October I 9 
THE RURAT. NEW-YORKER. 
7o6 
A REVIEW OF “CHEMICALS AND CLOVER." 
Is Stable Manure Absolutely Necessary ? 
I have been reading the pamphlets on “Chemical* and 
Clover” and “Fertilizer Farming,” and would aak 
whether you still maintain the same positive position 
that you took at the time of writing those articles? I 
have somehow obtained the impression that you have 
modified your Ideas as to the ability of chemicals to 
maintain fertility without barnyard manure. I have 
not been a subscriber to The R. N.-Y. a year yet, so 
do not know what you may have published on this 
question during the eight or nine years past, but in the 
three or four other agricultural papers of which I am a 
pretty thorough and constant reader, and in the con¬ 
siderable number of different books—modern publica¬ 
tions—by prominent agricultural writers, which I have 
bought and read, I do not find this plan of depending 
upon chemicals alone advocated. But I do notice the 
advocacy of the keeping of stock to increase the fertility 
of the land by almost all our leading writers to-day. 
This matter interests us very much, because we own 
large areas of naturally good land which are too far 
removed from our barns and stock to think of carrying 
stable manure to them—much bettei- land in fact than 
on the home farm, and we would be glad to see some 
of it cultivated. We do not feel it practicable to put up 
barns one, two and three miles from home Just to make 
manure for those lands. This year we have put in a 
number of acres of corn on one of these isolated tracts, 
and used simply acid phosphate and muriate of potash; 
also potatoes with chemicals along. All the crops are 
looking fine—all on land which has for the most part 
been used for pasturage and probably not plowed in the 
past 16 or 20 years. Our programme is to sow rye or 
wheat this Fall on all this ground, stock with clover in 
Spring, and cut rye or wheat for hay or soiling, the same 
as we have done this year on last year’s corn ground, 
but the question in our mind is, can we keep this thing 
up and maintain the productiveness of the land or im¬ 
prove it? We don’t find encouragement that we can 
do so for long, from the many writers in the agricul¬ 
tural press of to-day. If the plan set forth by you in 
1892 was correct, why has it not been tested and proven 
so by our many experiment stations, and advocated by 
them also? a. g. t. 
Wllllmantlc, Conn. 
We feel just as confident as ever that the plan of 
farming outlined in “Chemicals and Clover” is prac¬ 
tical. Since the original articles were printed we 
have had considerable experience with Crimson clover 
and cow peas—two crops specially useful in connec¬ 
tion with chemical farming. We have also come to 
realize the great necessity of utilizing the feeding 
value of the cornstalks by means of the silo, or the 
dry stalk shredder. This will mean more live stock 
than was contemplated in the original plan. 
For the benefit of newer readers let us briefiy re¬ 
view “Chemicals and Clover.” The farm described 
was that of D. C. Lewis, at Cranbury, N. J. It was, 
and is now, conducted on a five-year rotation. The 
sod is plowed for corn, the season’s accumulation of 
manure being spread on the sod before plowing. Un¬ 
der the old system the corn land lay bare through the 
Winter, and in the Spring was plowed and planted 
to potatoes with a heavy application of a complete 
potato fertilizer. Now Crimson clover is sown at the 
last cultivation of the corn. This gives Fall pasture 
and may be plowed under for potatoes. Early varie¬ 
ties of potatoes are grown, and they are dug in time 
to seed the ground to wheat with Timothy grass-- ' 
Red clover seed being added in the Spring. Frequent¬ 
ly more fertilizer was used on the wheat. The grass 
following the wheat is cut twice, and then plowed for 
corn, thus bringing the rotation around in five years. 
The keynote of this rotation was the crowding of all 
the manure upon the corn, and all or nearly all the 
fertilizer upon the potatoes—the wheat and grass be¬ 
ing expected to grow upon what was left in the soil by 
those two most important crops. This rotation was 
highly successful, and results clearly demonstrated 
the fact that a high-grade fertilizer in connection 
with the roots and stubble of grain and grass will 
make a complete substitute for stable manure. There 
are plenty of cases where little manure is available, 
and yet year after year good crops are grown. 
But does not Mr. Lewis now keep more livestock 
and thus use more manure on his farm? 
Yes, he has six or eight more cows now than when 
the “Chemicals and Clover” articles were first writ¬ 
ten. 
Does not this prove then that the chemicals were 
found wanting—that stable manure was necessary 
after all? 
