen 
found that in every 100 lbs. of fatbeef there 
were fifteen pounds of nitrogenous constit¬ 
uents and thirty-five pounds of fat. Now, 
average new-milk cheese contains per 100 
lbs. about twenty-three pounds of nitro¬ 
genous constituents to thirty-one pounds 
of fat; that is, four pounds less of fat and 
eight pounds more of nitrogenous matters. 
It is known that in the body by far the 
greater part of nitrogenous elements of 
the food are transformed into fat and con¬ 
sumed for the production of heat; and in 
this transformation two parts of the form¬ 
er are required to produce one of the 
latter ; consequently, the eight pounds of 
nitrogenous matter in the hundred pounds 
of cheese in excess of that found in a like 
quantity of beef, are fully counterbalanced 
by the four pounds of fat which the latter 
contains in excess of the former. Cheeso 
and beef of this composition should, there¬ 
fore, be of about equal food value, if 
equally digestible—which is not the case. 
It. is true that some kinds of cheeBe make 
a better showing than this, especially 
those that have an extra quantity of cream 
incorporated; but when wo consider that 
a considerable part of cheese is not di¬ 
gested, as was proved by E. Smith, it will 
not do to give the best cheese a greater 
food value than beef. 
We are not endeavoring, by this state¬ 
ment of facts, to prevent the increased 
consumption of cheese—our business is, 
first of all, to furnish facts, and allow all 
things to stand on their true merits. 
We believe, however, that the home con¬ 
sumption of cheese can be greatly in¬ 
creased with advantage to consumer as 
well as producer—not because as food it 
is cheaper than beef, but because it in¬ 
creases the variety' and makes an agree¬ 
able relish. But before consumption will 
be greatly increased, the execrable stuff 
kept at too many country stores rnuBt be 
replaced by an article of real value. Much 
of the lower grades of cheese is absolutely 
unfit to be eaten. Not only is it without 
value as food, but it does harm by dis¬ 
ordering the digestive function. When 
the cheese manufacturers see to it that 
our couutry stores keep nothing but the 
best quality of cheese and sell it at a rea¬ 
sonable margin, they will find the popular 
appreciation of this article of diet to in¬ 
crease very rapidly and, what is of more 
importance to them, the amount consum¬ 
ed will increase in the same proportion. 
EXCESSIVE YIELDS OF CORN. 
The largest well-authenticated yield of 
com was one of 140 bushels to the acre, 
in South Carolina, a State where the 
average is not far from twenty bushels. 
This shows, in a degree, the possibilities 
of this wonderfully-produetive grain. 
There are those who believe in the still 
higher possibility of producing, with 
every circumstance favoring^ as much, 
even, as 200 bushels of dry, shelled grain 
on a single aere of land. 
To show how such a crop jfcnay appear 
possible, at least on paper, let us estimate, 
first, the number of individual plants that 
can be made to grow and produce full 
ears on an acre of ground. We will take 
the common eight-rowed com of New 
England as the basis of our calculation. 
With rows three feet apart, there will be 
14.520 feet of row to the acre. By drill 
planting the single kernels being dropped 
uniformly, six inches apart, there will be, 
if all grow, 29.040 plants. As by actual 
trial 225 full ears of this com will, when 
well dried, produce one bushel of shelled 
grain, a few figures will show that an av¬ 
erage equal to one full ear to each stalk, 
will give 128 8-9 bushels of shelled corn. 
Double this, by getting two full ears per 
stock, and the crop will be 257 7-9 bush¬ 
els. Yet in face of these figures, the fact 
remains that it is extremely difficult, 
under the best methods of culture now in 
use, to get a yield of 100 bushels to the 
acre ; while the average of the country is 
about thirty bushels, or nearly the same 
as the average wheat yield in England. 
There is no great, difficulty, with good 
seed, good soil and good cultivation, in 
doubling this average. There is a goodly 
number of farmers who, one year with an¬ 
other, do not fall short of securing sixty 
bushels—a ton and a half—of thy, shelled 
corn from every acre planted to this crop. 
Occasional crops of seventy or eighty 
bushels are recorded every year, while 
100 bushels are sometimes claimed, but 
subject to the incredulity of most hear¬ 
ers. No one, however, who has had ex¬ 
perience in corn culture on favorable 
soils, can doubt that 100-bushel crops are 
occasionally realized. At the same time 
it is absurd to expect that, the ideal possi¬ 
bility of 257. 7-9 bushels can ever be realized 
since this requires not only the exact 
planting and perfect gemination of every 
seed, but the arrival of every plant to 
maturity and its production of two full 
and perfect ears, or their equivalent in im¬ 
perfect ones. 
Nevertheless, it is well to keep the ideal 
in mind as a stimulant to exertion. There 
canbenodoubt that the habit of producing 
two ears (under ordinary close culture) 
can be bred into com. Indeed the natu¬ 
ral habit of the corn plant, where it has 
sufficient area to develop itself fully, is to 
produce multiple ears. Corn widely 
planted, and kept free from weeds, “til¬ 
lers ” l ik e wheat and other cereals. Fif¬ 
teen or twenty ears are thus sometimes 
grown from a single seed. But for the 
best results in field culture, the less of 
this tillering, or suckering, the better. 
