286 
THE RURAI 
NEW-YORKER. 
MAY 3 
FARMERS' CLUB—DISCUSSION. 
A Criticism of Experiment Stations. 
C. H. S., Niles, California.— I have 
jnst received the March circular of the 
New York Agricultural Experiment Sta¬ 
tion, “ To the Originators or Proprietors of 
New Fruits.” I do not wish to appear 
hypercritical, but there are some things 
about this circular, and similar ones I have 
received, which perhaps help to explain 
why the average farmer or fruit grower 
comes to think that “experiment stations” 
are of little practical value. This pam¬ 
phlet consists of 18 pages and the cover. 
The headings under the main title are as 
follows: “Methods Adopted for the Sys¬ 
tematic Testing of New Fruits ; ” “A List 
of Fruits now under Trial at the Station ; ” 
“A List of Trees Planted in the Arbor¬ 
etum.” Now, from this I should say that, 
if language has any meaning, I am to infer 
that new and rare varieties of fruits are be¬ 
ing tested and distributed. In fact, the 
statement is broad and distinct that the 
testing of new fruits is to be a special feature. 
(Page five.) I turn to the “List of Fruits 
on Trial,” in which those that the station 
“has a right to distribute” are starred. 
Here I find on the first page, and starred, 
such old sorts of apples as Alexander, 
Baldwin, Ben Davis and Early Harvest. 
I should say that three-fourths of the list 
are standard apples, known to every 
orchardist and nurseryman, and the same 
is true of pears, plums, peaches, and most 
of the other fruits. (Pages seven to 15.) 
How can such sorts be honestly said to be 
“under trial?” And why is it that the 
station has only the “right to distribute” 
about one-tenth of the whole list, including 
none of the Russian apples and pears, and 
very few of the “ new fruits ” of any sort ? 
How can such fruits as the Red Astrachan, 
Tompkins King and Wagener Apples, 
Buffum and Bartlett Pears, Lombard and 
Green Gage Plums, English Morello 
Cherry, Hale’s Early and Crawford 
Peaches, and Concord and Clinton Grapes 
be classified in such a connection ? It is 
true that the same thing occurs in many 
other lists sent out from “experimental 
grounds:” but where shall we draw the 
line in practice ? Does the Bartlett Pear 
still need to be “systematically tested ?” 
It is such questions as these that the 
average fruit grower is apt to ask, and 
although I believe in experimental sta¬ 
tions. and “ stand up for them ” on every 
possible occasion, I cannot help wishing 
that the crying evil of many of their re¬ 
ports—the desire to make a large showing 
—could in some manner be lessened. In 
the instance which I have used for an illus¬ 
tration, T think it would have been better 
to have classified “ Fruits in Orchard ” in 
such a way as to show the “ new, or locally 
known fruits ” in a separate list from the 
century-old standard sorts. Further, the 
“ right to distribute” is certainly obtain¬ 
able for all varieties that are “in market,” 
as are the larger part of the sorts on the 
list in the pamphlet under consideration. 
Why should a station be free to distribute 
Dumelow’s Seedling Apple, and lack that 
right in the case of such standard sorts ’as 
Benoni, Esopus Spitzenburg and Jonathan? 
Of course, I recognize the fact that a va¬ 
riety still in the hands of the proprietor 
and not yet offered for sale, is tested at~a 
station only by the owner’s courtesy, and 
under an agreement “ not to distribute,” 
though I certainly think that no pro¬ 
gressive and liberal-minded horticulturist 
would expect such a pledge to continue 
after the time when he himself had begun 
to sell his new variety. The ethics of the 
case, to my mind, can be stated as follows : 
that the station shall not compete with 
nurserymen, shall not furnish large quan¬ 
tities of cions, but shall gradually dis¬ 
tribute in a great number of available lo¬ 
calities, to such men as will observe care¬ 
fully and report accurately and faithfullv. 
Doing this, the growers of new fruits 
should give it the largest practicable free¬ 
dom of distribution. 
Farm Managers. 
Bucephalus Brown.— I am glad to see 
this subject discussed in the Rural. It is 
one that will bear a good deal of discus¬ 
sion, not only on one side, but on both. 
T cannot see why any young man who 
thinks himself competentto take the charge 
of a farm should object to be bound by the 
condition essential to all trades—that he 
should be capable of making it “pay.” 