No, because Mr. Lewis did not increase his herd of 
cows for the sake of the extra manure, but because 
he felt that it was good business to save the feeding 
value of the cornstalks. When we first wrote about 
the farm these stalks were regarded as more or less 
of a nuisance. Some were fed whole, and many were 
thrown into the barnyard to be trampled down by the 
stock. The wheat, the corn, the hay and the potatoes 
were all salable at fair prices, but the stalks were not 
a cash product. The cows were kept to give value to 
the stalks, because it was found that in farming, as 
well as in every other business, success means 
making the cash sales as large as possible. When 
the stalks were put in a silo or run through a shred¬ 
der when dry, they formed the roughage for a cow’s 
ration and with bran and cotton-seed meal added, 
made milk for the creamery. We have described this 
change in the disposal of the stalks as it came about, 
and this has led some readers to say that the theory 
of “Chemicals and Clover” has broken down in prac¬ 
tice. That this is a mistake may readily be seen 
when we refiect that the only addition to the manure 
supply is the grain now bought for the cows. The 
cornstalks and wheat straw are now cut fine and fed, 
while formerly they were mostly used for bedding, or 
tramped into the mud. This will make it clear that 
it is not because the chemicals failed that the extra 
cows are kept. Hay and grain can usually be sold 
for a fair price, and it is often good policy not to try 
to feed them out at home. The selling price of corn¬ 
stalks rarely equals their feeding value, and where 
corn is necessary in a rotation it will usually pay 
well to cut or shred them for feeding. We regard 
shredded stalks as nearly equal in feeding value to 
Timothy hay, yet, if they could be sold for half the 
price of the hay we do not believe that Mr. Lewis 
would ever have built his silo. 
The plan you mention of growing crops on fields 
so far from tne bam that manure cannot profitably 
be hauled to them is, in our opinion, a reasonable 
one. It is the plan we are following on the back fields 
of our own farm. Reasons for believing that these 
fields may be maintained with chemicals and green 
crops will be given next week. 
A CHAT ABOUT COVER CROPS. 
This orchard cover crop business interests me im¬ 
mensely. It is of greater importance to the fruit tree 
than is realized by the fruit grower. We have much 
to learn. We cannot generalize on this subject as 
much as on many others. A cover crop good for 
apples may hot suit pears, and may be away off for 
peaches. A cover suitable for sandy soil may not 
catch well on clay. Some plants are shade-enduring, 
while othera in deep shade give up the struggle and 
the ghost without a kick. One thing is clear to my 
mind, the orchardist who neglects cover crops is los¬ 
ing money, either through xmfavorable .soil condi- 
See First Page. 
tions engendered, and weak tree conditions induced, 
or, on the other hand, in the purchase of barnyard 
fertilizers which are imperative under the system 
which does not employ them. To my mind again, the 
introduction of green manures into the orchard is 
bound to bring about a change of ideals respecting 
distances of setting the trees. In a recent trip 
through western New York, the two best orchards, 
bearing the best apples seen this Autumn, were stand¬ 
ing, so that at 40 years of age one could drive com¬ 
fortably between the rows, without dodging to avoid 
switchings or scratches. One was 60 feet apart, the 
other 50, both Baldwins. No cover crop with which 
I am acquainted succeeds in dense shade—well, I 
ought to except chickweed, and I am not sure but it 
is a friend of the fruit grower. It grows late into 
Autumn and begins business early in Spring, but like 
“pusley,” it is mostly water. 
Regarding the relative merits of the various plants 
suitable for cover-crop purposes, I do not feel com¬ 
petent to express definite opinions. Cow peas usually 
do better the second year than the first. Often the 
first year’s cover is uneven. Perhaps the soil lacks 
the particular microbe necessary to their full develop¬ 
ment. Certainly the cow pea is one of the surest crops 
for midsummer sowing. I have seen many fields dur¬ 
ing the past two weeks, which were sown with cow 
peas in July or early August, now covered with a 
dense mat of vegetation at least a foot thick. Last 
night’s frost left the Cornell plots shivering under 
bare stalks. The leaves drop, and are mostly collect¬ 
ed by the stems, to be sure, but some loss of vegetable 
matter will undoubtedly occur before plowing time 
next Spring. The cow pea is an excellent plant to 
begin the work of soil regeneration with. Its ger¬ 
mination Is reasonably certain and growth rapid, but 
it does not love shade, and it Is not partial to heavy 
clay. With the ground in a good state of tilth, which 
implies the presence of humus in reasonable quanti¬ 
ties, I believe other cover crops may be used with 
greater advantage. Hairy vetch does not make much 
of a showing at first—it may even be quite obscured 
by weeds—but when the frost cuts the interlopers the 
vetch looms up and sticks to the business of grow¬ 
ing right along whenever a favorable opportunity oc¬ 
curs. It has done better this year on sandy loam than 
on stiff clay. 
