1902 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
367 
EARLY-CUT HAY; CLOVER WANTED. 
Effect on Milk Flow. 
The amount of milk produced by a herd of milch 
cows does not always depend upon the grain ration. 
Early-cut hay, not too coarse, taken in without rain 
or too much drying, if it has kept nicely, will 
produce a good flow of milk with much less grain than 
that which has ripened more. This we had a chance 
to test recently, when changing from a mow of early- 
cut hay. There were a few loads of late-cut on the 
second mow and this kind of hay, although sweet and 
nice in every respect except that it was cut late, caused 
a falling off of from 15 to 20 per cent in the milk. The 
cows regained the loss after we drew the late-cut hay 
to the horse barn, and commenced feeding the cows 
on the early-cut down a little in the mow. It has 
been stated in reputable papers that the early-cut hay 
contains more protein than that cut later in the sea¬ 
son. I asked the speaker at the institute about that 
and he said it was not true; that the early-cut is more 
palatable and the cows eat more and do better, that is 
all. I presume he is right. We were feeding a fair 
amount of protein in the grain feed anyway. Palata- 
bility made a big difference, and the cows told us 
about it right along. 
While we were talking about the questions of pala- 
tability, protein and kindred topics, the hired man 
asked whether there is any milk in clover hay. I said 
if I could get all the nice, early-cut clover hay I want¬ 
ed I wouldn’t ask very much odds of Timothy, or even 
the grain dealer. I might want a little grain; the 
problem is to get the clover. There are some dairy 
farmers who do not believe in trying to produce pro¬ 
tein foods on the farm, but depend upon buying them 
at the feed store. To those who wish to produce their 
own protein, the question of growing clover and Al¬ 
falfa seems to be of most importance. Why is it that 
we can’t grow them? The R. N.-Y. has had much to 
say about clover. T. B. Terry, about two years ago, 
went through all of this section attending insti¬ 
tutes, explaining the uses of clover, and tell¬ 
ing us how to get it. So far as I am aware we 
haven’t had much better results since. Cannot 
we get from the numerous correspondents of The 
R. N.-Y. more definite information that we can 
apply without too much risk? Our soil is sour, 
and some people say that clover will not grow in 
a sour soil. Is this absolutely true? If so, how 
are we to correct it? We are usually told to use 
lime or ashes if the soil is sour. I know from 
experience that ashes tell well on our soil. But 
if a man is paying interest will it profit him to 
hire money to buy ashes? Many a farmer isn’t 
in such a condition, financially, as to take many 
risks with impunity. Again, would we get clover 
by applying ashes or lime? Probably we might 
if the soil isn’t too wet, and other conditions are 
right. One of the experiment station men in¬ 
formed me that if we can’t grow clover it is prob¬ 
ably because we haven’t enough humus in the 
soil, and that we should turn under some soiling 
crop. But won’t that make the soil all the more 
sour? What shall we turn under? We can grow 
rye, corn, oats, buckwheat, etc., if we use stable ma¬ 
nure. Are any of these suitable? Some recommend 
cow peas, but I do not even know that cow peas will 
grow here. Perhaps it would be well to try them. 
[It surely would.—R. N.-Y.] 
Another, a representative from the agricultural 
college, says oon’t turn anything under; simply plow 
in Summer, then harrow frequently through the Fall 
and sow the seed in the Spring. The frequent harrow¬ 
ing will bring the soil to the air and the sunshine, cor¬ 
rect the acidity, liberate plant food, and enable us to 
grow the clover. We can get advice, but it mostly 
comes from those who haven’t had practical experi¬ 
ence under conditions similar to ours. The business 
men in town can tell me most about farming of any 
people. The hardware man said, a farmer should pro¬ 
duce everything on his farm. I asked him if he made 
his pails, wash basins, etc. He said he didn’t, for 
he could buy them cheaper. 1 told him that I could 
buy protein cheaper than I could produce it, but l 
don’t know whether that is true. h. h. lyon. 
Delaware Co., N. Y. 
MAPES, THE HEN MAN. 
Various Questions. 
DEAD-AIR SPACE FOR LICE.—Here is a question 
from Pennsylvania: 
What would be the best to fill a dead-air space in a 
hen house to prevent lice? w. G. m. 
