1901 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
627 
ALFALFA IN SOUTHERN OHIO. 
April Sowing With Barley. 
I know of no Alfalfa in this section of the country 
that has been growing more than three years. About 
the middle of July I went to see a plot of about four 
acres that had been mown twice and was again 
making a nice start. This was on high limestone up¬ 
land; it is the second season’s cropping for this field. 
The owner was so well pleased with results that he 
sowed another plot last Spring on bottom land. This 
at the time I saw it was making a g:ood start, after 
having had the protecting crop of oats or barley cut 
off. This had been overfiowed by a flood from an un¬ 
usually heavy rain; some of the stubble or growth 
left lying on the land was at least 18 inches long. 
Another plot on bottom land that was sown last year 
gave at first cutting this year about two tons of hay 
per acre. Last year the stand was not thought to be 
very good, but the growth this year was very thick, 
showing the strong tendency of the plant to put out 
numerous shoots from the crown. The second cut¬ 
ting from this plot gave about one ton per acre. My 
impression is that the first crop was not cut soon 
enough. The second I know stood too long, as it was 
almost in full bloom when cut. The wet weather we 
have been having will probably make the third cut¬ 
ting better than the second. In another instance a 
field sown one year ago last Spring, that was pas¬ 
tured during the Summer and Fall, did not show up 
satisfactorily this year; this was on sugar-tree land, 
rather high and rolling. Stili another field sown last 
Spring one year ago, sown without a shelter crop, 
was clipped once and pastured with cattle later in the 
season. This field, I understand, stood the Winter, 
although cold, wet land naturally. Still another field 
the freezes of last Winter lifted so badly that it was 
plowed under last Spring. 
I stood back from trying the plant 
till last Spring, going under the im¬ 
pression that I had no land suitable 
to make it successful. This impression 
I gained from what I read in the farm 
papers and bulletins. Observation 
last year led me to believe that it was 
not definitely known on what kinds of 
soil it would make profitable growth, 
if given an intelligent trial. With the 
object in view of knowing something 
more of the possibilities of the plant, 
and with a hope that it would prove a 
success, I sowed an 11-acre field April 
9 and 10 last, using a little over 16 
pounds of seed per acre, and not quite 
11/^ bushel of barley per acre. I 
could not have selected during the last 
decade a Spring more favorable for the 
trial. There are four or five kinds of 
soil in this field; about one acre of 
black soil, with water but a few feet 
below the surface; two or three spots, 
aggregating nearly one acre, of stiff 
red clay, the hardest of all land to get 
in order after Spring plowing. Then 
there is a south side of a hill near half an acre in 
extent, that is limestone gravel, not bad for road 
building. This plot always starts the corn rapidly in 
the Spring, but it never ears right, because it burns 
before the growing season is over. The highest part 
of this is at least 20 feeit above the black land. The 
remainder of the field is clay land, on which, in cut¬ 
ting tile drains, we strike considerable limestone, 
pebbles, or gravel, three feet down. The seed was sown 
from the grass-seed sower on the drill, sowing the 
seed in front of the hose. The plants show an even 
distribution over the land. A field sown on another 
farm, the seed thrown back of the hose, I suppose, 
shows nearly all the plants in the hoe marks. 
On my field the slowest places to start were the 
red clay parts. The black soil on the gravel bank 
started first. Much of it on these favorable places 
was six inches high when the red clay points hardly 
made a showing. After harvest, the latter part of 
July, I gave the clay points a topdressing of barn¬ 
yard manure at the rate of 12 loads per acre. Good 
rains since have caused the Alfalfa on this red clay 
to make an excellent start, so that now it is well up 
-with the remainder of the field. Part of the field has 
been clipped twice since the barley was harvested, a 
second cutting so soon to keep back the foxtail that 
made too strong a showing on part of the field. The 
rate the Alfalfa is growing now may make it neces¬ 
sary to go over the whole field before the middle of 
September. I do not want the plants to exhaust 
themselves blooming. Next year, if the hay cut¬ 
tings are satisfactory, it will be my aim to topdress 
the field with barnyard manure some time during 
the season; I think I can prolong its usefulness in 
this way. If it is going to be my most profitable 
crop it will deserve this care and treatment. I feel 
sure that three cuttings in a year for a decade will 
certainly impoverish the land. The great depth to 
which the roots penetrate may prevent the notice¬ 
able deterioration in the soil made by surface-feeding 
plants. If I dc not use the manure production from 
this crop in helping make the crop, what am I to do 
with it? For I do not want to rob this, the poorest 
field on the farm, to build up the others. 