By far the most striking orchard cover I have seen 
this year was secured by sowing Alfalfa on heavy 
sandy loam the first week in August at the rate of 22 
pounds per acre. This was in the western part of 
Monroe County. Growth was exceedingly uniform 
and the plants averaged a foot in height. The growth 
was weak beneath the trees, but the plants were there 
in great numbers. The ground is to Jje “ganged” 
early next Spring so that no trouble will be experi¬ 
enced in clearing the ground. Good catches of Crim¬ 
son and Mammoth clover were noted in orchards in 
several places. Some enterprising man should set to 
work and grow a lot of vetch seed. It Is now scarce 
and high-priced. When a fruit grower obtains a 
start with this plant, he can easily grow his own 
seed by maturing and harvesting a part of his cover 
crop each year. Finally, it is true economy in sowing 
cover crops to be generous in the amount of seed 
sown rather than niggardly. johw CKAro. 
Cornell University. 
EXPERIENCE WITH MELON DISEASE. 
I note with interest the article on fighting Melon 
blight on page 611, and I am prompted to tell my 
story, for we grow a melon or two here—or try to. 
Last year our Rocky Fords were strictly No. 1. We 
could warrant almost every melon, and we sold at a 
good price all we had. The seed was good, from Colo¬ 
rado, and the stock true. We also grew Emerald Gem 
and Miller’s Cream, but being red-fieshed melons they 
were grown some distance away from the green- 
fieshed Rocky Ford. Brown spot first appeared in the 
Millers just as they were coming into ripening, and, 
of course, “fixed” them. Most of the Rocky Fords 
had already been picked and sold, but a second plant¬ 
ing was just coming on. The blight spread from the 
Miller to all the rest. Now these first Rocky Fords 
were far and away the finest melons we had had In 
some years, and seed was saved from specimens of 
perfect quality and type for the next season’s use. We 
and our friends eat a great many melons right here 
at home, and the refuse goes—or did last year—into 
our compost or manure heap. In this way hundreds 
of bad melons. Miller’s Gem and Rocky Ford, went 
into that compost. ' 
When this season opened various people began to 
ask if we were going to grow melons this year. We 
thought we saw a “snap,” and laid out for some thou¬ 
sands of them. We prefer a good compost for melon 
growing; a big shovelful in a shallow hole a yard 
across, and thoroughly worked into the soil with a 
fork and covered up. That compost of last season 
was the melon manure for this season. Is there any 
connection? The seed was planted, and came up 
every one, and as they grew were carefully cared for, 
but from the start they were an obstinate lot. On 
good melon soil they ought to have thriven—but they 
didn’t. When quite small the plants developed a 
curious yellowish edging on the leaf, sometimes oc¬ 
cupying one-third of the leaf, and the leaf had a 
harsh, stiff look and feel. Dry and hot June might 
be accountable for a part of this, but it did no better 
when rain came July 3. Downy mildew kept work¬ 
ing at them, and a thorough spraying with l-to-12 
Bordeaux seemed to check that, but still that harsh, 
yellow, unthrifty look. Some of them were given a 
good dose of fertilizer high in nitrogen (on part clear 
nitrate of soda), but it did not help materially. They 
grew, mostly covered the ground, set melons, and we 
picked them—some of them—but not an eatable 
melon in the whole batch. August 20 brown spot, or 
Alternaria as I suppose, appeared, and August 24 
saw the whole lot a brown blasted mess. 'There were 
four kinds of melons In the field—Norfolk Button, 
Shipper’s Delight, Rocky Ford (our own seed), and a 
few Emerald Gem (our own seed). The Gems were 
the best in quality (?), the rest—squashes. Most of 
them are on the lot yet. 
Now then! Did the blighted melons last year in 
the compost have anything to do with the unsatis¬ 
factory growth this year? A watermelon patch 
touching them on one corner—and by the way, water¬ 
melons have usually blighted with us badly and early 
—planted on manure from another pile, and free from 
all bad melons, is a shining success, and on Septem¬ 
ber 20 was green and thrifty. Summer squash, 200 
hills, and about 500 hills Hubbard and Faxon, plant¬ 
ed on that same old compost were a fiat failure—be¬ 
having just like the melons—the only failure we ever 
had with Summer squash. Spraying did them no good 
whatever. This year we were just a little careful 
where the waste muskmelons went to—they are not 
in the compost heap. There hasn’t been a really good 
muskmelon grown in this section this year to my 
knowledge, and many are still on the ground. Did 
the growers “inoculate” their manure as I did? 
Milford, Conn. oaudiksid*. 
