i89o 
533 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
Business. 
THE GENEVA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
A Review of the Case.—The Rural New-Yorker 
desires to be perfectly fair in its remarks concerning this 
Station. If any of its statements are not correct, those 
who have charge of the Station are requested to make 
them right. Let us briefly review the case: For the past 
year many complaints have reached us regarding the man¬ 
agement of the Geneva Station. They came from respect¬ 
able and influential persons. “The State is not getting 
its money’s worth from Geneva.” The R. N.-Y. at last 
took notice of these complaints by printing a note received 
from one of its friends, and asking a few questions which, 
in the light of the information in its hands, seemed perti¬ 
nent and fair. This matter appeared on page 434 of the 
present volume. It was hoped and expected that some 
one in authority at the Station would at once reply to 
these questions with facts so apparent and conclusive that 
the whole matter would be cleared up. No one, however, 
seemed willing to reply in print. We have no permission 
to print any of the correspondence brought out in reply to 
these questions. “ Too inconsequential to be noticed,” is 
the comment of one who seems to have been selected to 
reply to them. With the exception of the letter from Mr. 
P. H. Jacobs, printed on page 466, not one word of defense 
of the Station has reached us, while at least a score of rep¬ 
utable men have expressed their disapproval of its man¬ 
agement and their lack of interest in its work. At the 
request of the Station officials the writer visited Geneva 
and looked the experiments over as carefully as he could, 
during a somewhat limited stay. He was given every op¬ 
portunity of seeing what was being done. 
Questions that are Asked.— What do farmers want 
to learn ? What do they need to help them in their busi¬ 
ness ? How can we put facts before them so that we may 
gain their respect and attention ? Of what use are our ex¬ 
periments if they serve only to puzzle farmers by present¬ 
ing a mass of unimportant data, which simply serve to 
hide the one central, important fact ? It was with these 
ideas in mind that tne writer went to Geneva to try to see 
what the workers there are doing for farmers; not for 
scientists, not for themselves, but for farmers— those who 
need help and plain, honest, common-sense advice. The 
more important questions asked by those who want to 
know about the Geneva Station, are : 
1. What is done with the money ? 
2. Why are the bulletins not as valuable as those from 
other Stations ? 
3. Why cannot New York afford to pay as much for a 
good experiment worker as any other ztate? 
These questions will be answered as well as the writer is 
able to answer them. As to the Director’s habits, his diffi¬ 
culties with other members of the Station staff, the char¬ 
acter of the work he assigns to himself, and his knowledge 
of practical farm affairs, we have nothing to do. Let us 
assume that the Director is responsible for the work done 
at the Station. If it is valuable, it is to his credit. If it is 
not, he is at fault. This is a rule of business life that is 
considered iust and fair. 
What the Station is Doing.— At the present time the 
chief experiments under way are those with poultry, swine 
and dairy cattle. A “ manure platform ” is being tested 
and ordinary small plot experiments with grasses and 
potatoes are being continued. In the horticultural and 
pomological departments the work is mainly confined to 
comparisons of varieties—cheap work every bit of it—a 
good share of which is done just as well by hundreds of 
fruit-growers and gardeners. For the amount of money 
appropriated, the poultry experiments are little better 
than a farce. We are told that 110,000 were appropriated 
to carry on experiments with cattle, pigs and poultry. The 
cattle cost the Station nothing , there are not over 35 pigs, 
most of which were given to the Station—and the money 
has all been used! There are now perhaps 50 hens and 40 
little chickens at the Station. Experiments with preserv¬ 
ing eggs in salt and other substances are in progress to 
prove what hundreds of intelligent farmers might have 
told before the experiments started. Several well-planned 
experiments—designed by Mr. P. H. Jacobs—are being car¬ 
ried out with care, but for 1500 they would have been worked 
out just as satisfactorily by any of our leading poultry- 
men. What appeared to the writer the most valuable fact 
brought out by the experiments had apparently been over¬ 
looked by the Director, or not considered worth noticing. 