W. G. M. might as well spend his time “barking at 
the moon” as to try to prevent lice in any such way. 
Eternal vigilance is the only thing to put in that dead- 
air space, and it will do no good there, unless it is 
also freely applied to the perches. Cleanliness, and a 
free use of. sorne o,f the many good lice-killers, will. 
do the business. Any kind of grease or oil is sure 
death to a louse. I once thought I had solved the 
problem, by coating the perches with coal tar. This 
is a good coating to apply to new perches, as it fills 
all cracks and hiding places, but it soon hardens, and 
the lice will live and thrive on dry coal tar as well 
as on any other surface. There is a popular supersti¬ 
tion that sassafras poles make a louse-proof perch. 
It has been disproved, however, time and again. A 
few hens in a house fitted with sassafras poles may 
be free from lice for a long time. This is due more 
often to the “few hens” than to the particular kind of 
wood in the poles. Where large flocks are allowed to 
roost together, do not neglect to use my prescription, 
which is “eternal vigilance.” 
CHARCOAL FOR POULTRY—Who can answer this 
one? 
What is the best method of crushing: charcoal for poul¬ 
try? Is there a hand power machine which will do it 
rapidly? How do the large poultry men do it? 
Maine. F - c - c - 
I have never yet been able to understand why we 
should feed charcoal to hens at all. It must certainly 
be entirely indigestible, and it does not act as grit in 
the gizzard. It may perhaps have some power of ab¬ 
sorbing poisonous gases in the intestines, and thus act 
as a medicine. My own hens do not seem to care for 
it, although they will eat large amounts of coal ashes. 
Some of the older styles of bone mills ought to reduce 
it to suitable size rapidly. Our own practice has been 
to sift all the coal ashes available, and keep the dust 
boxes frequently filled with the finest ashes. They 
make a very good dust bath, and most of the coaisei 
particles are eaten by the hens. Whether or not they 
have the power to convert any part of them into shell 
material I do not know. The droppings on the tables 
always show the effects of their eating the charred 
coals the next morning after a fresh supply has been 
placed in the dust boxes. The coarser portions of the 
coal ashes are scattered about the fields in the vicinity 
of the poultry houses, and make a favorite scratching 
ground for the hens when at liberty. 
SINGLE-COMB BIRDS.— This is a fair question: 
Mapes, the hen man’s, articles in The R. N.-Y. have 
been read with increasing interest for years, and much 
learned from his experiments and observation with his 
single-comb white biddies. But why the single-comb 
instead of the rose-comb Leghorns, as he says in last 
week's article that the single-comb of the cockerel is 
an objection for broilers. Mr. Mapes may have given 
his Reasons for this preference in some former article 
that is forgotten, as at 74 years I find memory uncertain. 
We have rose-comb white Leghorns and white Wyan- 
dottes, and are trying a cross of Leghorns on the Wyan- 
dottes to reduce the scary habit of the Leghorns if 
possible. We don’t know yet about the egg yield, but 
they are less flighty and nervous. w. h. a. 
Connecticut. 
The point raised by W. H. A. is one that has never 
occurred to me before. Very few of the rose-combed 
White Leghorns have ever come under my notice. 
Turn back to the paper referred to, and you will no¬ 
tice that I said, in speaking of the White Wyandottes, 
that “the only point of superiority about the breed 
for the broiler trade is the small double comb.” Place 
the accent on the word small, and there is not much 
force left to the point made by W. H. A. in favor of 
the rose-comb White Leghorns. The specimens I have 
seen have had quite as “beefy” combs I think, as the 
single-comb breeds. It is the size, rather than the 
form, which makes the comb of the single-comb White 
Leghorns an objection for fancy broilers. Such men 
as Wyckoff, Knapp Bros., Blanchard, etc., have taken 
special pains in developing the egg-laying qualities of 
the single-coiub White Leghorns, and I have diawn on 
those strains of blood in building up my strain of 
business birds. The eggs are what bring most of the 
bread and butter at Maple Dale Farm, We only raise 
broilers because we have to, in order to get pullets. 
When some one shows us how to discard the egg that 
contains an embryo rooster, the millenium for the 
poultryman will be closer at hand. 