Wewaut to breed out that, habit of growth, 
and breed in the habit of setting several 
ears on a single stock. Dr. Sturtevant 
aims to do this by close planting and 
“ root pruning that is, repeated deep 
cultivation with a sharp-edged implement 
running close to the rows of com plants. 
In this way he hopes to reduce the luxu¬ 
riance of stem and leaf, (as seen in the 
plant where its full individual develop¬ 
ment is permitted and encouraged), aud 
to get in its place a single stock with mul¬ 
tiple ears. Anatomy of the corn plant 
reveals the fact that the gem of an car 
exists at every “ node ” or joint. Under 
the ordinary conditions of culture, only 
one, or occasionally two and perhaps three, 
of these are developed so as to yield seed. 
The point of practice is to render this 
occasional occurrence a habitual one. We 
see it in the “pop-cornswe aim to pro¬ 
duce it in the common field varieties. 
Some years ago a field of the long-eared 
white pop-corn was planted. Manure hail 
been drawn and piled in the field the pre¬ 
vious fall, which was spread in the spring. 
When the crop was cut up, it was discov¬ 
ered that where the rows of “ pop-corn” 
crossed the spots on which the manure 
had stood all winter, ears were developed 
a foot long, with kernels as large as those 
of ordinary field corn, these ears looking 
precisely like those of the white variety 
known as the “ Sandford ” corn. These 
ears were as numerous on the stalk (two 
and three )as elsewhere, and there was no 
very great excess of luxuriance in the 
hignt or leafage of the plants. Not much 
significance was attached to this occur¬ 
rence at the time, but the recollection of 
it now suggests the thought whether there 
is not instruction to be drawn from it re¬ 
garding this matter of developing the 
habit of multiple earing. This sudden 
transformation of small ears into large 
ones under the stimulus of high manur¬ 
ing, without a proportionate growth of 
the plant itself, seems to suggest that 
multiple earing is promoted (other cir¬ 
cumstances favoring) by poverty of the 
soil, within certain limits. We suspect 
that a moderate deficiency of nitrogen¬ 
ous food, and an abundance of potash and 
phosphoric acid, are the right conditions 
for developing multiple earage. 
It this idea should prove correct, does 
it not point to the conclusion that, in order 
to reach as nearly as possible a maximum 
yield of com, the seed will require to be 
grown upon a different soil from the crop ? 
Lu growing seed, may it not be best to be 
sparing of nitrogenous fertilizers, while in 
a crop from seed so grown, where the 
largest production is aimed at, we should 
fertilize the ground profusely with all the 
necessary elements of plant-tood ? 
Our experience during the past year, 
has been very favorable to this view of 
the matter. We throw out the idea, to be 
thought over aud experimented on by oth¬ 
ers. Certuiuly we have discovered (otherB 
may have discovered the like before) that 
a thoroughbred corn, earefnlly grown 
upon one farm for 60 veal's, and so per¬ 
sistently selected for eight rows as not to 
give in a large field a single variant speci¬ 
men, may in one season, under high ma¬ 
nuring, (without opportunity of “cross¬ 
ing”) develop not only a remarkable yield, 
but a large percentage of ten and twelve- 
rowed ears, lies ides various other abnor¬ 
malities, such as clusters of ears, numerous 
hnskless ears on the ends of the stalks, 
etc. These things are worth studying. 
MOISTURE-RETAINING POWER OF THE 
SOIL. 
We have never raised the question 
whether it was or was not desirable to 
stir the soil. That, it is advantageous 
seems to lis as plain as it seems to the 
many who have written to us to prove 
that it is so. A looBe soil “imbibes” 
more moisture than a compact one. No¬ 
body will dispute that. But, limited, of 
course, as to extremes, we say the loose 
soil will by capillary attraction part with 
more moisture than the compact one. 
Hence, stirring it., instead of tending to 
confine the moisture ; instead of “break¬ 
ing the capillary tubes,” etc., etc., tends 
hi the opposite direction. 
In our experiments, we found that the 
water did not return to the surface at all 
in the pots which were filled with pure 
sand such as is usually used for mortar, 
except about the edges, which was due, 
no doubt, to the pot itself exerting a 
stronger capillary power than the sand. 
The cohesive power of such sand is so 
slight that the capillary power is nearly 
imperceptible. It was for this reason 
that we stated in our first experiments, 
several years ago, that sand should prove 
an excellent material for a mulch. 
Several of our contemporaries and a 
number of correspondents, in proof that 
a compact soil will dry out sooner than a 
loose one, have cited the turnpike road as 
compared with the cultivated field. The 
amount, of rainfall which passes through 
a turnpike road must be very slight. Ex¬ 
cept in long-continued rains only the sur¬ 
face is wet. while at the same time the 
loose soil may become saturated, anil ns 
the moisture evaporates from the surface, 
it may be resupplied from underneath. 
