4o4 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
June 19 
tarred paper, and then with pitch and gravel. This 
is no experiment, but a form of rooting which has 
been successfully used in our large cities for many 
years. Such a roof as this will last from 15 to 20 
years, and can be renewed at considerably less than 
first cost, when it shows signs of giving out. The ad¬ 
vantage of the flattish roof is that it does not require 
nearly so much surface as a pitch roof. This is quite 
an item as regards lumber and other material. The 
disadvantage of a flat roof is that it does not furnish 
so much room for the storage of hay and other 
products. C. A. GREEN. 
TURNIPS AS A FALL FARM CROP. 
Few farmers recognize or appreciate the value of 
turnips as a fall crop when, in reality, the crop sells 
for nearly the same as potatoes when jobbed out to 
the retailers in our local markets. More than double 
the yield can be obtained from the same area with 
much less labor involved in cultivation or harvesting, 
while the crop requires only about one-half of the 
season to grow in, so that an early crop of some kind 
or early potatoes can be taken off. On every farm, 
about this time, a piece of ground becomes vacant, 
and turnips are one of the best crops to fill in. Last 
season, we had a piece of about one-quarter acre on 
which second-early peas were grown; after these 
were marketed, the ground was cleared and plowed, 
and on July 25, according to the adage, “ On the 25th 
of July sow your turnips, wet or dry,” two ounces of 
White Egg turnip and one ounce of White French 
ruta-baga seed were sown. The turnips were sown 
in drills 16 inches apart, and thinned to three inches 
apart; and the ruta-bagas 20 inches and thinned to 
six or eight inches apart. 
On September 26, two months from sowing, we 
commenced pulling the largest of the White Eggs 
throughout the plot; these were washed and thrown 
on the wagon each day as it went to market. They 
sold readily at 35 and 40 cents per bushel, and we 
soon had a good trade established for white turnips, 
as they were smooth and of excellent quality. This 
thinning gave the others a chance to grow, thus 
giving a larger crop. However, before we had got 
over the piece, they had grown so large that we felt 
like putting them in the middle of the crates to hide 
them. We thought the name “Pumpkin” would 
have been just as descriptive of the variety as “ Egg,” 
but the large ones cooked just as well as the smaller 
ones. On the approach of winter, those not sold were 
pulled and put in the cellar. The price, however, 
went down at this time, so that only 30 cents were 
obtained; this we considered a paying price compared 
with potatoes. 
The ruta-bagas were left out till severe freezing, 
which improves their quality; these were all sold 
readily in the neighborhood at 40 cents per bushel. 
The ruta-bagas should have been sown earlier to 
obtain the largest yield ; as it was, they were of good 
size. 
Aside from the marketing value of turnips, they, 
like carrots and mangels, have an especial value for 
winter feed for cattle, especially young stock and 
oxen. If fed to milch cows, they should be given 
immediately after milking, and fed sparingly. The 
tops, also, are relished by cattle. Such foods help 
digest the drier part of the ration and tone up the 
system. Of course it would not be practicable to sow 
a large area with a view to marketing at the prices 
named, but it is these catch crops that help to fill out 
and give a variety to the load taken to market each 
day, and swell the pocket-book. A feeling of satis¬ 
faction is also had from supplying one’s customers 
with as many as possible of the vegetables they may 
use each day. j. a. 
Westport, Conn. 
CUTTING HAY WITH THE BINDER. 
LITTLE TO COMMEND THE PRACTICE. 
We are told every year of people who use their binders in cut¬ 
ting Timothy hay. It is said that the Timothy hay is cut in bundles 
about as large as ordinary sheaves of wheat. These bundles are 
dried in small shocks and put in the barn like ordinary grain. 
Those who reported this practice, claimed excellent results for 
it. If you can tell us anything about it, we shall be pleased to 
have you do so. 
I have n ever used my binder for cutting Timothy hay. 
I can see no advantage, except in the way of storage. 
It seems to me that the outside of the bundles must 
be weather-beaten before the inside would be cured 
enough to keep when packed in the mow. One of my 
neighbors used his binder for cutting ripe Timothy 
hay for seed, and claims that it was a very success¬ 
ful way of handling this crop. chas chapman. 
m Schuyler County, N. Y. 
Cutting hay with a binder is a new idea that I had 
not heard of before, and I have been studying about 
it a good deal to see what the advantages are. There 
are two objections in my mind against it. First, that 
binders are not made for cutting grass ; their knife 
heads are not so strong, and the motion is, usually, 
much slower than the mower. I have experienced 
some trouble with a binder choking where there was 
much grass or other green stuff in the grain. Second, 
Will the Timothy cure as well as, or better than, by 
the usual method ? I have noticed when hauling 
wheat after much rain, that sheaves which had con¬ 
siderable grass or other green stuff in them were in 
bad order. j. H. R. 
Pennsylvania. 
