1902 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
35 
THE ENGINE ON THE FARM. 
Many farmers with a variety of machinery realize the 
value of a steady farm engine which can be hauled about 
from place to place as desired. The situation as stated 
by one of our Pennsylvania readers is a typical one. 
The question is—will a five-horse power gasoline engine 
do the work? 
In our neighborhood we have only three farmers 
who have silos. Two of these farmers have steam 
power, one an eight horse-power, the other 10. These 
men have over 20 cows each. I intended to put in a 
silo. Our institute speaker spent a long time showing 
us how to save $15 or $20 in building silos. I counted 
it up and found it would cost me about $100 for silo, 
then $350 for engine, and about $125 for cutter, be¬ 
sides the cost of filling. Now, I would not mind this 
expense if I could use the machines other times in a 
year. What I mean is, if I had a five horse-power 
gasoline engine I could use it in cutting fodder, lit¬ 
ter, etc., thrashing being an item of importance, for 
had I an engine this year I would have saved over 
$100 in wheat alone. I thrashed about 20 bushels out 
after harvest; it was and remained good, but the 
weather was so hot I was afraid of overheating a 
horse on the tread power, so discontinued until the 
moth has ruined three-fourths of it. I saw a Dick 
blower No. 12 run by an eight horse-power gasoline 
engine. The engineer told me he was only using five 
horse-power. I know this was running all right. Of 
course the difference of two horse-power might not 
seem much, but it adds over $100 to price, and makes 
more expense in running. I do not want, when filling, 
to rush as our neighbors do in theirs, getting all the 
men they can, because I shall have much less to fill, 
and wish to do it with our own help, doing possibly 
15 tons a day. I wish to tell you what the man with¬ 
out the engine did this Fall. After getting the 
promise of an engine early in the season he was sure 
he was all right, but when he wanted his corn cut the 
engine was running a thrasher. Everyone wanted 
thrashing done—this at seven cents per bushel. This 
engine could thrash out 200 or more bushels. We 
need hardly expect him to bring it for $5 per day, 
so he was disappointed day after day for two weeks; 
not only the loss of time but he could do nothing else, 
as he expected the engine every day. Then when he 
opened the silo over six feet was spoiled, the corn 
being too ripe, while his neighbors’ was excellent. 
Thus we cannot depend on this motive power, but 
will have to have our own. 
EXPERIENCE WITH ICE HOUSES. 
I don’t agree with C. E. C. on storing ice, page 851, 
volume, of 1901. My experience dates back to the early 
sixties. When a mere boy I lined up one end of an 
old hogpen and filled in width of frame (about 12 
inches) with old refuse tan bark. When completed 
it was only about 8x9x10 feet deep. This was among 
the first ice houses in this county. Since that time 1 
have built three others upon different plans, one be¬ 
ing concrete, with nine feet underground at back end. 
It kept ice very well. The next or third was six inches 
outside or width of frame air chamber, paper on first 
ceiling; then eight-inch space filled with sawdust. 
This was a good ice house and is my ideal plan. The 
fourth I left air chamber same as the last, or my 
third; then paper, and upon this nailed l^-inch strips 
up and down, paper on these strips and ceiling over 
paper. This plan does not keep ice as well as thd 
third. If I ever build another I shall adopt my ideal 
plan, the third, and not listen to some other fellow 
as I did when planning for the fourth. I always use 
chestnut, good pine, or White oak for frame, unless 
for the upper timbers, and also upper ceiling. All 
ceiling boards from ground up six feet I use chestnut. 
Anyone who has had experience with buildings should 
know that hemlock is poor stuff for sills and lower 
timbers, where lasting qualities are taken into con¬ 
sideration. However, no matter what plan I have 
built after, or how differently I store the ice from 
C. E. C., we always have plenty. In this section, 
northern Orange County, I have gathered 10 to 11-inch 
ice as early as December 9, this season, and during 
the season of almost no ice, which was 1899 and 1890, 
the first freezing came before December 4, when there 
was five to six-inch ice. It all went out in a few days, 
and didn’t reach that thickness again that Winter. 