Home-made incubators and home-made brooders have 
been successfully used, but the Station people did not 
seem to think farmers cared about such simple things. 
“ Would you get out a bulletin answering the common 
questions that people have written us about ?” was asked. 
“ Certainly,” we answered. “The people who ask you ques¬ 
tions know what they want a great deal better than you do! 
You must get down to the people and deal with plain 
common sense or you never can get a following.” We are 
told that Mr. Wheeler, who has charge of the poultry 
experiments, knew but little about poultry, and was 
obliged to go to experienced men for advice. Why then 
was Mr. Wheeler put in charge of the experiments ? The 
State appropriated money enough to hire the best man in 
the country to do such work. Why did not the Station 
secure the best pouitryman to be found ? Gentlemen of 
the Board of Control, is not this a fair sample of the way 
things are done at Geneva ? Cheap men, cheap work, 
cheap results 1 
The experiments with pigs are not yet complete. They 
promise interesting results. We regard the experiment 
with breeds of dairy cattle as of little practical value, and 
believe that the sickness of the animals and the changing 
about of the management from one person to another will 
lessen the value of the records. Nobody at the Station 
seems able to tell just what the object-of this experiment 
is. Every intelligent farmer who reads the agricultural 
papers knows the special points of excellence of these dif¬ 
ferent breeds already. It is difficult to determine what is 
to be proved by the “ manure platform.” This cost $1,000. 
A manure experiment reported by another Station last 
winter, cost not over §15, and arrested universal attention, 
because it was practical and dealt with actual conditions 
of farm life. Do the Station officials realize that with the 
money spent on this “ platform,” they might, from their 
own statements, have retained the services of three of the 
best members of the staff ? There is nothing in any way 
remarkable about the plot experiments on the farm. By 
that is meant that there Is little or nothing that is new or 
ahead of the practice of intelligent farmers. In fact, one 
strong ground for criticism of the work of the Station is 
that it keeps several years behind the practices of our best 
farmers. The best fruitmen, dairymen, or poultrymen go 
there and find nothing new—in fac they are asked how to 
do things by the officers. Ah! say the Station officials, but • 
we do not expect to teach such men ! But why in the world 
don’t vou secure such men for the Station work ? 
The Questions Answered.— 1. The money seems to be 
spent for repairs, for collecting and computing data of 
little interest or value, “in keeping up appearances” and 
in conducting insignificant experiments. 2. The bulletins 
are not as valuable as many others: a. Because there is no¬ 
body at the Station with editorial ability enough to render 
them attractive and readable, b. Because a great many of 
the experiments described in these bulletins are not dis¬ 
tinct, original or striking, c. Because the bulletins are not 
published with any regularity or apparent system. Bulle¬ 
tin No. 20 has just reached us. It contains simply 28 pages 
of tabulated pedigrees of the animals now being fed and 
milked at the Station. In view of the excuses offered by 
the Station officials as to the chronic lack of funds, The 
R. N.-Y. regards the printing and distributing of this 
pamphlet as the culmination of a long series of absurd 
blunders. What, in the name of common sense, do the farm¬ 
ers of New York State care for these pedigrees when hun¬ 
dreds of questions of practical importance are puzzling 
them every day ? Why not have spent the money in send¬ 
ing the Horticulturist about the State taking notes on 
fruits ? Why not have let the Pomologist carry out the 
most practical suggestions that we heard at the Station ? 
Why not contribute something to the present investigations 
going on among dairymen regarding methods of raising 
cream so as to save ice ? The Station must be keenly alive 
to the needs of agriculture when,after six months’ work, it 
can send us nothingbut a list of pedigrees ! There is some¬ 
thing almost pitiful in the dull, heavy dignity of these bul¬ 
letins and “ annual reports.” From a journalistic point of 
view they are ridiculous. One of the best teachers of agri¬ 
culture we have in the country once said to the writer— 
“ When I began to try to reach the farmers I asked my¬ 
self—‘Who is this man that I am to teach ?’ He was edu¬ 
cated in the country school. All that he has learned since 
he left school he has learned by observation—by looking at 
things. He can look over a field of wheat and tell its yield 
per acre; he can look at an animal and tell its value; but a 
dry, printed description of either one would not gain his at¬ 
tention. Unless I can show him pictures and figures ar¬ 
ranged so as to catch his eye, I can never reach him.” 