Ross Co., O. JOHN M. JAMISON. 
CORN-BINDING MACHINERY. 
At Fig. 278 is shown a corn harvester at work on 
the Cornell Experiment Farm. In witnessing the 
well-nigh perfect work of this machine it is pleasant 
to remember the first attempts at binding corn. 
Nearly 12 years ago The R. N.-Y. printed a picture 
of a machine made at the suggestion of Prof. I. P. 
Roberts. At that time no one knew just how to 
grasp and cut the hill of corn with fingers of wood 
or steel so as to give the best imitation of the human 
hand and arm. In all farm machinery, except that of 
fitting the ground for a crop, the ideal of the inventor 
has been to imitate the hand work of a skillful man. 
The first corn binder was a heavy, cumbersome af¬ 
fair, not at all suited to the conditions which are 
found on the average farm. It went at the work in 
the wrong way. A man in cutting corn gets his arm 
around the hill and holds it tight for the knife; then, 
with the aid of shoulder, hip, and knee, it is pulled 
and shaken into place. This is what the corn binders 
were asked to do, and it is wonderful how the in¬ 
ventors have responded. On the farms where a good- 
sized area is put in corn, the work of cutting is now 
as easy as grain harvesting after the binder. The 
horses now swing the corn knife or grain cradle, and 
men only pick up and shock the bundles. The intro¬ 
duction of this machine has changed the character of 
farming in many places. It is of especial value where 
corn is grown for the silo. It saves labor at a critical 
time, and expands the productive power of the farm 
which supports only one good team of horses. We 
believe that before many years most of the corn in 
the country will be cut with these machines—either 
owned by individual farmers or carried from farm to 
farm, much as traction engines or thrashers are car¬ 
ried at the present time. 
FACTS ABOUT “FLY-PROOF” WHEAT. 
Every year that the Hessian fly attracts unusual 
attention by its ravages, there are usually certain 
varieties or certain fields of wheat which suffer much 
less than others, and in consequence a few varieties 
are heralded as “fly-proof.” Soon after the insect 
began its ravages in this country, more than a cen¬ 
tury ago, the Underhill wheat became a favorite, and 
it bore its “fly-proof” reputation for many years. 
From 1850 to 1880 several varieties gained a reputa¬ 
tion for resisting the fly in certain regions; as the 
Mediterranean variety in the Middle States, in cen¬ 
tral New York the Lancaster variety, and in Michigan 
the Clawson. And nearly every Hessian fly year other 
or newer varieties supplanted the former favorites, 
so that there have been a score or more so-called 
“fly-proof” varieties of wheat in the past century. 
There has been considerable discussion in the litera¬ 
ture about these “fly-proof” varieties, and the re¬ 
markable immunity fi-om the pest of certain varieties 
in New York this year, as related in Bulletin 194 
from the Cornell Experiment Station, has again 
opened the discussion. For example, Dawson’s 
Golden Chaff wheat has apparently, without exception, 
almost perfectly resisted the attacks of the fly all 
through New York this season, and the varieties 
known as “No. 8,” “Prosperity,” “Democrat,” “Red 
Russian,” and “White Chaff Mediterranean” are also 
reported as suffering but little from the pest. A1-. 
though the Dawson’s Golden Chaff made such a re¬ 
markable showing in New York, in its original home 
in Canada it suffered very severely, and will not yield 
more than one-ithird of an average crop in the infested 
areas. In the experimental plot at the Ontario Agri¬ 
cultural College the following varieties were but 
slightly infested this year: Imperial Amber, Egyp¬ 
tian Amber, Michigan Amber, and Early Genesee 
Giant, and the following varieties were badly dam¬ 
aged: Dawson’s Golden Chaff, Turkey Red, Buda 
Pesth, Clawson, and Treadwell. So it goes; one va¬ 
riety may resist the fly in one locality and not in an¬ 
other, and a variety which is equally resistant under 
all conditions and locations has not yet been evolved. 
