1898 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER i59 
by pouring 1 on a bucket of liquid manure in the Spring, 
and then leaving it till harvest. When that plant 
needs nitrogen to finish its seeds, the chances are 
that there will be none within reach, because it will 
all have soaked away. We must have all three forms 
to be sure. 
You see that this fertilizer guaranteed 74 pounds of 
nitrogen, and the chemist found 75 pounds. You can 
see that, if the chemist stopped there, he would tell 
only half the story. By figuring again, we find seven 
pounds from nitrates, 30 pounds from sulphate of am¬ 
monia, and 38 pounds from organic matter. Anybody 
can see that it is worth something to know that the 
whole 75 pounds are not taken from organic substances 
like tankage. One form is worth more than another, 
in fact, in figuring up their value, they would rank 
about as follows: Nitrogen in nitrates, worth 14 cents 
a pound ; in “ammonia salts ”, 133^ cents : in “organic” 
form, from 3 to 14 cents. For example, in very coarse 
fish scrap, the chemist values the nitrogen at three 
cents, while in dried and finely-ground fish, it is 
valued at 14 cents. Thus a manufacturer might take 
some coarse fish or tankage, and show a high analysis 
of nitrogen which would be of little value in the early 
life of the plant. 
Take your bulletin and look over the analyses in it; 
you will find many fertilizers with nothing but “ or¬ 
ganic nitrogen ”, or but a whisper of other forms. Let 
them alone for such crops as potatoes ; they will dis¬ 
appoint you seven times out of 10. You might just as 
well buy straw chopped up and colored with molasses 
and water, and expect it to give as good crops as rich 
manure out of a compost heap, where the urine was 
all put in. Never mind what the agent has to say 
about his “ total amount of nitrogen ”. There is more 
or less nitrogen in sawdust, but it is of mighty 
little account until rotted. Make the agent guarantee 
the amount of each kind of nitrogen his fertilizers con¬ 
tain. Our advice is to get all three kinds, if possible, 
and never use less than two. We shall have more to 
say about this in our Fertilizer Special. I want to 
say here that Mr. Atkinson, like thousands of other 
farmers, after repeated trials, has found that this 
matter of providing nitrogen in suitable forms is the 
keynote in fertilizer farming. 
The phosphoric acid and potash problems are easier 
to understand. The ckem’st found in a ton of No. 1, 
194 pounds of phosphoric acid in two different forms, 
which may both be called “ available” for plants. The 
seller guaranteed 100 pounds. There w’ere 140 pounds 
of potash guaranteed, and the chemist found 150 
pounds. Full particulars about all this will be given 
in the Fertilizer Special. It is enough to say now 
that the $29.01 represent the value of the 75 pounds 
of nitrogen, 194 pounds of phosphoric acid, and 150 
pounds of potash in this ton of fertilizer, at the aver¬ 
age prices at which these substances can be bought in 
the open market. The difference between $29.01 and 
$32 is supposed to represent the cost of bagging, mix¬ 
ing. handling and other expenses of the manufacturer 
and dealer. Of course, the manufacturer, buying in 
large lots, can obtain better figures than the small 
buyer, but these comparisons are fair as guides to 
ordinary purchasers. 
I have taken some space to explain these matters 
because farmers usually want such information right 
at this time. Next week I shall try to tell how the 
fertilizer is used. _ u. w. c. 
DOES THE ROOSTER INCREASE EGG YIELD ? 
It is frequently stated that hens lay better if kept separate 
from the roosters; but In a recent prize contest, every man who 
won a prize for the largest number of eggs from a given number 
of hens, had a rooster in the pen with the laying hens. How do 
poultry authorities reconcile the facts with the theory ? 
What the Authorities Say. 
The male bird has no influence on egg-production. 
As a rule one can get as many with or without. 
J. F. CRANGLE. 
1 have not the data conveniently at hand, but I think 
the experiment was tried at one of the experiment 
stations, and it was much in favor of having flocks 
without male birds. wm. h. truslow. 
While I have never tried the experiment, I always 
thought it better to keep males away from the hens, 
excepting when wanting the eggs for hatching. The 
mere fdet that the eggs would keep better would be 
an advantage. d. A. mount. 
If 1 were keeping a flock of hens for eggs only, I 
would certainly have a cock to head the flock. Take, 
for example, two flocks ; head one with a good, atten¬ 
tive cock, and leave the other without. Let them out 
in the morning and observe the two flocks ; the one 
headed by the cock, if he is attentive, will go forag¬ 
ing around the yard (if confined), the cock scratching 
the earth, then calling the hens to come and get some¬ 
thing he has found, keeping up a little excitement 
all day, and in that way, the fowls get exercise, and 
keep in a healthy condition. The flock without a 
cock are quiet and more docile ; they move around in 
a leisurely way, and do not have the excitement of a 
pen that is headed by a cock. No matter how you 
make them work and scratch, the pen headed by the 
cock will more than pay the cost of keeping him. 
As to how poultry authorities reconcile the fact with 
the theory, it is difficult to answer ; the more theories 
we have, the more we can work them out and, perhaps, 
bring out some of them as facts. The trouble with 
some poultry men is that they get a theory and talk it 
A PLATFORM CURCULIO TRAP. Flo. 73 . 
over so much that they think it is a fact, without 
trying it. wm. j. salter. 
