4S4 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
up by the U. S. Entomological Commission 
that it is needless for me to add anything in re¬ 
gard to it here. The common Red-Legged Lo¬ 
cust (Caloptenus femur-rubrnm) and the Lesser 
Locust (C. atlanis) occasionally do considerable 
damage to corn; and 1 have also known the 
American Locust (Acridium Americanum) to 
attack this cereal in small armies. 
The Corn Curculto 
(Sphenophorus Zea>) has beeu found punctur¬ 
ing the stalk, but I cannot ascertain that it has 
been troublesome at any point for several 
years. 
The 
Hire Weevil, 
or, as it, is sometimes called in the Southern 
States, the Black Weevil (Culaiulra oryzae), 
does not confine its attacks to Rice, but ap¬ 
pears to l evel in the rich food it finds in the 
grains of wheat and corn. The close of the 
summer of 1878 developed the fact that, al¬ 
though a Southern species, it had found its 
way in vast numbers to the wheat fields aud 
wheat stacks of southern and central Illinois, 
and iD some instances the grains of stored 
corn were found riddled with holes by these 
minute curculios. This little species, which is 
a true curculio or Snout-weevil, is about one- 
eighth of au inch long, of a dark-brown color, 
aud very similar in size, form and color to the 
notorious European Grain weevil (Calandra 
granaria), from which it is distinguished by 
four bright red spots on the wing-covers. Its 
extension northward was doubtless caused by 
the unusually warm weather of last season ; it 
is therefore more than probable that its stay 
will be brief. The remedies which have been 
found most effectual for the European species 
will be equally applicable for the Rice weevil. 
A number of other species might be named, 
which occasionally attack Indian corn, but 
they seldom cause sufficient injury to call for 
any special effort to counteract them. 
Large Faring Fnvorniile lo Insect Pests. 
In closing, allow me to say that so long as 
the present system of cultivating this cereal in 
large areas aud year after year on the 6ame 
ground, as done in many places, prevails, so 
long may farmers expect to have a continual 
warfare with insect pests. Where the favorite 
food of a certain species is massed, year after 
year, in large bodies, it is but natural that the 
species should be attracted thither and rapidly 
develop in numbers. If it is subject to the at¬ 
tacks of parasites, these will at length follow, 
and it the season, etc., favor them, will ulti- 
inately develop in number to an extent corre¬ 
sponding with that of the insect upon which 
they prey. But they arc seldom able to accom¬ 
plish the work of destruction until the injury 
to the crop has been done. Absolutely clean 
farming, if kept up by all farmers, would, as a 
matter of course, tend largely toward prevent¬ 
ing the increase of injurious insects. But it is 
scarcely to be expected that this will ever be 
accomplished. 
Extensive farms and large fields are perhaps 
the greatest evils, or, if a milder term may be 
used, mistaken iu the American agricultural 
system. The inordinate desire of our agricul¬ 
turists to increase the size oi their farms 
has caused them to overlook the evil conse¬ 
quences which follow. One of these evil con¬ 
sequences, and the only one with which lam 
concerned at present, is that such large farms 
tend greatly to increase the number of the 
farmer's insect foes, and render it more diffi¬ 
cult to counteract them. 
If farms were small and fields small in pro¬ 
portion, the cultivation would be more thor¬ 
ough, better care would be taken of the crops 
produced, the farms would be cleaner and af¬ 
ford fewer hiding-places for insects; the soil 
would be better supplied with fertilizers aud 
thus increase the vigor of the plants, and the 
rotation of crops would be more complete. 
This would to a very great degree prevent the 
immense development we sometimes see of 
certain species of insects. Small fields, di ver¬ 
ified crops, proper rotation aud clean, thor¬ 
ough culture afford the best possible means of 
counteracting insects which are injurious to 
farm products. 
-- 
ROOT-PRUNING CORN. 