How it shall be made to pay should be con¬ 
sidered in the original agreement, and no 
manager should accept a situation unless 
he knows himself capable of giving his 
employer just the kind of " pay ” he wants. 
If he is to make a “show place,” and the 
pay is to come in the way of display, then 
a landscape gardener and not a farmer 
should be employed. If it is to be a farm 
on which the luxurious pleasure of “ fancy 
stock,” from horses down to fowls is in re¬ 
quest, then the man for the place is one 
skilled in rearing all these kinds of stock, 
and able to manipulate, with the skill of 
a caucus steerer, the managers and com¬ 
mittees of great fairs. If he succeeds in 
this, or the landscape man succeeds in his 
work, he has made it “ pay,” and if he has 
done so skillfully, without needless ex¬ 
pense, his employer ought to be and gener¬ 
ally will be satisfied. But if the farm is 
one on which only good common stock is 
to be kept and common crops grown for 
tbe supply of the owner’s family and for 
sale, then a different man is wanted. He 
should be a good practical farmer, able to 
run the same kind of a farm, in the same 
sort of a way, with profit to himself. If he 
can do that for his employer and the em¬ 
ployer is a reasonable man, there may be 
satisfaction all around. Just here comes 
up the greatest difficulty of all. Such a 
man as this sort of employer wants is the 
most difficult of all to get. The landscape 
man and the “fancy stock” man belong 
in the class of luxuries, for which high 
prices are the rule. But the plain farmer, 
if capable of properly carrying on a farm 
of the third kind, will generally be able to 
get, and in time to own a farm, where all 
the returns for his skill, labor and economy 
will inure to himself. We have no class 
of skilled farmers for hire in this country, 
and in consequence the merchant, lawyer 
or manufacturer who owns a farm, has un¬ 
ending difficulty in getting the help he 
needs. It is not a fair parallel to compare 
the manager in a wholesale house with the 
manager of an ordinary farm, either as to 
work or pay. Tt would be a much nearer 
comparison if the clerk in a retail store 
were taken. But even there, the similar¬ 
ity is not great, nor the comparison equal. 
A man in other business, who owns a well 
equipped farm and hires a manager, has a 
right to expect of him, on a fair statement 
of the results of his work, to show a profit 
sufficient, after paying all other expenses, 
to pay five or six per cent, and taxes on tbe 
investment, and all the wages he has 
earned. I think that is fair; at any rate, 
as a farmer myself, I would be satisfied to 
work or hire on a similar basis. Of course 
the season must be averaged to get a just 
result. “ Good business ability and push ” 
in farming, as in other business, must be 
judged by the results. A vain voung man’s 
estimate of his value (which merely means 
what he would like to get), cannot be made 
the standard. It. is the result in the net 
profit he is able to show, by which he must 
be judged. When there is a regular and 
reliable supply of the right sort of men, 
there will be plenty of good chances open 
to them. At present they are about “as 
scarce as hens’ teeth.” 
The Solubility of Nitrogen. 
Prof. S. W. Johnson. New Haven, 
Conn. —Allow me to remark upon some 
not entirely correct statements in the R. 
N.-Y. of April 12, under the heading “Spirit, 
of the Press.” viz : “ All ammoniacal forms 
of nitrogen must first become nitric acid 
before thev are. available as plant food; ” 
and, “ Sulphate of ammonia is slower to 
feed plants than is nitrate of soda, simply 
because its ammonia must change to 
nitrate beforeit becomes available as food.” 