March 7, 8 and 10 I put in S^-inch ice from shallow 
water in my meadow. From this comparatively poor 
crop we had all the ice necessary, and ice to burn in 
November. I want an ice house so constructed that 
there is no use of fooling with sawdust between ice 
and ceiling when filling, but shove every outside row 
up against the ceiling with a bang. If there is plenty 
of snow near at hand chink with it. Sometimes I don’t 
chink any worth naming, but always reverse the 
courses, so as to break joints. After house is full 
cover with sawdust at once, or at least before any 
thawing takes place. As I have already stated we al¬ 
ways have all the ice we need for both cooling milk 
and running one or two refrigerators, and some to 
sell, from a house about 12x14x12 feet, and like all 
our neighbors, fill the same in one day. 
Of course this plan for packing ice must seem jvery 
loose-jointed for C. E. C., whose well-written article 
appeared on page 851. About the only way I can see 
for him to improve on his very exact plan would be 
to have a pipe of water running in top of ice house 
night and day during a cold snap, and let the entire 
space fill with one solid mass. In order to get some 
frozen water occasionally, put in a blast; then pick 
up the slivers and finer particles that resemble hail. 
From past experience; when once filling my first ice 
house, some one told me to sprinkle on water occa¬ 
sionally (which is after C. E. C.’s plan). I did it, 
and never repeated it, and if anyone thinks of trying 
the experiment I say “don’t,” and say it so loud that 
it will make your head swim, unless you want to have 
about every cake come out as already described, in 
slivers and hail. Sometimes we can’t avoid putting 
in ice wet; this and leaving it uncovered during a 
warm spell will often give the same most trying re¬ 
sults. s. J. B. 
Orange Co., N. Y. 
RYE VS. WHEAT FOR PENNSYLVANIA. 
On page 841, December 14 last, C. F. B. gives figures 
about the cost of wheat in central New York State. 
jag* 
FRUIT OF PASSIONFLOWER (MAYPOP). Fig. 17. 
See Ruralisms, Page 38. 
I believe that 40 out of 50 farmers here have lost 
money in growing wheat, the past five to eight years, 
for, in southern Pennsylvania, wheat cannot be raised 
for less than 75 cents per bushel. The price of wheat 
has averaged not over 65 cents for 60 pounds No. 1, 
and No. 2 50 cents. The greater part of the wheat 
being sampled for No. 2 brings 50 cents, and farmers 
were obliged to take 50 cents or feed to their stock, 
consequently they have lost from 15 to 25 cents per 
bushel. True it is, the farmer must raise such crops 
as will give him the necessary straw for bedding to 
endeavor to enlarge the manure pile, without it the 
farmer cannot keep up the fertility of his soil. I 
quit growing wheat four years ago and began grow¬ 
ing Mammoth white rye in place of it, and find more 
profit and satisfaction in the grain. What a pile of 
straw from a 50-acre field of rye, more so than a 70- 
acre field of wheat will yield, which will enlarge the 
manure pile twofold, and enlarge the rye crop also. 
Yet the Hope Farm man says that the mineral ele¬ 
ments in rye straw are too slow for fertilization, and 
he is radical in his opinion, as he found rye straw, 
embedded and sealed in the old mortar, of an 150- 
year-old house. That does not show that the rye 
straw is not valuable to make barnyard manure. He 
must have had in his theory an extra magnifying 
glass to distinguish whether it was wheat, rye or 
speltz straw, that was sealed in mortar of the old 
house. The price of rye was within 10 cents per 
bushel as much as No. 1 wheat sold for, and the 
greater part of it more than No. 2 wheat brought. Is 
there any reason why the farmers in central New 
York State, and in southern Pennsylvania, should 
not abandon wheat growing and substitute something 
else for at least part of their crops? l. s., sb. 
York Co., Pa. 
R- N.-Y.—At present prices we still think it will 
pay to bale and sell at least part of the rye straw. 