The following experiments were performed 
at the Mich. State Agr’l College during the 
summer of 1878: 
About the middle of May several plats of 
corn were planted on the same day and re¬ 
ceived the same treatment up to June 27th, 
when the process of root-pruning was com¬ 
menced. 
On one plat two rows were root-pruued, the 
next two simply cultivated without pruning, 
and so on throughout the whole plat. 
Ou another two rows were root-pruned twice 
a week aud two were cultivated twice a week. 
Others were pruned once a week aud still oth¬ 
ers every two weeks. This treatment was con¬ 
tinued until July 17th, when the dry weather 
prevented any further pruning 
The following are the results of these plats 
as found by weighing the seed. The figures 
given are the average number of bushels per 
acre reduced to shelled corn : 
Two rows, root-pruned twice a week.58 bush. 
“ “ cultivated •* “ 60 “ 
“ " root-pruned once a week.55 “ 
“ “ cultivated •* “ 60 “ 
“ “ root-pruned once in two weeks...58 “ 
“ “ cultivated " " “ ...08 “ 
Another plat, situated just at the end of the 
one above mentioned, was heavily manured 
and treated iu the same manner, with the fol¬ 
lowing results: 
Two rows, root-pruned twice a week.66 bush. 
“ " cultivated “ “ 72 “ 
“ “ root-pruned once a week .79 “ 
“ “ cultivated *• •* 84 *• 
“ “ root-pruned once In two weeks. ...79 “ 
“ “ cultivated “ “ “ ....85 “ 
In this experiment the largest amount of 
seed was in every instance produced by rows 
not pruned. Of course, but little weight can 
be given to the results of a single experiment. 
In other years, and on a different soil, far dif¬ 
ferent results might be produced. 
[The above is furnished us by J. Troop, who 
had charge of the experiments under the di¬ 
rection of Professor Beal.—E)>s.] 
-♦ «■■» 
NOTES FROM THE RURAL FARM. 
Experiments with Corn. 
During the summer of 1878 some experi¬ 
ments with corn were performed here. One-half 
acre was divided into twelve plate, numbered 
from one 1o twelve. Nos. 1 and 2 con¬ 
tained ono-eightb of an acre each, meas¬ 
uring 105 feet long by 83 feet wide. The 
remaining ten plats contained one-fortieth of 
au acre each, measuring 33 by 33 feet. On all 
the pints (lie corn was planted in hills, 4 by 4 
feet, with the exception of No. 1, ou which it 
was drilled in. After harvesting, stalks and 
corn were weighed, the stalks being free from 
all atmospheric moisture, aud partially dried, 
and the corn weighed in the ears—or corn and 
cob together. 
Tbe object of the experiment was to ascer¬ 
tain the comparative value of the fertilizers 
used, blit by reason of variations in the soil of 
the different plats, aud other counteracting cir¬ 
cumstances, the experiment proves hut little 
more than the already well-known fact, that 
but very little weight can be given to a single 
season's experiment; but as it may interest 
our readers, and benefit those that are too 
prone to draw, as they think, definite and re¬ 
liable conclusions from a single trial, we pub¬ 
lish the facts. 
In plat No. 1 (containing one-eighth of au 
acre) the corn was plunted In drills, four feet 
apart, and about six inches between each ker¬ 
nel, and manured with Mapes’a corn manure In 
the drills. This plat produced 700 lbs. of corn 
and 5)00 lbs. of stalks. 
In No. 2 (one-eighth of an acre) the corn was 
planted iu hills and manured with phosphate 
of lime in the hills. It produced 600 lbs. of 
corn and 640 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 3 (one-fortieth of an acre), manured with 
Mapes’s corn manure iu the hills, produced 122 
lbs. of corn and 120 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 4 (one-fortieth of an acre) was manured 
with stable manure in the hills, and produced 
120 lbs. of corn and 126 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 5 (one-fortieth of an acre), manured in 
the hills with Mapes’s complete manure, pro¬ 
duced 120 lbs. of corn and 120 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 6 (one-fortieth of an acre), fertilized with 
a handful of Mapes’s corn manure in each hill, 
produced 130 lbs. of corn and 140 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 7 (one-fortieth of an acre) was fertilized 
with Mapos'snitrate of soda and dissolved bone- 
black in the hills, and produced 125 lbs. of 
corn and 130 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 8 (one-fortieth of an acre; was manured 
with a handful of Mapes’ corn manure in each 
hill; from it were gathered 140 tbs. of corn 
and 136 lbs. of stalks. 
