482 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
July 24 
to the manure pile without being 1 fully eaten; now 
they are all cut up and eaten with oil meal, gluten 
and bran. The manure from the stalks is in better 
condition and contains the extra fertility in the pur¬ 
chased grain. Beyond this, the cows have added but 
little to the fertility of the farm. They have saved 
the food value in the stalks, and that is about all. 
Besides this, all the manure they made was put on 
this year’s corn crop, and thus makes no showing in 
the rotation thus far. The great crops of grain, pota¬ 
toes and grass have only chemicals and clover in their 
pedigree. What the effect, year after year, of dairy¬ 
ing will be, can only be guessed. Up to date, chem¬ 
icals and clover and careful tillage have made the 
farm what it is. 
Mr. Lewis does not seem to think that the dairy 
will make it safe for him to reduce the amount of 
fertilizer used on potatoes. I asked him what he had 
learned through his long experience, as to the ele¬ 
ment most likely to be needed in average farming. 
He answered without hesitation, “Nitrogen!” At 
one time, he thought his soil needed extra amounts 
of potash. Through one round of the rotation, he 
used 200 pounds of muriate of potash per acre in ad¬ 
dition to the usual heavy dressings of Mapes fertiliz¬ 
ers. Careful comparisons of yields convinced him 
that the extra potash was not needed. Even on his 
productive farm, a failure to apply nitrogen is always 
noticed in a loss in the crop. One row through Mr. 
Lewis’s potato field without any fertilizer looks like 
a dwarf beside the others. Mr. Lewis does not believe 
in the plan of using potash and phosphoric acid, and 
looking to clover or cow peas to provide nitrogen. 
On the contrary, as we have explained in former 
years, he has sold clover and purchased nitrogen in 
the form of high-grade fertilizer. I question, how¬ 
ever, whether this is a safe rule to follow in all cases. 
Where potatoes form the main money crop, I think 
most of our eastern farmers agree with Mr. Lewis. 
In fruit farming, there is likely to be a great differ¬ 
ence of opinion. Next week, I expect to tell of the 
experience of Mr. Hewlett, of Long Island. Mr. H. 
uses fertilizer at the rate of 3,000 pounds per acre on 
potatoes—this amount covering the entire five years’ 
rotation. It will be interesting to compare his prac¬ 
tice with that of Mr. Lewis. 
Mr. Lewis used to put a portion of the fertilizer in 
the drill with the potatoes. Experience has shown 
him that there is little or no advantage in this. He 
obtains just about as good results when the fertilizer 
is all broadcasted evenly over the surface. This 
broadcasting is done with the grain drill, which is 
run across the furrows, and hoes or harrows the 
ground while it drops the fertilizer. 
The wheats chiefly grown on this farm are Rudy 
and “No. 6,” one of The R. N.-Y.’s crosses. Rudy gives 
good satisfaction almost everywhere. “ No. 6 ” is not 
generally known, but Mr. Lewis has found it very 
valuable on his farm. It is strong and vigorous, a 
good yielder, and stands up well. The local millers 
grind about one-third of the hard spring wheat with 
most of the local grain, but Rudy may be ground 
alone. For the past few years, many farmers around 
Cranbury have grown rye instead of wheat. The 
straw has brought a good price—so good, in fact that, 
for several years, the grain and straw of the rye 
crop have brought more per acre than the wheat. 
This year, however, rye straw promises to be low, 
while there is every prospect for a better price for 
wheat. 
The demand for long rye straw has led to the intro¬ 
duction of thrashing machines that thrash out the 
gram without injuring the straw. The grain is fed 
in “ sidewise,” so that the heads are beaten out with¬ 
out smashing up the stems. After passing through 
the machine, the straw is bound into bundles in much 
the same way as the binder operates. Many of the 
wheat growers use this machine. The bundles of 
straw are left in much more convenient shape for 
handling, and occupy less room than in the ordinary 
stack. Next week I shall try to compare this farm 
with the Long Island farm of Mr Hewlett, h w. c. 
A BARN WITHOUT TIMBERS AND POSTS. 
It is a frequent cause for remark that house build¬ 
ing has developed wonderfully in the past 20 years. 