BROODY HENS.—How long does it take to break 
up the broody fever in a hen, and how is it best ac¬ 
complished? Can it be done without having her lose 
any time from egg production? 
A hen becomes broody because there is an instinc¬ 
tive effort of life to perpetuate its species. This ef¬ 
fort is put forth only under home-like surroundings. 
Destroy her home-like surroundings and the current 
of life soon flows back into the channel of egg pro¬ 
duction. If she is allowed to indulge her propensity 
to sit, her ovaries become dormant, and the partly- 
developed eggs are re-absorbed in the system. If this 
occurs, time will be required to get the egg-producing 
machinery into shape again. For this reason it pays 
to remove the broody hen from her nest at once, and 
place her in surroundings as much changed as is pos¬ 
sible. I have frequently taken a broody hen the same 
day she first showed any broody symptoms, removed 
her to new and strange quarters, and had her con¬ 
tinue to lay without skipping a day, although she 
would “cluck” for several days. For this reason we 
have decided that the time spent each evening closing 
the doors is time well spent, since this is the best 
opportunity to remove all broody hens from the nests. 
This avoids the danger of having the nests become 
lousy and prevents waste of time by broody hens. We 
have crowded our hens up to 900 eggs a day, and shall 
defer trying to close the doors by pulling a wire. 
O. W. MAPES. 
PRIVATE RIGHTS IN FLOWING WATER. 
The note referring to the ownership of water courses 
which appears in The R. N.-Y., page 296, brings up an 
interesting question. The common law gives no full 
ownership in flowing water passing through the lands 
of any person. Water thus in motion is as free 
as air for all to use, but not to divert from 
its course so much as to deprive a lower proprie¬ 
tor the use of it. Springs are private property, 
and the actual point of difference between private 
and public ownership in flowing water depends 
on the capacity of the flow. If it is sufficient only 
for the actual personal needs of a proprietor of 
land on which it rises, it is his property; but if 
it rises on a neighbor’s land and flows through 
other lower properties, the water is common prop¬ 
erty, and must not be diverted from its course for 
irrigation. This rule is in accordance with that 
controlling the light of the sun. No one may law¬ 
fully build a wall on his line in such a way as to 
prevent the light from entering a neighbor’s 
window as fully as it will naturally. Nor may 
any one obstruct the free circulation of air around 
a neighboring house by means of walls or build¬ 
ings without the leave of the neighbor. 
As to the question involved in the note re¬ 
ferred to, the law is quoted in Stewart’s book on 
irrigation as laid down by a Massachusetts court, 
and referred to in the report of Massachusetts 
Agricultural Society in 1872. This was in a case aris¬ 
ing out of the diversion of a flowing stream passing 
through adjacent properties; the decision of which 
was this: Any individual having a spring arising on 
his land may use the whole of it for his own purposes 
if he desires, to satisfy his own natural wants. It he 
desires to use the water for artificial purposes—and 
irrigation is such a purpose—he must at least leave 
sufficient for the natural uses of lower proprietors, 
but not necessarily for irrigation. As water—likq air 
—is a necessary of life, no one may stop the flow of it 
going througn adjoining properties for any other pur¬ 
pose than actual necessaries of life for the owner or 
his stock. He may not even impound it in a pond, 
tnus wasting it by evaporation, and the flow must not 
be interfered with beyond the taking of such a supply 
as is essentially necessary for ordinary uses of the 
farm or household. But none of it may be used for 
irrigation or manufactures. As to irrigation in the 
West it is clearly within the province of the para¬ 
mount owner of the land, the United States, but not 
for any single State to divert the whole of a stream 
into reservoirs for irrigation, and so destroy the nat¬ 
ural course of flow. And if there should be but one 
actual owner of land on the course of such a stream, 
not even the United States has power to divert the 
water so as to deprive this one owner of his actual 
needful supply, even for irrigation, without his per¬ 
mission and compensation. The laws in the case are 
very clear; and are all based on this simple propo¬ 
sition: “All persons may use their own property in 
any way they may desire, so that there is no interfer¬ 
ence with, or injury done to, the rights of others.” 
HENRY STEW art. 