On plat No. 5) the corn was planted in hills, 
as in the others, but manured with phosphate 
of lime sown broadcast over the plat and raked 
in. It produced 160 lbs. of corn and 144 lbs. of 
stalks. 
No. 10, adjacent to No. 9, aud manured in 
the hills with Mapes’s nitrate of soda and dis¬ 
solved boneblack, produced the same amount 
—160 lbs. of corn and 144 lbs. of stalks. 
No. 11 (one-fortieth of an acre) was manured 
with a handful of phosphate of lime in each 
bill, and produced 140 lbs. of corn and 130 lbs. 
of stalks. 
On No. 12 (one-fortieth of an acre), which is 
a very flat and low plat, the corn was planted 
in hills, as before, but without any fertilizer 
whatever, and gave 125 lbs. of corn and 126 lbs. 
of stalks. 
Plat No. 1 (corn drilled in) averaged 152 lbs. 
of corn to each one-fortieth of an aero, while 
Nos. 3 and 6, which were manured with the 
same kind of fertilizer, only averaged 126 lbs. 
—one. 122 lbs. aud the other 130 lbs. So, to ac¬ 
count for the yield in No. 1, it seems reason¬ 
able to give more credit to the drilling than to 
the fertilizer. 
Again, No. 2 (one-eighth of au acre, adjaeent 
to No. 1), which was fertilized iu the hills with 
phosphate of lime, averaged but 120 lbs. of 
corn to each one-fortieth of an acre, and No. 
11 (the same fertilizer) gave 140 lb6., while No. 
12, with no fertilizer at all, produced 125 lbs. 
CORN AND ITS CULTIVATION. 
The pollen from the tassel falls upon and 
fertilizes the silk and the silk the grain. If 
from weakness or other causes the silk fails to 
come out of the husk to be impregnated by tlic 
pollen the corn fails to appear or develop on 
the cob ; hence the vacant rows so frequently 
seen ou the cob. 
A further examination of the stalk shows an 
ear. or the commencement ot an ear, on every 
joint that lias a groove. Generally about two- 
thirds have it, and iu every one is seen an em¬ 
bryo ear undeveloped. The question arises 
right hero, why this incomplete development ? 
I have contended for several years that every 
such organization would develop on every 
grooved joint wore proper attention given to 
selecting and sowing seed, to proper culture 
and proper plant-food. 
Like all other cereals, corn has so deterio¬ 
rated by bad treatment that it has not health 
enough to mature even one good ear to the 
stalk. With ordinary treatment all other 
grasses develop their heads or ears to some 
extent, aud why should not corn do the same ? 
For several years I have been giving corn and 
wheat some attention. I find corn susceptible 
of much greater improvement than most farm¬ 
ers are willing to admit. It is not in the prov¬ 
ince of this article to give the results of experi¬ 
ments. I will, however, give one to prove that 
there is much room for improvement of corn. 
Several years ago I commenced selecting my 
seed corn in (he field, taking only those stalks 
that ripened earliest aud that had not less than 
two good ears. These were cut up as soon ar 
the husk was brown aud the ear well glazed, 
aud shocked in the field to cure. After stand¬ 
ing a month or more the top ears only were 
saved for seed. 
Great care should be taken iu selecting not 
only those stalks that have the greatest num¬ 
ber of ears, but those that look most like corn 
—nice, trim, uniform, vigorous aud healthy. 
Large over-grown stalks arc too gross and too 
sterile—they cannot be made prolific. The re¬ 
sult of this method of saving seed, together 
with proper culture; has increased my yield 
ou the same six acres, in six years, from 20 to 
75 bushels per acre. 