Every word of that is true. How many farmers does the 
Station expect to interest with this pedigree bulletin f 
3. New York can afford to pay as much as any State in the 
Union for good men. The Geneva Station draws a larger 
fund than any other Station in the country. It seems to 
be the policy of this institution to hire cheap men, to hold 
them until some other place offers them a few hundred 
dollars more and then let them go—hiring more cheap men 
to fill the places. There are men at the Station to-day ex¬ 
pected to do valuable and faithful work and to maintain 
the reputation of the institution, who are paid no more than 
Long Island market gardeners pay their drivers. We were 
told that this “cheap labor” is the policy of the Board of 
Control. We do not know bow this is; but we do know 
that somebody is responsible for the cheap, stingy, short¬ 
sighted and petty policy that is surely bound to ruin the 
Geneva Station if it be continued. The Director’s assis¬ 
tants are hard-working, earnest and conscientious young 
men, trying to earn reputations for usefulness and accurate 
scientific work. They have not the proper direction, they 
are not inspired or enthusiastic and, in the writer’s judg¬ 
ment, do not receive the credit, encouragement or compen¬ 
sation that they deserve. 
The Substance of the Matter.—As judged by actual 
results (the publications of the Station and the work now 
being done there), the Geneva Station has fallen far short 
of its possibilities. Comparisons are not pleasant. There 
are many reasons why one does not care to place the work 
done at other Stations by the side of the results at Geneva 
and measure them. The public seem to have done this 
pretty thoroughly already. Nor is it pleasant to refer to 
those who have left Geneva for other Stations. They do 
not desire publicity in this connection; we do not wish to 
bring them into the discussion. We merely take the state¬ 
ment of the Station people that it was a mere question of 
salary that induced these men to leave Geneva. We 
maintain, however, that twice the amount of money needed 
to keep them at Geneva is wasted every year on valueless 
if not absurd experiments. That those who care to defend 
tlje Station may know what to base their replies on, the 
following charges are made: 
1. The Geneva Station draws more money than any 
other similar institution. Its outfit of buildings and ap¬ 
paratus is as complete as any. Its farm is in good condi- 
dion and is situated in a section well suited for develop¬ 
ing a business and profitable side of experiment work. 
There is no reason, therefore, why it should not lead in 
practical experiment work. 
2. The publications of the Statiou, as compared with 
those from similar institutions, are third class. They are 
not well edited or arranged; they are full of common¬ 
place generalities. There is nothing striking or “ taking ” 
about them. 
3. The work now being done at the Station lacks origin¬ 
ality and definite purpose. It is behind the practices of 
the most progressive farmers. It is cheap work, cheaply 
done and cheaply advertised. “ We are going to do so 
and so ” is the story there, not “ We have done so and so.” 
4. Those in authority at the Station have little or no con¬ 
ception of the real needs of farmers. It is impossible for 
them to put themselves in the farmer’s place. 
5. No farmer can go to the Station and see for himself 
how to raise a better crop of wheat or a better crop of 
grass; how to raise a better cow or a better horse. No 
fruitman can go there and learn how to grow more and 
better fruits. The farm is not an object-lesson in the true 
sense, because the business and practical side of experi¬ 
ment work is apparently ignored or considered of minor 
importance. 
