J 89o 
585 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER, 
Canadian Barley is Superior. 
One could hardly find stronger evidence in proof of the 
superiority of Canadian barley than is given every day by 
the city newspapers, in the column of “ Prices Current.” 
Thus, in the Boston Daily Advertiser of August 15 is the 
following statement: “ Malt.— We quote six-rowed Canada 
80 to 85 cents for No. 1, 75 to 80 cents for No. 2 ; six-rowed 
State, 75 to 78 cents ; two rowed State, 70 to 75 cents.” 
The reason of the higher price of the Canadian grain is 
that it is, generally speaking, of better quality than the 
American. More and better beer can be brewed from a 
given quantity of Canadian barley than can be made from 
an equal quantity of the American grain. It has long 
been admitted by agricultural observers that the soil and 
climate of some parts of Canada—notably on the Lake 
shore, in the vicinity of the Bay of Quints—are particu¬ 
larly well adapted for growing barley, just as the lime¬ 
stone soils of Kentucky are specially well-fitted for pro¬ 
ducing June Grass, and very much on the same principle 
that Florida gives us oranges. Fairly good barley is grown 
in borne parts of Wisconsin and in California also, but, as 
the market quotations show,there is not enough of this good 
American article “ to go ’round,” and the brewers are 
forced to turn to the Canadian product. As matters 
actually stand now, our brewers are using every pound of 
American barley which they can use without 
depreciating the quality of their beer. They use 
a modicum of Canadian barley as an addition 
to the American, to reinforce it, as it were, in 
order to improve their beer, and it will be noticed that the 
brewer has always one very strong incentive to use as 
much of the American grain as he can, in that its price is 
much lower than that of the Canadian. Hence the chief 
result of putting a prohibitory tariff on Canadian barley 
would be to force the American brewer to use more grain 
and to produce an inferior quality of beer. As bearing 
upon this matter, it would be interesting to inquire 
whether one of the motives which induced the people of 
Kansas to expel breweries from their State may not have 
been that these establishments were possibly indiscreet 
enough to have used nothing but grain grown in the neigh¬ 
borhood. It is to be presumed that the cost of transport¬ 
ing Canadian barley to Kansas might be high enough to 
discourage its use there, and it may also be true that beer 
obtained without the use of superlative malt may not be 
fully competent to make glad the hearts of men and legis¬ 
lators. It should be said that the foregoing remarks apply 
more particularly to lager beer, which is used to an enor¬ 
mous extent in this country, and which, as experience 
shows, can be made of particularly good quality by means 
of Canadian barley. Ale brewers already use American 
barley altogether except for making stock ale. 
Harvard University. F- h. stoker. 
What the Brewers Have to Say. 
The R. N.-Y. correctly states the case when it says that 
the McKinley bill will be no help to American barley 
growers. The question could be argued at great length, 
but as we are in the hight of our busiest season we cannot 
spare the time. bartholomay brewing co. 
We certainly believe that the extremely high figure pro¬ 
posed by the McKinley bill for the tariff on barley will not 
be of any advantage to the American grower, but will be a 
great hardship to the brewing trade of the country. 
ROCHESTER BREWERY. 
We use American barley exclusively, except for export 
purposes. PABST BREWING CO. 
The letter sent to the Brewers’ Journal by The R. N.-Y. 
has been referred to me for an answer. The inferiority 
of American to Canadian barley for brewing purposes, is 
a mere matter of tradition and prejudice. The fact of the 
case is, that the majority of American farmers have now 
learned that a good malting barley must be grown under 
certain well defined conditions of soil and climate—the 
former a sandy loam containing much lime; the latter 
temperate, moderately warm and not too wet. They have 
also learned how to handle their barleys after gathering in 
their crops, and thus of the 60,000,000 bushels now annu¬ 
ally produced, about one-half is of excellent quality for the 
manufacture of malt. FRANCIS WYATT. 
WHEAT: WHAT HAS THE HARVEST BEEN ? 
The cultivation of the summer crops is nearly com¬ 
pleted ; the wheat is garnered, and whatever mistakes 
have been made have gone into history and cannot be 
changed, however much we might wish to do so. And 
now 7 before the wheat or oats are sold, although the ground 
be dry and hard, the preparation for the fall sowing must 
be begun. The first thought is : Did you get a fair remuner¬ 
ation for the time and money expended, a fair rent for the 
land and a moderate profit ? If not, why not ? Was the 
land uusuited for wheat ? Was it too poor for so exacting 
a cereal ? Was it too w 7 et ? Was the seed “ run out ?” 
Was the work done in a slovenly manner because 
of carelessness, poor tools or too small horses ? Have you 
expended $1 and got back 75 cents ? Will you go on fit¬ 
ting the ground again so as to do the same thing next year? 