It is a well established fact that in the soil 
of forests, nitric acid and nitrates do not 
exist. The same may be true in all soils 
where humus and moisture are abundant, 
for the conditions which prevail in such 
circumstances not only prevent the forma¬ 
tion of nitrates, but occasion reduction of 
nitrates to ammonia, if they were present or 
added. It is equally well established that 
ammonia in the soil or in the air may di¬ 
rectly enter and nourish plants without 
transformation into nitrates. Tt, indeed, 
generally happens that nitrates act more 
rapidly and give better returns than 
ammonia-salts for most crops or on most 
soils, especiallv in dry seasons. Thus in 
the famous Rothamsted field trials on 
sandy loam the average result of four series 
of experiments carried on for 18 years with 
barley grain, was that of equal amounts of 
nitrogen, the ammonia yielded but 87 per 
cent, as much as the nitric, and the same 
result was got in three series of trials last¬ 
ing 11 years, at Woburn, onheavy but well- 
drained clay loam. With oats in heavy 
undrained (?) soil ammonia-salts gave as 
good crops as nitrates or even better. Tn 
case of wheat-grain, at Rothamsted, 
ammonia applied in autumn in two series 
of trials, lasting 30 years, gave but 75 per 
cent, of the gain got from nitrates, but at 
Woburn in three 11-year ^series of experi" 
ments, ammonia-sulphate applied in spring 
gave a gain, over unmanured ground, of OR 
per cent, of that obtained from an equal 
amount of nitric nitrogen. Miircker whose 
many admirable field-experiments in Ger¬ 
many have rendered him an authority on 
these subjects, reports results of trials in 
1888 as follows: “ With moderate applica¬ 
tions (about 18 pounds of nitrogen per acre) 
ammonia-salts gave with all grain and root 
crops the same produce as nitrates; with 
heavy doses (29 pounds of nitrogen per acre) 
ammonia equaled nitrates on cereal crops; 
but was slightly inferior when applied to 
root crops. Sulphate of ammonia acts in 
general a little slower than nitrates, not 
because it must be converted into nitrates 
in order to feed plants, but for the reason 
that ammonia becomes in part fixed in the 
soil in a comparatively insoluble form, 
while nitrates undergo no such fixation,but 
move freely in the soil-water.” In reference 
to the statement that organic nitrogen in 
blood “ is less soluble than the mineral 
forms, nitrate of soda or sulphate of 
ammonia,” and that “ to be assured of a 
full supply of nitrogen later in the season 
blood should form a part of a nitrogenous 
fertilizer,” It maybe stated that blood often 
acts as promptly as the mineral forms, and 
when made moist and warm very soon 
evolves ammonia rapidly and in abun¬ 
dance. 
R. N.-Y.—The remarks were taken, in 
substance, from the proceedings of the 
New Jersey Horticultural Society, page 192- 
3, as presented in the article of’Prol. E. P. 
Voorhees. from'whom we should be pleased 
to hear in reply to Prof. Johnson. 
Earth Closets Again. 
G. L.. Laurelville, O — After reading 
friend Terry’s article on earth closets in a 
recent issue of the RURAL, my advice would 
be not to follow his plan in all respects. 
What he says is all right until he speaks of 
the pails under the seats. When it comes 
to taking these out in winter and thawing 
their contents in a vessel of hot water I 
must not be counted in. The following is 
the way in which I have managed the 
matter on my little farm : Instead of a 
drawer or bucket under the seat, a plank or 
board as long as the seat and a little wider 
is placed on the ground under the seat; 
then a door, say 15 inches high and as wide 
as tfhe little house, opens on the outside, and 
when it is thought best to remove the con¬ 
tents of the closet the whole can be shoveled 
into a cart or barrow in 10 minutes and 
dumped into the manure pile or covered up 
with the contents of the yard. It is, of 
course, best to throw a few shovelfuls of 
soil or ashes under the seat. With a little 
care handling the night-soil is no more re¬ 
pulsive than handling hot manure; but a 
liberal use of soil or ashes should be made 
every day. The closet should be at least 50 
feet from the dwelling-house and well, and 
it should be so neat that one need not feel 
ashamed to have it seen from the road, 
when there are no trees to hide it. 
W. S. S., Providence, R. I.—Mr. H. G., 
of Walnut, Kan., asks in the isssue of 
April 12 : “ Does the R. N.-Y. believe that 
the removal of the tariff on Brazilian sugar 
would increase the demand for our bacon 
and other farm products in that country ? ” 
I t would seem to me to be a matter of no 
importance whether it would or not. If 
the removal of the duty on sugar would 
lessen the cost of sugar to the consumer 
(and the experience of England shows that 
it would have precisely tnis effect), does 
not H. G. see at once that the American 
farmer would be able to get more sngar 
for his surplus bacon and other farm pro¬ 
ducts than he can get now ? and wouldn’t 
that be a good thing for the American 
farmer ? H. G. also says that it is not very 
plain to him if the theories of the free 
traders are correct, how the removal of the 
tariff would help the Brazilian sugar pro¬ 
ducer. A sufficient reply to this is the 
simple statement that the business of the 
Congress of the United States is to legislate 
for the best interests of the whole people 
of the United States, and not for the in¬ 
terests of the people of any other country 
whatsoever. Finally, does H. G. mean by 
his statement that “the removal of the 
present duties would destroy the whole 
business at one blow.” to admit, that the 
tariff enables the sugar trust to exact a 
price in excess of what it could obtain were 
there no tariff? If he does not mean this, 
what does he mean » 
F. S.. Mulford County, Oregon.—I have 
received plants by mail in this far-off land 
for two seasons, and with one exception 
they have come in good order and given 
satisfaction. Faulty packing was the cause 
of failure in the one case. I order from 
Eastern houses, as their terms are more 
reasonable than those on this coast, and 
getting the goods by mail brings them with¬ 
in the reach of limited means. Of course I 
have to send in orders early before the dry, 
hot weather sets in, otherwise the plants 
are apt to dry out on the way. Our roses 
from the Storrs & Harrison Company this 
spring were not even wilted when they were 
received. Some other sorts of plants from 
John Lewis Childs, also came in perfect 
order and went on growing as though never 
moved. 