Before treating of the soil, l will give an ac¬ 
count of the actual loss most farmers sustain 
iu “pulling fodder,” “ cutting tops,” and let¬ 
ting their corn dry up in the field before it is 
gathered. Fodder-pulliug iujuros the grain 
nearly 13 per cent., cutting tops nine per cent., 
and by lettiug the whole crop dry up in the 
field, it loses 20 per cent, of its own weight. 
So you 6ee by this slip-shod way of treating 
the best and surest crop we have we lose nearly 
50 per cent, of it all. How shall we save it 
then ? you ask. In a very simple way. When 
fodder-pulling time comes and the ears are 
well glazed, iustead of taking the blades off, 
cut the stalks up close to the ground, aud 
shock immediately iu bunches the wind can¬ 
not twist or blow down. In this way the fod¬ 
der is all saved, and the stalk too. The liusk 
is much better and the corn loses nothing, but 
makes much better food, much better feed, 
much better seed and much more money. 
“ But," you say, “ it will shrivel and become 
loose ou the cob.” Not a bit of it! All the 
substance of the stalk at the time of cutting i6 
absorbed by the ear, and it is matured in the 
same way that wheat is when cut iu the dough 
state. This method insures the fall weight, 
and saves the 20 per cent, lost by the old plan. 
Another item. The stalk fodder aud husk 
cured in this way are worth at least $3 per tou 
to any farmer, whereas, if left to die in the 
field, they will not amount from a hundred 
acres to a day’s wages. 
Any soil eau be made to produce corn, pro¬ 
vided it is not too wet. Soils differ so materi¬ 
ally even ou the same farm, that the farmer, 
to produce good crops, lias to make them a 
real study. Once knowing them, and what 
they need and demand, he very easily increases 
the yield. For corn, land should be plowed, 
turning the sod only as deep as tlio grass roots 
extend, at tbe same time subsoiliug with a 
heavy subsoiler and a strong team. The best 
fertilizer a farmer of limited means can use 
for his com crop can be made behind his cows. 
Straw, chaff, leaves, muck, surface soil, barn¬ 
yard scrapings, refuse of every description, 
well tempered with the droppings and manure 
water of the cow stalls make as good compost 
as the farmer ueeds. Ilia compost heap must 
be kept under cover, and should be turned over 
at least once a month. The straw, chaff aud 
leavoB should not, he throwu upon the heap 
until the cattle have well wet them. 
In conclusion, I must urge upou my brother 
farmers the importance of putting in less land 
and preparing it better. With good seed, one 
acre well cultivated will yield 50 bushels, which 
gives infinitely more satistaetiou and is doue 
with much less labor and expeuse than the 
skimming over of ten acres with the same re¬ 
sult. Almost any of our upland soils can be 
made to produce 50 bushels by a little scientific 
culture and saving of seed. A. E. Blunt. 
East Tennessee. 
POSSIBLE YIELD OF CORN. 
HENRY STEWART. 
Blunt’s White Prolific. 
The remarks in the Rural New Yorker of 
January, on page 12, on “Excessive Yields of 
Corn," prompt me to state my experience the 
past, two seasons. In 1877. 1 planted one-tenth 
of an acre accurately measured, wllli a variety 
of corn known as “ western horse tooth.” The 
plat was fertilized with 50 pounds of Mapes’s 
corn manure. The soil was poor and had uot 
been cultivated the previous year. It was, 
however, possessed of considerable latent fer¬ 
tility, which was doubtless developed by the 
action of the fertilizer. The corn was planted 
in the usual manner, with three grains of seed 
to each hill, and the hills were three feet apart. 