Was the crop a good one ? If so, why ? Is it almost al¬ 
ways good, or was this an exceptional year ? What do you 
call a good crop ? How many bushels did you get, or have 
you got, on an average, during the last 10 years ? What 
is a fair cash rental—you paying the taxes—for an acre of 
fair wheat laud if no manures are used ? What if 200 
pounds of $30 commercial fertilizers are used ? 
But we want to hear first from him who thinks that he 
did not come out even, aud we desire to know 7 if he is 
going to do so again. “Now, count fair,” aud remember 
that 25 bushels of wheat—1,500 pounds—and 3,000 pounds 
of straw contain 27 pounds of potash, 45 pounds of nitrogen 
and 18 pounds of phosphoric acid, and if we have to pur¬ 
chase these in the form of commercial fertilizers, they will 
cost not less, and probably more, than four, 15 and seven 
cents per pound respectively, or $9.09 per acre. Knotty 
problem, isn’t it ? If the $6.75 for nitrogen could be dis¬ 
pensed with, or if the nitrogen could be procured at little 
or no cost it would simplify it greatly, and leave only $2.34 
for the potash and the phosphoric acid to struggle with. 
If the land is plowed now and cultivated every few days 
until sowing time, much, if not all of this nitrogen may be 
procured indirectly from the atmosphere, free of cost, as 
all of this early and continuous culture is necessary to put 
the land in the best mechanical condition and other plant 
food is set free in sufficient quantities. How many will 
wait until September 5 and then get out that old side-hill 
plow and in a few days afterward cast in the seed in that 
lumpy soil from which the previous crop of oats had taken 
most of the really soluble plant food ? The average yield 
of wheat in New York is from 14 to 15 bushels per acre. 
Somebody must be raising from eight to ten, because 
there are many who are raising 25 to 30. Perhaps father 
and grandfather had creamed the land before you came 
upon the stage, or perhaps it is so steep that you would 
have to shoo a hen to get her up it. I know the subject is 
not pleasant to discuss, but if we have nothing but corn 
bread and are “sad” at that, a little cheerful conversa¬ 
tion will make it digest better. You did not make the 
land ? No, but you or somebody else unmade it—in part 
at least. The Rural wants to know “ what’s the 
matter,” so that the bloated bond-holding farmer may tell 
how he gets an average of 30 and in exceptional years 35 
and 40 bushels per acre. 
“ Speak, for thou long enough hast acted dummy. 
Tnou hast a toneue—come let us h ar its tune : 
Thou’ r’l standing on thy legs above ground, sonny 
Raising wheat at nluety cents—eighty soon.” 
“ ONE WHO-RAISED FIVE-BUSHELS ON-SEVEN-ACRES.” 
R. N.-Y.—Of course, we want to know “ what’s the mat¬ 
ter ?” For the past few weeks we have been telling how 
Western New York farmers are trying to reach an average 
of 40 bushels per acre. Now, let us hear from the other side. 
The Farmers Club. 
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name and address 
of the writer to insure attention. Before asking a question, please 
see if it is not answered in our advertising columns. Ask only 
a few questions at one time. Put questions on a separate piece 
of paper.] 
Something About Milk. 
L. T., Buckingham County, Va .—What is the value of 
fresh milk ? A country store here gives me two cents a 
quart in trade. It will not pay cash and charges nine cents 
a pound for granulated sugar and 1)4 cent a pound for 
wheat bran. 
Ans.—I t is impossible to make a standard price for pure 
milk in the sense that it is possible to make a national price 
for grain, or pork, or cheese. Milk is a perishable product 
and its ordinary life of 24 hours is too short to permit suc¬ 
cessful storage. Its value, therefore, depends upon the 
use to which it may be put at once. You do not say what 
your milk is used for—whether it is shipped to the city or 
made into butter or cheese. The price you receive is about 
$1 per 100 pounds in trade, which would amount to 75 
cents in cash, as you pay retail prices for your goods. If 
your milk is of good quality you ought to be able to get a 
better price by making it into butter or cheese. Can you 
not put it to the same use that the store-keeper does ? By 
lengthening the life of milk, that is lengthening the time 
for which it will keep sweet, we may expect to enlarge the 
territory in which it can be sold, and add to its selling 
value. At present, some of our dairymen are trying to do 
this by adding chemicals to prevent “souriDg.” This is 
folly as well as criminal under New York State 
laws. Where milk is promptly bottled and packed in ice 
it will keep for several days and can be shipped, in ice, for 
long distances. In seasons like the present of course this 
plan is not practicable except where plenty of ice was se¬ 
cured. Of late years very successful experiments have 
been made at “sterilizing” milk. A company in this city 
is developing a successful trade, while in England a large 
company has been formed to carry on the business. Steril¬ 
ized milk is really “canned” milk, put up in neat glass 
bottles and treated just as canned fruits or vegetables are 
treated. The milk, as soon as it comes from the cow, is 
filtered through thick paper, and then poured into pint 
bottles which are placed in hot water, heated almost to 
the boiling point, vented, heated again, and then tightly 
sealed. The milk will then keep sweet for weeks. It is in 
the best possible condition for the use of invalids or child¬ 
ren. The trade in this “sterilized” milk must be made 
by a skillful advertising of its merits, but there seems no 
reasonable doubt that there is a good business for those 
who will develop it. 