Go through any old farm district in New England or 
the Middle States, and notice the type of houses that 
were considered about right, 40 or 50 years ago They 
were mostly big, square boxes with four big walls 
and little or no attempt at ornament or convenience. 
It does seem sometimes as if our old ancestors did 
the best they could to make their houses hideous and 
uncomfortable, as judged by the present standard of 
neatness and convenience. Sometimes in New Eng¬ 
land, one will find a locality where the boy who stays 
on the farm has built a modern house across the 
road from the old homestead. What a contrast is 
presented between the square, plain old structure, 
^nd the light, modern duelling \yith every inclj pf 
floor space utilized, and so many devices for adding 
to the comfort and convenience of the household. 
In like manner, barn building has been revolution¬ 
ized during the past 20 years. The old-time barn 
with its immense timbers and posts, still stands on 
many a farm, but the new barn builders have new 
ways of putting barns together. A good example of 
an up-to-date barn, is shown in the picture on our 
first page. This barn was built on the farm of D. F. 
Lee, of Granville, N. Y. The architect and patentee 
of the truss shown at Fig. 202, is J. T. Wells. This 
barn is 40 x 100 feet on the floor, with posts 18 feet 8 
inches high. There are several novel features about 
this barn which will recommend it to any practical 
farmer. All cross timbers in the interior of the barn 
are done away with. There is no post in the way to 
interfere with hay or straw carriers, which are run 
the entire length of the barn. As will be seen from 
the picture, instead of the usual timber frame, the 
barn is strengthened by a set of trusses, there being no 
large timber frame above the sills and no mortise or 
tenou in the whole barn. The way in which the truss 
is built and fastened is shown at Fig. 202. It is made 
of boards or planks nailed or spiked together, as 
shown in the picture. This makes one of the strong¬ 
est frames that can be put up, and it will stand a 
hard storm better than the frame of heavy timber. 
The end bents are built with the truss post, one for 
the center at each end, and two at each end, for the 
purlin plate to rest on. The outside of the barn will 
be sided up with novelty siding, white pine, ship- 
lapped. The main floor will be built of 1%-inch 
matched spruce. The entire floor will be strong 
enough to bear up a heavy load at any point. The 
basement is light and dry, and well lighted. It will 
have a row of Bidwell stalls the full length of the 
basement, one at each side of the driveway, which 
runs the full length, while ventilation will be pro¬ 
vided for at each end, by a flue that will run to each 
gable, with a damper to control the circulation of air. 
THE PLUM CAN STAND WET FEET. 
CAN IT C Alt BY THE PEACH ON ITS BACK ? 
During the recent overflow in the Mississippi Valley, it was 
observed that plum trees were not killed as were the peaeh. 
Now, if it is true that the plum can stand wet feet to better 
advantage than the peach, it is probable that peach worked on 
plum, o would be safer in these districts that are liable to be 
flooded, or would the plum roots be safer on a soil that is only 
inclined to be wet or cold ? 
The Plum Must Stand Alone. 
Yes, of course the peaches would succumb to that 
Mississippi Valley flooding, and the plum roots would 
stand it a great deal better. In planting my exten¬ 
sive peach orchards from time to time, I always put 
plum trees in all the damp spots, and a few years 
ago, there was quite a boom in budding peaches upon 
Marianna plum stocks, especially in the South and also 
in the West. Trees so started grow well for two or 
three years, and then begin to fail and go quite 
rapidly. I know of several quite extensive orchards 
started on plum roots, but none of them a success, 
and I do not think it would be advisable to continue 
the experiment further. j. h. hale. 
Georgia. 
Peach Will not Stay on Plum, 
With reference to peach and plum roots in wet soil, 
as in overflowed lands, there is no question that the 
plum endures far better than peach, and if the peach 
could be grafted or budded on plum so as to grow 
well upon it permanently, such peach trees would be 
best to plant in such soils, or locations, But unfor¬ 
tunately, so far as I know by my own experience, or 
by reading of that of others, there is no species of 
plum stock on which peach is a permanent success. 
Ip every case known tp me, on Marianna, on Chicka¬ 
saw plums, on the Americana, and others, the peach 
can be budded, but soon perishes, by “ jugging off.” 
that is, the swelling out over the plum, as though the 
plum acted as a constriction, and the peach dies 
either the first or second year, rarely living the third 
year. Better plant peach on higher ground that 
never overflows t. v. munson. 