I never cut Timothy hay with a binder but once, 
and then only a few acres. I could see no particular 
advantage in so doing, but many disadvantages. Our 
Timothy falls down, or lodges badly when there is a 
good crop, and it would be very hard work on team 
and man to cut it with a binder. The shocking also 
requires a good deal of labor, and the handling then 
must be done with men and forks, and the haying 
thus progresses slowly. We prefer to cut with a 
Eureka six-foot machine, aud take it up with the hay 
loader, never windrowing or shocking our hay in the 
field. We usually cut evenings and mow it away the 
day following. When Timothy is thin and stands up 
straight and nice, and one has a binder that he can 
set to cut low down, it might be used in making hay ; 
but I wouldn’t consider it advisable to do so, as a 
matter of economy or to expedite the harvest. I 
have known a few of my neighbors to try their 
binders in the hay field, but one experiment seems 
to satisfy them, and I know of no one who uses the 
binder in haying, except to cut seed. 
Southern Indiana. w. w. stevens 
I have never seen a binder that would cut close 
enough to the ground to get all the grass. I like to 
cut Timothy not more than two inches from the 
ground. The stalks of Timothy shrink very much in 
curing and, unless bound very tightly, the bun¬ 
dles would “ spill out ” when being handled ; if bound 
sufficiently tight, the green grass would take a long 
time to dry out, and the outside would suffer from 
weathering before the inside was fit to put in the 
mow. I like to cut Timothy for hay, if for home 
feeding, when just out of the first bloom; even a little 
before does no harm ; when cut at this period, it con¬ 
tains so much moisture that I think it would be a 
slow, expensive process to get it well cured. It is 
possible that, if allowed to stand, as many practice 
when expecting to sell the hay, until nearly ripe 
before cutting, and it had but “ little bottom,” that it 
might be cut and bound and made into fair hay. 
But even then, the expense of twine for tying the 
bundles would be too much to make the practice com¬ 
mendable. 
I like to put Timothy, when thoroughly wilted, 
into good-sized cocks, and let it do most of its curing 
while in these cocks, as hay cut green and so cured 
will be greener, brighter, sweeter and more palatable 
and digestible than that allowed to get more mature 
before cutting. I am aware that the weight of hay 
cut from the same ground, when cut so early, will 
be less than when standing to a mature stage, and 
as the market calls for this riper hay, it is policy to 
let it stand when to be sold ; but when to be put into 
the “home market ”—fed on the farm—the net result, 
in growing stock, is in favor of early cutting. I well 
remember that, when a boy at home with my father, 
he always insisted that the later cut hay was the best, 
because the stock ate so much more of it; but, boy 
as I was, I always noticed that, though they ate more 
hay, the stock did not do nearly so well on this ripe 
hay as when eating the earlier cut. My own practice 
has been to cut all hay early. j. s woodward. 
Western New York. 
The Farmers’ Club. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name and address of 
the writer to insure attention. Before asking a question please 
see whether it is not answered in our advertising columns. Ask 
only a few questions at one time. Put questions on a separate 
piece of paper.l 
Wheat and Chess Again. 
N. 0., Fort Smith, Ark.—Is what is commonly called Cheat in 
grain, some particular kind of grass, or does the grain really 
turn to what is commonly known among farmers as Cheat ? The 
inclosed samples are turf oats and what the owner says is Cheat. 
He says that there is a good deal of Cheat this year, and he never 
has noticed any in his oats before. 
Ans. —Cheat or Chess is a grass ; so are wheat, rye, 
oats, corn. etc. Cheat is botanically, Bromus secali- 
nus ; oats, Avena sativa. They are, therefore, generi- 
cally and specifically distinct. It is just as reason¬ 
able to suppose that corn would, under certain con¬ 
ditions, turn to Chess, as that wheat or oats would or 
could turn to Chess, or Chess to corn, rye, wheat or 
oats. It is among the possibilities that Cheat and 
oats, or Cheat and wheat or rye can hybridize. The 
R. N.-Y., as is well known, has crossed wheat and 
rye, and these are no further removed from each 
other than Chess and rye or wheat. That, however, 
the one may turn into the other is contrary to all 
that is known of vegetable life, 
The Analysis of Soils. 
E. E. S ., Middlebury, Conn .—The inclosed is a duplicate copy of 
a report made by a reliable chemist upon a sample of soil sub¬ 
mitted to him for the purpose of analysis. The sample was 
obtained by taking a shovelful of earth from different parts of 
the fi“ld, covering an area of some four acres. The result of the 
analysis is rather discouraging, but I trust that you may be able 
to assist with your counsel toward taking proper steps to remedy 
the difficulties. You w ill observe that there is quite a deficiency 
of lime, but of course, th is can be easiiy overcome. The presence 
of sodium chloride or common salt is quite another matter. 
What, in your judgment, will be the best manner to treat such 
land V 
Analysis op Soil. 
Water. 16.170 
Organic and volatile matter. 7.380 
Mineral matter. 76.450 
Total.100.000 
Organic nitrogen. 0.267 
Nitrogen as nitrates. 0.014 
Ammonia. 0.049 
Composition op Mineral Matter. 
