78:2 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
November 22 
orchards will never give two bushels of Ben Davis for 
one bushel of any other variety now produced. Then 
the Ben Davis has a monopoly of the market after 
other varieties are all gone, owing to its good keeping 
qualities. Men come here from London, Liverpool 
and other foreign markets to buy our apples, knowing 
full well that Ben Davis is about all we have to offer. 
Our apples sold this year for from 25 to 35 cents, 
culls and all, on the trees, leaving the farmer nothing 
to do but pocket the money. ii. m. Wallace. 
Barry Co., Mo. 
WHY I TAKE THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
I presume my postman has asked that question 
many times and has wondered why I, a teacher in a 
large city high school, should take a farmer’s paper. 
I was born on a farm and lived and worked on it till 
I was 21 years old. My father did not have much 
money above what was necessary to supply us with 
the necessities of life, but my home was a happy one, 
and I learned to love the farm and the life of the 
farmer. A life of 20 years in the city has not been 
long enough for me to forget my first love, and I hope 
in the near future to own a good farm, to which I can 
retire before I am worn out. These are the reasons 
why I take a farm paper. 
I subscribed to The R. N.-Y. first because my father 
had taken it, and I nad early learned to like it. I have 
taken other farm papers only to have my first opinions 
confirmed, and I now take it alone, because I find its 
teachings practical; they coincide with my personal 
experience on the farm. I believe its editors are honest, 
and I believe that with my experience I could take 
their suggestions and work them out successfully on 
a farm. I have the feeling that the paper is being 
managed for the benefit of its patrons; that its editors 
have no pet theories to exploit, but that they seek to 
place before their readers the best fruits of study and 
experience of careful experimenters and successful 
farmers. 
I take The R. N.-Y. because it covers all depart¬ 
ments of farm life. I cannot say which department 
I like best, but I read them all and enjoy them all. I 
do not wish to be understood as saying that I accept 
everything that I read in its columns as the best for 
my personal use, but even when I disagree I usually 
find that the mental argument has developed some 
thought of practical value. z. 
AN EXPERIENCE WITH ROOT PRUNING. 
We have read with interest the articles on the 
Hitchings orchards. In March, 1899, the writer set 
out (at Mountain Grove, Mo.) an orchard of 1,000 apple 
and peach trees, using small trees, the roots of which 
were pruned as follows; all tap roots cut to about six 
inches, all remaining laterals to one-half inch or less, 
and the tops to about 10 inches, after which they were 
planted with a dibble in well prepared soil. The sea¬ 
son being favorable they grew nicely, with scarcely 
any loss. The after care consisted of frequent shallow 
cultivation with the Planet Jr. These trees by Pall 
had made a good average growth. The Aext season 
(1900) the orchard was not plowed but otherwise 
cultivated the same as the previous year, peas being 
drilled between the rows in June both years, and 
cultivated with the trees. At the close of the second 
season these trees would compare favorably with any 
in the vicinity set same time, though in most cases 
much larger trees were set. On digging some of these 
root-pruned trees, however (to make room for some 
chestnut trees), it was found that they had not rooted 
any deeper than those ordinarily set, the roots of the 
peach trees at least, instead of having a downward 
tendency had spread out within six to eight inches of 
the surface. We decided that the surface rooting of 
these trees was caused partly by too frequent cultiva¬ 
tion, holding the moisture too near the surface, and 
partly by lack of aeration and available plant food 
in the subsoil. In order to make a test of this, if pos¬ 
sible, the following Spring (1901) we planted out 50 
apple grafts, the first lot of which were set in deeply 
spaded and well pulverized soil, the second lot in holes 
driven with an iron bar in hard soil two feet deep and 
filled with rich top soil. The third lot were set the 
same as the second except that the holes were only 
driven deep enough to accommodate the grafts, which 
in each case had the soil well tamped about the roots 
(and below them in the deep holes), with a small 
tamping stick. The third lot, probably as a result of 
late setting and an early drought, all died, while those 
in the second lot lived as well as those in the first, 
which were well cultivated, while second and third 
lots were only lightly hoed in a four-foot circle. On 
examining these grafts late in September it was found 
that those in the first lot had not rooted any deeper 
than those formerly set in orchard; while those in the 
second lot had from one to three roots, one or more 
of which in nearly every case had penetrated as deep 
as the holes were driven. Fig. 318 illustrates a tree 
from each of these plots. A represents the surface of 
the ground, B the depth soil was plowed in form¬ 
er years, while C shows the depth of the driven holes. 
How the grafts in these driven holes would have 
behaved in a wet season we are not prepared to say, 
but if we were planting another orchard with our 
present knowledge we would set in hard ground or 
sod in deep holes dug with post auger and filled with 
rich top soil. J. f. jones. 
Florida. _ 
MAPES, THE HEN MAN. 
EGG-SHELL MATERIAL.—A subscriber asks: 
“Would ground dry bone be better than crushed oyster 
HOW ROOT-PRUNED TREES GROW. Fig. 318. 
shells for egg shells?” While it is doubtless true that 
hens can utilize dry cracked bone for shell-forming 
material, I do not believe it is superior to or even 
CLOSE-PRUNED KIEFFER PEAR TREE. Fig. 319. 
See Ruralisms, Page 786. 
equal to crushed oyster shells. A hen that is laying 
regularly has urgent need for shell-forming material. 