Experiments with Field Corn.— In 
the summary of results obtained at the ex¬ 
periment station of the University of 
Illinois with field corn, and carried on 
through 1888 and 1889 we find the follow¬ 
ing: 
Such phrases as ‘90-day’ or ‘100-day’ 
corn are misleading, if meant to teach that 
ordinary field corn will fully mature in 
average seasons in this latitude (about 10 
miles north of latitude 40) in the number 
of days named. The early-maturing varie¬ 
ties required 125 days or more to mature 
fully. The medium-maturing varieties, 
or those maturing about September 25th, 
gave larger yields of well dried corn than 
either earlier or later varieties. Thorough¬ 
ly air-dried corn contains about 11 percent, 
of water in the shelled grain. The loss of 
weight after husking is greater than is 
generally recognized. It may be from 10 to 
20 per cent. Eighty pounds of ear corn of 
the medium-maturing varieties as husked, 
would not make more than a bushel of air- 
dry corn. Barrenness of the stalk seems to 
depend much more on the conditions under 
which the crop is grown, as thickness of 
planting and the season, than on the va¬ 
riety. The date of planting, within the 
limits ordinarily fixed for corn planting in 
this latitude, had little influence on the 
yield of a medium-maturing variety. The 
yields from plants planted at intervals of a 
week, for five weeks, not later than June 
1st, varied little. In some seasons the cost 
of cultivating later-planted fields would lie 
lessened. Depth of planting did not ma¬ 
terially affect the yield either in 1888 or 
1889. In the latter year the roots which 
supported the plant during most of its 
growth, usually started within two inches 
of the surface, whatever the depth of plant¬ 
ing. Unless the soil near the surface has 
not sufficient moisture, there seems to be 
no good reaion for planting corn in this 
region more than about three inches deep. 
Drill-planting was not found materially 
better than hill-planting, either for the 
production of corn or fodder. The quality 
of seed planted controlled the yield, rather 
than planting one or four kernels in a 
place. For corn alone, planting at the rate 
of one kernel every nine or 12 inches, gave 
better results than thicker or thinner 
planting. For fodder, planting at the rate 
of one kernel every six inches gave better 
results than planting twice as many ker¬ 
nels. Stirring or cultivating the soil while 
the crop is growing was not essential in 
either 1888 or 1889 Good yields of corn 
were obtained where there was no cultiva¬ 
tion after planting, except to remove the 
weeds by scraping the surface. Preventing 
the growth of weeds was more important 
than stirring the soil. 
Root-pruning injured the crop. Stirring 
the soil to a depth of four inches or more 
will injure many roots of the corn. Com¬ 
paratively few roots will be affected if the 
soil is not stirred more thau two inches 
deep. Shallow-working cultivators gave 
better results than deep-working ones, but 
required more care and skill in their use. 
The deep-working shovel-cultivators killed 
the weeds more thoroughly than the shal¬ 
low-working pnes, nut the latter injured 
the roots less. Usually, frequent cultiva¬ 
tion did not repay the extra cost. Com¬ 
mercial fertilizers failed to increase materi¬ 
ally the yield. 
TRUE INWARDNESS. 
The Connecticut Station (New Haven) 
offers a limited Dumber of the Vermorel 
spraying nozzles at the wholesale price— 
$1.25 and five cents for postage. This nozzle 
which has been used at the Rural Grounds 
for three or four years, produces an ample 
spray. One advantage is that it is self¬ 
cleaning. 
The R. N. Y.’s very simple formula for 
the Bordeaux Mixture is: to one gallon of 
water add one-quarter of a pound of lime 
and one-quarter of a pound of copper sul¬ 
phate. 