Sllicious matter insoluble in hydrochloric and nitric acids. 66.940 
Soluble silica. 0.041 
Alumina and ferric oxide. 7.200 
Lime. 0.200 
Magnesia. 0.653 
Phosphoric acid. 0.110 
Sulphuric acid. 0.017 
Chlorine. 0.427 
Potash. 0.278 
Soda. 0.536 
Carbonic acid, etc. 0.048 
Ans.—We cannot say, from this analysis, what cul¬ 
ture or fertilizing this soil requires. In fact, we do 
not regard soil analyses as of any particular import¬ 
ance as a guide to manuring. In Bulletin 119 from 
Cornell University, Prof. L. II. Bailey gives analyses 
of the soil on a hard knoll, soil that produced a good 
crop of beans, and a piece of rock chipped from his 
house, as follows : 
Mois¬ 
Nitro¬ 
Pbos. 
Organic 
ture. 
gen. 
acid. 
Potash. 
Lime. 
matter. 
Clay knoll. 13.25 
.08 
.20 
1.1 
.41 
3.19 
Good land.15.95 
.11 
.17 
.75 
.61 
5.45 
Lime rock. 
.... 
.08 
2.12 
2.55 
• • • • 
You will see from this, that the chemist states that 
the clay knoll soil which would not produce a crop of 
bqans, is richer in plant food than the good soil 
which produced a full crop. The rock is richer in 
potash and lime than the good soil. It lacks only 
nitrogen and a little phosphoric acid to give it a 
better analysis, but who would think of putting 
nitrate of soda and bone on top of a rock and ex¬ 
pect to raise even a crop of moss ? The texture and 
“grain” of the soil have more to do with the crop 
than the chemical composition. You cannot analyze 
a Jersey cow and thus tell how much butter she will 
give. The amount of the butter is determined by the 
working capacity of the little glands in the udder 
which secrete the butter fat and put it into the milk. 
One soil may be rich enough by analysis to serve as 
fertilizer for another, yet the latter may give larger 
crops because its texture is better. From a bire 
statement of the analysis of this land, we can offer no 
suggestion except that it, probably, needs liming. 
Such books as The Fertility of the Land, by Prof. 
Roberts, and The Soil, by Prof. King, are just what 
E. E. S. needs in studying such questions. 
What Crops Take from the Soil. 
C. S. M., Cheriton , Va .—A tabulated form of the amount of each 
of the plant foods, per acre, extracted from the soil by the fol. 
lowing products, would be of great advantage to farmers: Irish 
potatoes, sweet potatoes, strawberries, corn, oats, cabbages, 
spinach, kale, onions, tomatoes, clover, Orchard grass, rye > 
wheat, barley, and any other products, either in farming or 
trucking. Of course, in giving thin information, it should be in 
as plain terms as can be, as it is for plain, every-day farmers, 
and not for men who have the time to indulge in technicalities. 
Ans —The following table shows the average com¬ 
position of these products : 
POUNDS IN ONE HUNDRED. 
Water. 
Potatoes. 79 
Sweet potatoes. 72 
Strawberries. 91 
Corn (grain). 11 
Oats. 18 
Cabbage. 91 
Lettuce. 94 
Onions. 88 
Tomatoes. 94 
Clover hay. 11 
Orchard grass hay. 9 
Rye. 15 
Wheat. 15 
Barley. 14 
Apples. 85 
Asparagus. 94 
Blackberries. 89 
Raspberries. 82 
itrogen. 
Potash. 
Phos. acid. 
0.32 
0.46 
0.12 
0.23 
0.50 
0.10 
0.15 
0.30 
0.11 
1.82 
0.40 
0.70 
2.06 
0.62 
0.82 
0.38 
0.43 
0.11 
0.23 
0.37 
0.07 
0.14 
0.10 
0.04 
0.16 
0.27 
0.05 
2.07 
2.20 
0.38 
1.31 
1.88 
0.41 
1.76 
0.54 
0.82 
2.36 
0.61 
0.89 
1.51 
0.48 
0.79 
0.13 
0.19 
0.01 
0.29 
0.29 
0.08 
0.15 
0.20 
0.09 
0.15 
0.35 
0.48 
Thus a crop of 300 bushels of potatoes will contain 
14,220 pounds of water, 57>£ pounds of nitrogen, 83 
pounds of potash, and 23 pounds of phosphoric acid. 
This is all that the crop will remove from the soil if 
the vines are left on the land. A quart of strawberries 
weighs about two pounds. A crop of 5,000 quarts will 
remove from the soil 9,100 pounds of water, 15 pounds 
of nitrogen, 30 of potash, and 11 of phosphoric acid. 
The amounts of plant food taken by other crops may 
be estimated in the same way. You must remember, 
however, that there is something besides the amounts 
of plant food thus taken to be considered. We can¬ 
not expect to add to the soil only just what the crop 
removes and continue to produce profitable crops. 
The condition of the soil, the amount of moisture 
present, and a dozen other things will all affect the 
result. 