Who is Responsible ?—Either the Director or the Board 
of Control. Who is responsible for the management of a 
large business enterprise—the manager or the company f 
The Director refers to his long service as a chemist in Con¬ 
necticut, in Vermont and at Washington. He also claims 
to have originated the farmers’ institute movement. But 
we have to do only with the work done at Geneva under 
his management, and we must look to the public docu¬ 
ments of the institution for the value of that work. Since 
December 1, 1887, not counting the pamphlet of pedigrees 
and an account of a new method of testing milk, nine 
bulletins were issued. The Director of course is responsi¬ 
ble for the typographical appearance and arrangement of 
these pamphlets. We have already given our opinion on 
this point. In fact, this editorial work, with a few notes 
of introduction, constituted the Director’s sole share of 
bulletin work. Is not this correct ? Two “ annual re¬ 
ports” have been written by the Director. They are 
mainly devoted to telling what the Station proposes to do. 
The second one contains a large portion of the first, re¬ 
printed, word for word. There are tables of figures from the 
Department of Agriculture’s reports and poultry papers, 
various suggestions regarding the necessity of appropria¬ 
tions, and that is all. Let those who doubt this read these 
reports. The writer asked every man he met at the Station 
to point out an experiment that the Director had designed 
or was conducting himself. He was not shown a single 
one. Now the final authority rests with the Board of Con¬ 
trol. We are told that they are entirely satisfied with the 
present state of affairs. Well, gentlemen, the farmers of 
the State are not satisfied. The institution under your 
charge is not earning its salt, when judged by any fair 
standard, as we believe. If this is not true, tell us why it 
is not true. h. w. c. 
IMPLEMENT NOTES. 
A Cow Milker.—The Rural has mentioned a pump 
for milking cows. I would like to know if it is a success. 
What is the dealer’s address ? D. c. s. 
Ans. —This is an English machine just invented, and 
not at all in general use. It is highly praised by some 
English dairymen, but nothing definite is known about it 
in this country. 
Fence Machines.— There is an evident revival of inter¬ 
est in these machines. The slat-and-wire fence is neat and 
durable, and strong enough for most purposes. It gains 
many friends in sections like Western New York, where 
the timber supply is limited and the old-fashioned, heavy, 
timber fences are out of the question. Farmers want a 
machine that they can operate indoors^ making the fence 
on stormy days and coiling it up ready for use. They can 
then nail it to the posts at their leisure. The marketmen 
about Norfolk, Va., have a new use for these fence ma¬ 
chines. They weave the slats and wire into such size that 
when rolled with the edges fastened together, a cylinder 
about the size of a barrel is made. The slats are placed 
close together, and good-sized wire is used. Three or four 
stout hoops about this, with two heads, make a cheap and 
stout package for shipping vegetables or fruits. Market- 
men tell us that these packages answer well for potatoes, 
turnips or other hard vegetables. For melons, or other 
softer goods, stiffer packages are needed. 
A WOMAN’S FARMING. 
No. VI. 
Not one man in 10 knows how to turn a furrow. It is 
not so much on the soil or the quality of the land that we 
depend for support, as on the people who live on it. Com¬ 
paratively poor land may be made to produce a good living 
if rightly managed. It is manuring and cultivation that 
tell. I have known people to sink money and grow poor 
on one of the best farms the country cia show, and how 
was it ? Their habits could not be termt de 'ctravagant, but 
it was the old story, an exemplification of the adage “ He 
that by the plow would thrive, himself must hold the plow 
or drive.” In my case I had to drive, or rather direct. The 
average hired man very soon learns whether his employer 
knows how work should be done or not, and acts accord¬ 
ingly. The hired man is not going to exert himself. His 
business is generally to pass the time and draw his pay, 
though this is not the case with all. Some are plagued 
with a conscience, which troubles them when things go 
the wrong way, and they would not close with an 
employer who did not know the value of good, interested 
labor. 
This was the case with the man wno rented my place 
and worked for me by the day. He turned his furrows to 
suit me exactly, so that one lapped on the other find laid 
up light. The piece of land thao I had to plantjth'. spring 
was a gravelly soil, and a little shelly in places; b I coy- 