The influence of the male on egg production has 
not been definitely settled by experiment. I am aware 
that some trials have been made, but they have not 
been comprehensive enough to determine this ques¬ 
tion. It is held by some successful poultrymen who 
are specialists in egg production, that the male has 
no business in the laying pen. I am well aware that 
A HOMEMADE “BUG CATCHER." Flo. 74 . 
the writers on poultry topics are not agreed on this 
subject. For egg production there are three essen¬ 
tials : 1, a natural tendency of the fowl toward egg 
production ; 2, a good-sized fowl having great capacity 
and a strong constitution ; 3, proper food for produc¬ 
ing this product. When such fowls consume large 
quantities of food- the force thus expended is directed 
wholly^in the line of egg production. _Those who have 
“BUG CATCHER” FOLDED UP. Fig. 75 . 
made feeding for egg production the greatest study, 
are inclined to place less importance on the influence 
of the male than others. The most successful poul¬ 
trymen of my acquaintance think it wholly unneces¬ 
sary to provide males for any but the breeding pens. 
GEO. C. WATSON. 
The fact that each flock of hens winning a prize for 
tke greatest number of eggs laid, had a rooster with 
them, does not signify; they might have had a goat 
or donkey in the pen with them, and won the prize 
just the same. That there was a rooster with them I 
regard as a mere coincidence. Conditions are what 
tell. I am very sure, after years of experience, that 
the presence or absence of the male bird in the flock 
does not affect the average number of eggs laid. 
H. J. BLANCHARD. 
I do not believe that, ordinarily, a hen will lay more 
eggs in celibacy, unless the number of hens is very 
small. With a gentlemanly escort, it may be that the 
desire to incubate may be increased. I do believe 
that, when a hen is allowed to hatch and rear a brood 
of chickens, she will lay more eggs in the year for the 
rest such process gives her. The assertion that hens 
without roosters lay more eggs, is far-fetched and has 
no reason to back it. Where the attention of the 
male becomes a perfect harassment, the nervous de¬ 
rangement may decrease the egg product, i. k. felch. 
fallens may not lay any more eggs if not with a male, 
but will lay fully as many, as the formation of the egg 
within the hen is independent of the influence of the 
male. If males arc heavy, they annoy the hens and 
sometimes injure them. The fact that the prize-winners 
had males with the flocks may have been accidental. 
That a contest had to be made, is proof that hens do lay 
without the presence of males. I have had equal re¬ 
sults with both methods. P. H. JACOBS. 
We have never tried the experiment as to whether 
the hens-laid better with or without the presence of 
the male fowl, bat always supposed that the company 
of the male induced a desire on the part of the hen 
for incubation, which would naturally make her a 
better egg-producer without him. Whenever we have 
removed the male fowl after the breeding season was 
over, it has always seemed to us that the egg produc¬ 
tion was much increased. JAMES ranxin. 
Though it is frequently stated that hens will lay • 
more eggs if no rooster is kept with them, I think it 
is a mistaken idea, as in my opinion, the presence of a 
rooster will in no way affect the number of eggs. Of 
course, when eggs are not wanted for hatching, the 
roosters are only an extra expense. One can keep an 
extra hen in place of every rooster, and if the eggs 
should be kept any length of time, they will keep in 
better condition. The fact that all the prizes for large 
egg-production were won by flocks which had roosters 
with them, is easily accounted for by the fact, that 
not one person in 100 keeps his flocks without any 
males. If any one should compete for the prizes who 
kept no males, he may not prove so skillful a feeder, 
or have as good laying stock as his competitors. 
.J. E. STEVENSON. 
JARRING FOR CURCUU0S. 
Questions regarding the best means of combating 
the cureulio are often received by The R. N.-Y., this 
destructive insect causing great damage in many plum, 
peach and cherry orchards. A reader at Geiger's Mills, 
Pa., makes inquiry as follows on this subject: 
Can you fcive information as to how best to destroy or catch the 
cureulio, and whether there is any simple device made for jarring 
the trees ? 
This insect cannot be combated successfully by 
spraying, though the use of arsenites has been at¬ 
tempted at the time when the parent beetles are lay¬ 
ing their eggs, and also before the buds are open. The 
method now adopted by large orchardists is that of 
jarring the trees, and thus shaking the insects into a 
receptacle from which they may be removed and de¬ 
stroyed. The jarring is done with a padded mallet, 
and should begin with the falling of the petals of the 
blossoms, continuing until no more beetles are caught. 
The jarring period lasts about two weeks, and jarring 
should be done every day. 
The simplest form of the cureulio trap is shown in 
Fig. 73, consisting merely of a sheet drawn over a 
frame, the construction being plainly shown in the 
picture. The insects must be swept from this and 
destroyed, before moving to another tree. Another 
homemade “ bugcatcher ” is shown in Fig. 74, from 
Bulletin 35 of the Delaware Experiment Station. 
This is transported on a wheeled frame, and may be 
closed like an umbrella, as shown in Fig. 75. The 
value .of jarring is shown by the increased yield of 
fruit where this practice is faithfully carried out, and 
the cost is but trifling. Persistent effort, by all fruit 
growers, seems likely greatly to reduce the damage 
caused by this pest. Fallen fruit, which harbors the 
insect, should always be removed from the orchard. 
Although apples and pears are attacked by the cur- 
culio, the fruit does not, in these cases, drop from this 
cause and, except in a few varieties of apples, the 
larva is unable to mature in the fruit maturing on 
the tree. The beetles hibernate during the Winter. 
The larva is beyond the reach of insecticides, so that 
the jarring of thr trees and gathering of the fallen 
fruits are the only ways in which it may be destroyed, 