The crop gathered amounted, when shelled, to 
nine bushels by measure. In 1878 the same 
ground with a piece of somewhat less size 
adjoiuing, which had been in potatoes in 1877, 
was again planted to corn. Tbe whole plat 
covered 7776 square feet or a little more than 
one-sixth of an acre. There were 857 hills, thus 
giving about 4800 to the acre, which was the 
intention, the hills being as nearly as possible 
three feet apart. The variety planted was a 
corn known as White Prolific, (Blunt’s White 
Prolific. Eds.) grown in East Tennessee, by a 
gentleman who has been for some years ex¬ 
perimenting in llie improvement of tills grain, 
and which has the peculiarity of bearing sev¬ 
eral ears upon each stalk. I have sent you 
two stalks from one hill which have four ears 
each. The ground was fertilized with 100 
pounds of the Mupes’s Corn manure, which is 
compounded on a formula intended to provide 
exact!}’ for the needs of the corn crop for grain 
production. No other manure of any kind 
was used. The crop when harvested yielded 
43 baskets weighing 40 pounds each. After 
two months the corn was shelled, one basket¬ 
ful at a time; the majority of the baskets 
yielded more than a level half bushel and the 
whole product measured 25 bushels and nearly 
four quarts of shelled corn. A little figuring 
will show that this is equal to nearly 150 bush¬ 
els of grain per acre. Some of the hills from 
which I cut specimen stalks—such as I have 
sent herewith—yielded three pints of shelled 
corn. The corn produced no suckers, or at 
least every sucker that appeared was removed 
at once. In the cultivation, there was no 
“newfangled" method or such as might be 
thought so—as root pruning, etc.; the ground 
was kept free from weeds and was loosened 
occasionally by a hand cultivator passed both 
ways through the rows. 
In the article referred to, it is suggested that 
“ an abundance of potash and phosphoric acid 
is the right condition for developing multiple 
earage." This is undoubtedly true, and as the 
fertilizer used in my experiments coutaincd 
these elements chiefly aud but little nitrogen, 
this corroborates the view taken. This variety 
of corn has, I believe, beeu carefully cultivated 
for several years, so as to fix this habit of 
multiple earing upon it; and in general bears 
more cars than it averaged with me. One 
stalk, which was unfortunately missed iu the 
gathering, and was husked in my absence, 
bore seven c€rs, growing alone in a hill. What 
one man can do another may. If this Tennes¬ 
see experimenter cau grow corn with so many 
ears upon it, others can if they will take the 
trouble, and if by proper fertilizing, as much 
as 90 bushels of common corn and 150 bushels 
of improved corn cau be grown upon au acre 
of ground, there is hope that farmers may 
largely iucrcasc their average yield. They 
need not fear to oversupply the market. Such 
a fear is a mere “bugaboo,” and never yet 
troubled a farmer and never will. Corn is 
uow iu demaud all over Europe as feed for 
horses and fattening cattle, and at present 
prices the markot is almost unlimited. Two 
thousand millions of bushels—when we shall 
reach that -will be no lnirdeu ou the market, 
aud the great object with farmers should be to 
grow as much as possible at the least cost; 100 
bushels ou one acre may be grown at one-third 
the cost of 100 bushels on four acres, allowing 
for increased cost of fertilizing, husking and 
&helling. The extra cost of my 25 bushels was 
simply the fertilizer, worth about $2 75; and 
this undoubtedly returned two-thirds of the 
crop for its share. To repeat your closing 
sentence : “These things are worth studying." 
-♦»» 
BLUNT’S WHITE PROLIFIC. 
Fort Collins, Feb. 10, 1879. 
Eds. Rural New-Yorker :—Your letter of 
the 3d just received. I can give you no other 
hibtory of my Prolific Corn than the inclos¬ 
ed, which I carefully cut from “Killobrew's 
Grasses of Tennessee.” I made my corn all it is 
by science. First, a thorough knowledge of the 
habits of the plant; seeoud, a thorough knowl¬ 
edge of the laws thut govern the plant; third, 
its demands, viz., what plant food Is best suited 
to It; fourth, soil, &e. 
So far as the prolific nature of the plant is 
concerned, J aui satisfied my theory Is correct, 
Yiz., that every joint that has a groove should 