Texas. 
Peach on Plum is Unthrifty, 
About eight or ten years ago, when the Marianna 
plum was first introduced and found to be compar¬ 
atively free from Root-knot, many nurserymen used 
it as a stock for peaches. The first year, the buds 
grew off very vigorously, and this led to the belief 
that, finally, a stock had been found that was proof 
against the Root-knot, and large quantities of trees 
were put upon the market. When these trees were 
planted in permanent place in orchard, the growth 
was satisfactory during the first year ; but less the 
second, and but few trees survived the third year. 
Of the many thousands of peach trees budded upon 
plum stocks which were planted within the past six 
or seven years, few are found alive. The deduction 
is that such trees seldom survive the third year, and 
no nurseryman who values his business will propagate 
these any longer. The Marianna stock suits the 
plum, but is worthless for budding peaches upon, and 
it would be useless to plant peach trees budded upon 
that stock with the expectation of seeing them survive 
the first crop of fruit. P. J. berckmans. 
Georgia. 
Important Fadts from Prof. Budd. 
In its natal home in Asia, the peach has thriven for 
centuries on dry soil in a dry climate. Under culture 
in this country and Europe, it has given best crops, 
and maintained most perfect health, on high and rela¬ 
tively dry soil. On the other hand, the Chickasaw 
plums, mainly grown in the Yazoo basin, are indig¬ 
enous to relatively low land in the South, and are 
not seriously harmed by overflows. The same is true 
of the Americana species on our western bottoms, and 
of some of the types of the plum and prune in Europe 
and Asia. Without shadow of doubt, the peach will 
stand better on overflow lands if budded on the 
Chickasaw stocks. Our experience favors the belief 
that the union of the peach on the Chickasaw and 
Hortulana stocks is as perfect as on the peach, and 
our budding on these stocks has been as uniformly 
successful. In this line of budding on stocks adapted 
to special soils, we have, at this time, a good illustra¬ 
tion. As a matter of experiment, we budded the Pol¬ 
lock Improved Sand Cherry on our native Americana 
plum stocks. These are loaded with perfect fruit, 
with every leaf and twig in perfect health, while 
those on own roots have no perfect fruit, and the 
foliage and wood are attacked by a fungus resembling 
fire blight. We account for this difference by the 
supposition that our richer, moister soils are not 
adapted to the roots of plants from higher altitudes 
with drier, thinner soils and a drier air. Others in 
Iowa have had the same experience with the Sand 
cherry. On own roots it is nearly or quite fruitless 
and lacking in health of folisge, while on plum, it 
is perfect in fruit, leaf, and twig. In Europe, this 
exact adaptation of stocks to soil conditions is better 
understood than with us. In North Silesia, I asked 
Dr. Stoll, “ What stock do you consider best for the 
apple?” In answer, he gave a list for fully a dozen 
variations of soil and altitude. 
Iowa. 
What J. W. Kerr Says. 
My own experience in this line is too limited to 
warrant even an opinion ; but in Prof. Bailey’s bul¬ 
letin on The Cultivated Plums and Cherries, Mr. 
G. Onderdonk, an experienced horticulturist of Texas, 
says, pages 45 and 46 : “ The peach requires better 
drainage than the plum stock. I raise good, healthy 
plum trees on Marianna stocks in places where it 
would be useless to plant anything on peach stocks ” 
It would be interesting to know what kind of stocks 
the trees in question were worked on, and if on peach, 
whether budded or root-grafted. When budded on 
peach, the chances are against the plum taking root, 
while if propagated by root-grafting (on peach), at 
three years old, such plum trees are almost invariably 
on their own roots. As to “ grafting” peach on plum, 
my experience would be uncompromisingly averse to 
usiDg Marianna plum as a stock, as either budded or 
grafted peach does not form a good unian on this 
stock. If Marianna has any aquatic merits, it seems 
probable that aDy other Myrobolan variety would 
succeed as well ; but even if this should be so, the 
“ stock” problem would not be solved, because Myro- 
bolans, either seedlings or cuttings, must soon give 
way to something better for general use as stocks for 
plums. So soon as planters are aware that there 
really is a better stock, they will demand it, and then 
it will be used. 
Maryland. 