Shut a flock of laying hens away from a supply of 
both water and oyster shells or other calcareous ma¬ 
terial for 24 hours and they will fairly rush for both, 
as soon as liberty to do so is given. This proves that 
shell-forming material should be furnished in its most 
available form. I have not a minute analysis of all 
the elements of matter found in the three substances 
at hand, but believe that oyster shells are more nearly 
identical in composition with an egg shell than are 
bones. There are more elements of matter tied up in 
combination with the bones, that must be eliminated 
before using for shell-forming by the hen. A hen 
must deposit both the white of the egg and the shell, 
in the short space of time between the laying of two 
eggs. Hence the importance of having them in their 
most available form. Much the same problem is in¬ 
volved as in the releasing of the nitrogen of organic 
matter from its combination with carbon, etc., before 
it becomes available as plant food. The R. N.-Y. has 
recently made this quite plain. Cost considered, the 
oyster shells are surely to be preferred as a source 
of calcareous matter for egg shells. This does not im¬ 
ply, however, that bone in some form should not al¬ 
ways be included in a well-balanced ration for hens. 
A certain amount of bone-forming material is needed 
for building up the bone structure of the chick. This, 
however, is placed within the egg shell, rather than 
in the shell itself. If the food supplied is deficient in 
this respect, a little bone meal is then necessary to 
form a well-balanced ration. My opportunity for ob¬ 
servation has been confined mainly to hens of the 
Mediterranean breeds. I suspect that the chemical 
analysis differs somewhat with shells from the Asiatic 
breed, for instance. The shells seem to be less porous, 
as well as of darker color. I consider that eggs from 
Mediterranean breeds have poorer keeping qualities 
when put in cold storage for this reason. The shells 
of the Asiatic and even of the American breeds protect 
the contents better than do the more porous shells of 
the Mediterranean breeds. There may be no truth 
in this hint, but I throw it out for what it is worth. 
I note description of your water supply and desire to 
know the make of your water heater. Why not raise the 
supply at your spring four to six feet, which you can 
readily do, and put in an iron pipe (galvanized) instead 
of lead? The water at your spring can be made into a 
splendid supply by building a wall around spring making 
a stone cistern 15 to 20 feet in diameter either square or 
round, and putting in a cement bottom with a hole in the 
center (where the water comes up) about the size of a 
barrel. You want to put the wall on a good concrete 
foundation 2% to three feet in the ground. I know of 
several springs that are built up in this way, and are all 
a great success, and will last interminably. a. h. e. 
Essex Co.. N. Y. 
THE WATER PROBLEM.—Our heater is called the 
Little Giant boiler, No. 12. Price was $14. I think I 
ordered through our local dealer. We have used it 
three years, and it seems as good as ever. One scuttle 
of good coal will run it 24 hours, and keep a large 
tank of water hot. I consider lead pipe much prefer¬ 
able to galvanized iron, as it is not so likely to corrode 
and fill up. This is especially true where there is not 
much fall, as in our case. The arrangement for raising 
surface of spring described by A. H. E. would no 
doubt be excellent in cases where the vein of water is 
well defined. Many readers can doubtless try it. It 
would not work in our case, however, since the vein 
first appears farther up the valley, and flows partly 
above ground for some distance before reaching the 
point where our pipe starts. 
THOSE PURCHASED PULLETS—It is wonderful 
how much interest has been aroused in those pullets 
purchased in the New York market. They are fast 
developing into as good-looking hens as the average 
to be found on most farms. I look for as good results 
from that pen as from any with a “pedigree.” I 
think I said in former notes that I bought about 100 
chicks for a little less than $25, hoping to get 60 good 
pullets from the lot. There are yet 62 pullets left in 
the lot, which promise to make good hens. When a 
man hits the mark he ought to be satisfied. About 40 
of the lot turned out to be roosters. These have been 
fattened and weighed from three to four pounds each. 
Those with yellow legs were dressed and sent to mar¬ 
ket along with our White Leghorns, selling for 20 
cents per pound. They cost me only 16 cents per pound 
v/hen they weighed about 1 y% pound each. Thus it will 
be seen that there was a good profit even in the roost¬ 
ers. The remainder are going into chicken pie, etc., 
at home. By consulting the New York market reports 
to-day it will be seen that live chickens are quoted 
at 12 cents per pound, and the best dressed ones at 22 
cents. Is there not a chance lor some one to develop 
a good paying business at fattening and dressing pur¬ 
chased chickens? By selecting only such birds as are 
suitable to put on the market as Philadelphia dressed 
poultry and feeding them for a few weeks at least a 
pound could be added to their weight and eight to 10 
cents per pound t 9 price. Two iounds of live chicken 
at 12 cents* costs 24 cents. Three pounds of dressed 
chicken at 22 cents brings 66 cents. The Deacon thinks 
that some of the critics who have been ridiculing me 
for going into the market to buy chickens may be do¬ 
ing business on a narrower margin of profit than that. 
O. W. MAPES. 
DIVIDING SHIPMENTS.—Having had experience with 
commission men for more than 20 years, I should ad¬ 
vise anyone to ship to two firms or more whenever they 
have enoug’h to divide, and do not ship anything to any 
firm that you know nothing about. An honest man likes 
to be kept track of, and a rogue should be watched. 
L. C. D. 