The gist or whole truth of the matter is that no va¬ 
riety of wheat is absolutely “fly-proof.” Even Daw¬ 
son’s Golden Chaff seemed to be as badly infested as 
other varieties in the Fall on the Cornell farm, and 
yet it was remarkably free from the fly this Spring. 
But we cannot escape the fact that some varieties do 
sometimes show a remarkable resisting power, even 
when grown in the same field with others. 
This brings us to the all-important question: Why 
are certain varieties more resistant to the fly than 
others? It would be worth millions of dollars to 
American wheat growers if it were definitely known 
what qualities of the wheat or what other conditions 
are necessary to make a variety “fly-proof” in all 
locations. No one knows, and but little data has yet 
been obtained on this point, but there are some sensi¬ 
ble notions proposed to explain the why of it. If we 
only knew all about it, our wheat breeders would 
know just what kind of a wheat to develop, and 
could then breed along those lines. But I doubt 
whether such a millenium will ever come for our 
wheat growers. The so-called “fly- 
proof” varieties often have coarse and 
siliceous stems, enabling them to 
stand and not break over from the 
presence of the fly; also, varieties 
which tend to develop secondary 
shoots or “tillers” are considered 
preferable during Hessian fly years. 
There seems to be no difference in the 
susceptibility of the bearded and the 
beardless varieties, but some observa¬ 
tions in California several years ago 
gave indications that early varieties 
were not so badiy infested. Some sea¬ 
sons the red varieties, which the 
millers often prefer, suffer less than 
the white kinds, but this did not hold 
true in Canada this year. 
While there is no doubt that some 
of the resisting power against -the fly 
is inherent in the qualities of the 
wheat itself, yet we believe that much 
of it often comes from the kind of 
soil, its location, and the way it is pre¬ 
pared and fed. Oftentimes wheat on 
unusually good soil will make a good 
crop in spite of the fly, and yet there 
were cases this year in New York where Dawson’s 
Golden Chaff on soil not rich enough to enable it to 
make a large yield, seemed not to be affected by the 
fly; how long this variety will retain these resisting 
qualities in New York no one can tell. We would 
not advise farmers to depend solely on the “fly- 
proof” reputation of a variety, and expect it to yield 
satisfactory crops under all conditions. Test the so- 
called “fly-proof” varieties, and select from these, or 
from others, the one which you can make produce 
the best crops on your soils, and the one that the 
market wants. We believe that often a farmer can 
raise a good crop of wheat in spite of the fly if he 
will properly prepare and feed the seed bed, which 
must be in good soil; especially is this true if he will 
also decoy the fly into narrow strips of wheat sown 
early (in August) and plowed under just before the 
main crop is sown, late in September. In short, the 
resisting powers of wheat against the Hessian fly 
may often depend largely upon the forethought of 
the farmer himself in choosing and properly prepar¬ 
ing the seed bed, using the decoy strips of wheat, 
and sowing late. We believe these factors will enter 
more largely into the causes which may make a va¬ 
riety “fly-proof” than any “tillering,” “stalk-stiffen¬ 
ing,” or other qualities which may be inherent in 
the seed. Give the variety which does the best on 
your farm, and is best adapted to your needs or mar¬ 
kets, the best possible chance that you can with 
your knowledge of soils and their preparation, and 
sow at the right time, and we believe you will win 
against the fly nearly every time. 
M. V. SLINQERLAND. 
It will require a rich man to provide two apples each 
day for personal eating this year. Most city people will 
pass so little apple down their throats that even the 
Adam’s apple will grow smaller. 
A CORN HARVESTER AT WORK. Fig. 278. 