While we need not at this time make 
further remark, we take occasion to refer 
to that paragraph of Dr. Sturtevant’s ar¬ 
ticle (p. 7 ), which begins “ In some ob¬ 
servations,” as of much importance. 
-- 
Catalogues, Etc.—It is seldom that 
we write about any plant—be it vegetable, 
flower, shrub or tree but what we have 
inquiries as to where it can be purchased. 
Under the sub-heading of Catalogues, <fec. 
Received and under the department head¬ 
ing of Miscellaneous, we announce as we 
are enabled to do so, the receipt of the cata¬ 
logues of the seedsmen, florists and nur¬ 
serymen of the country ; and it is in these 
catalogues or pamphlets that such plants 
will generally be found. We have been 
very careful to present these valuable 
books of reference according to their merits 
aud not according to the advertising pat¬ 
ronage Avhich we have received or hope to 
receive from those who offer them to the 
public. In many cases they are offered 
free to applicants—in no instance is more 
than a nominal sum asked for them. Now, 
for the benefit of our readers who desire 
to purchase the best seeds or plants at the 
lowest prices, we say send for these cata¬ 
logues as they are announced. Read them 
over—make marginal notes and so, when 
it is time to buy plants or seeds, be pre¬ 
pared to purchase those which will prove 
of most value. 
-- 
BREVITIES. 
A potato called Woodstock Kidney was 
awarded the prize as the best, at the late show 
at Birmingham, England. 
We call attention to a series of articles enti¬ 
tled “ The History of a Poor Farm.” the first of 
which appears in this number. The name of 
the author will not appear at present, hut we 
may say he is one of the foremost agricultural 
writers in this country. 
A Correction. —Mr. B. Fickman Mann 
writes: *• Your types have takeu a freak this 
week Dec. 21st to put me in a false position on 
your editorial page. I wish toputmyself right 
by disclaiming any ownership in the letters 
lion, prefixed to my name in your list of con¬ 
tributors, said letters belonging rightfully in 
front of the name of the distinguished gentle¬ 
man mentioned in the next line above.” 
Our Condensed Prospectus for 1879.— 
Not to praise a triend beyond his merits because 
he is a friend ;—not to condemn an enemy be¬ 
cause he is an enemy ;—not. to admit any adver¬ 
tisement that can be misleading or in any way 
hurtful, because it paysnot to interfere in 
matters that do not concern us. and—to do our 
best in matters that do Concern us. 
A desire to see the greatest works of their 
kind in the world is natural. Within a short 
walk of the Rural office is a work of this kind. 
We refer to the " bridge ” which “ connects ” 
the cities of New York and Brooklyn. As a 
stupendous failure we do not think it can be 
equaled. Viewed in this way. our friends may 
while visiting this metropolis wish to take a 
look at it. 
Ir the friends of the Rural New-Yorker 
will now speak a strong, hearty word in its fa¬ 
vor to their friends and neighbors, they will 
materially help to advance the interest of a pa¬ 
per which has their own best interests always at 
heart. Now is the time to do this with the beat 
results. Procrastination in this mutter is 
doubly a thief, depriving the Rural of many 
probable subscribers and them of its valuable 
lessons. Here, emphatically, “a stitch in time 
saves nine.” 
Several weeks ago it was stated in the 
Rural that we would thank our friends if they 
would send to this office a specimen ear of the 
best corn they had raised. From the wording 
of the request we supposed it would fail to at¬ 
tract the notice of the general reader. From 
the responses, however, we could make a very 
creditable corn-show. Some of the curs were sent 
to the Rural Experimental Grounds -some 
were given away and we have still in this office 
enough t.o fill a barrel. We mention the above 
to acknowledge in grateful earnestness the 
kindly feelings which our friends have shown 
us upon every occasion that Ims presented 
itself. We dally have occasion to regret 
that we can not write our personal thanks to 
the hundreds of Rural subscribers who thus 
place us under obligations. 
We often regret that our quail arc so huuted 
and nearly exterminated season after season, 
and wish some law could be devised and en¬ 
forced to prevent the slaughter. If those who 
own (be land upon which the birds are bred 
and live, choose to kill them, we have nothing 
to say. But, we cannot protect them if we 
would against tile hordes of sportsmen, us they 
call themselves—crazy-heads aud loafers as we 
should call them—who, as soon us the "law is 
up ” scour the country and bang away at the 
last feather. Taking them as a class, these 
people, while on their burning sprees, make 
every other interest subsidiary to iheir own. 
and they are often unwilling to los,- ilie chance 
of killing a bird oven though they tuke the 
ohunce or firing iuto an out-building or in dan¬ 
gerous proximity to animals and men. If 
country people had any way of restricting 
these worse than tramps, quail could be made 
to become as domesticated as chickens 