If all eastern farmers were to substitute rye for wheat 
there would be poor sale for the straw. The old 
masons well knew that rye gave the toughest straw 
of any grain, and we claim that it is the hardest to 
rot down and the poorest in fertility of any straw. 
THE CENTRALIZED SCHOOL AGAIN. 
Here Is One Who Believes In It. 
I read an article published in a recent number of 
The R. N.-Y. entitled “The Kid Wagon,” with much 
interest. I was surprised to learn that there was a 
community situated anywhere in the great State of 
Ohio as “Mother” writes about. If the residents of 
that district allow such a state of affairs to exist they 
must have been sadly in need of better school facili¬ 
ties in their younger days than the “old-fashioned dis¬ 
trict school” of that particular Ohio district, as no 
community in any civilized portion of the globe would 
allow school children to be carted around in the man¬ 
ner “Mother” describes unless its residents are pos¬ 
sessed of a low state of intelligence or utter lack of 
even a common school education. Let us hope that 
the present younger generation of that district will 
be better educated by attending the “centralized 
school”; then in all probability the future children of 
that district will be conveyed to and from school in 
a manner more in keeping with decency and civiliza¬ 
tion. Here in New York State we do not do business 
in that style. The district in which I reside voted at 
the annual school meeting during the Summer of 1900 
to have the children of our district conveyed and tui¬ 
tion paid to the high school of an adjoining district, 
thus giving the children better school advantages at 
no larger cost to the taxpayers. We hired a careful 
man to convey the children daily, and he was required 
to give bond to convey them promptly and safely. At 
8:30 A. M. the children met at the district school 
house, which was kept warmed by the janitor in Win¬ 
ter, or the immediate vicinity, and the wagon was 
nearly always ready at that hour. At about 4:30 P. 
M. they were returned at the school house again, thus 
they had no farther to walk than when they attended 
the district school. While the vehicle used was an 
open one (the district not wishing to go to the ex¬ 
pense of getting a covered wagon the first year, as it 
was an experiment) it was well supplied with robes 
and blankets. As the driver was stipulated by con¬ 
tract to preserve decorum and order, there was no un¬ 
becoming talk or actions such as “Mother” describes 
on the part of the children allowed, as we intended 
their behavior while on the road should correspond 
equally as well with that while at school. 
The result of this method was eminently satisfac¬ 
tory. The total average attendance during the pre¬ 
vious year at the district school was three, while the 
total average attendance during the past year under 
the new system was eight. After paying the tuition, 
janitor’s fees and the cost of transportation, it was 
found that the total expenses were about one-fourth 
less. However, at the next school meeting it was 
voted by a small majority to discontinue the system 
that had worked so well, and instead to open up the 
district school house again for the present year. Those 
voting against the conveyance of the children for an¬ 
other year did so more on account of personal rea¬ 
sons, as the children and parents, with two or three 
exceptions, were very much in favor of continuing 
the plan of attending the high school. Those voting 
against and thereby defeating the transportation plan 
were mostly those who had no children of school age. 
The uniting of a weak district with an adjoining 
strong one is certainly beneficial to the weaker one, 
as the schools of many of the smaller districts are not 
much better than no school at all, as everyone knows 
who is at all conversant with the actual situation. 
The only reason whatever on which to base an ob¬ 
jection to the “centralizing” system, as I can see, is 
the blockheaded and unsystematic way they do the 
business in “Mother’s” district in Ohio. w. j. w. 
Cobleskill, N. Y. 
POLITICS AND PARTISANSHIP.—There is one thing 
about The R. N.-Y. I do not find in other farm papers 
that I like particularly, and that is the political points 
that it brings up and the way they are treated. Although 
I seldom agree with the writer on any one of his expressed 
opinions, I believe he is doing a great thing in teaehing 
his readers to think on these subjects. It seems to me 
that if there is anything that the average citizen of this 
country should study it is politics as distinguished from 
partisanship. f. w. ii. 
Maine. 