Feeding Molasses to Cattle. 
Several Subscribers.—Is molasses a suitable cattle food ? 
Is it ever fed in any considerable quantities ? 
ANS.—The English agricultural papers all contain ad¬ 
vertisements of “Hay Spice,” which is warranted to 
“restore the taste of damaged hay and stimulate the ap¬ 
petite of farm animals.” The basis of this “spice” is, as 
we understand, cheap sugar or molasses. In their eager¬ 
ness to secure this sweet substance the cattle eat hay and 
fodder that they would not touch alone, on the principle of 
the Irishman drinking a bucket of water to secure the 
glass of liquor that some friend had poured into it. In 
this country it is said that those who feed the great beasts 
that win prizes at our fat stock shows, use large quantities 
of molasses, which they find not only fattening but stimu¬ 
lating. Of course, from a practical point of view, such 
feeding does not pay. At the Texas Experiment Station 
last year, Prof. F. A. Gulley conducted some interesting 
experiments with feeding molasses and cotton-seed hulls. 
These hulls seem to be about the most indigestible stock 
food that it is possible to think of. Still, analysis shows 
that they are fairly good food if stock can be induced to 
eat them. As for Texas molasses, Prof G. says: “It is 
well-known that sugar is a fat-producer, and that domestic 
animals easily learn to relish sweets. That a little sweet¬ 
ening makes food more palatable to stock is by no means 
new, but we believe the use of cheap molasses for this pur¬ 
pose has not been practiced to any extent in this country. 
We are informed by the proprietor of one of the largest 
sugar houses in the State, that a cheap grade of molasses, 
suitable for feeding purposes, may be procured at the 
sugar houses at from 12 to 14 cents per gallon, f. o. b., if 
forwarded in tanks or return packages. At this rate mo¬ 
lasses could be laid down at feeding plants at the oil mills 
at 16 cents or less per gallon, and half a pint per day would 
add only one cent to the cost of the day’s rations, exclusive 
of the additional quantity of food that the animal would 
consume.” Prof. Gulley found that cheap molasses may 
be profitably adde to a ration containing cotton hulls and 
cotton seed meal. The steers ate more of the sweetened 
hulls and seemed to relish them better. The molasses was 
diluted with three parts of water to one of molasses, and 
sprinkled over the hulls at the rate of one-half pint of mo¬ 
lasses per day. Molasses fed with silage did not prove suc¬ 
cessful. The food left uneaten soured at once, and the 
manger had a sour smell while the molasses was used. It 
is the custom now in Texas and other Southern States to 
feed cattle at the cotton-oil mills on the hulls. It is prob¬ 
able that the cheap molasses may be added to the hulls 
with good success. 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
T. IV. L., Lawford, Va.—Ot the plants sent for name, 
No. 1 is Liatris scariosa— Gay Feather; No. 2 is a legumin¬ 
ous plant but too broken up for identification; No. 3 is 
Solanum Carolinese — Horse Nettle: No. 4 is Trifolium 
arvense—Stone Cover; Rabbit-foot: No. 5 is a plant with 
seed pods but no flowers. We cannot, therefore, name it. 
No. 6 is Hypericum Sarothra. 
A. G. C., Tompkins County, N. F.—Is any one trying the 
system of cooling milk and raising cream in the well. This 
subject was spoken of in The Rural some time ago. Our 
ice-houses are empty in this section, and information on 
this matter would be very acceptable. 
Ans.—The R. N.-Y. will be glad to hear from those who 
are practicing this method. It ought to be very serviceable 
this year. 
B. L. T., Byron, N. Y. —My 150 Lawton Blackberry 
vines made a good growth last fall and a mammoth growth 
this year: but they failed to fruit, except a berry here and 
there. What was the trouble ? Will the old wood fruit 
next year ? 
Ans.—N o doubt frosts injured the buds. Yes, the canes 
of this year will fruit next season unless injured by the 
winter. 
J. J. A., Thessalon, Ont., Canada. —What is the trouble 
with regard to the potato vines, specimens of which are in¬ 
closed ? 
ANS.—The trouble seems due to a fungoid disease. There 
are no evidences of injury by insects. 
J. B. C., Nashville, Term.—What are the principal 
points of advantage claimed for the Sherwood harness ? 
Are they such that the average farmer would do well to 
buy at the prices asked ? 
Ans.—T here are no tugs or traces to get in the way 
of the horses’ feet. The horses are brought closer up 
to the work and will pull more. There is less jerking and 
straining. There is less danger of breaking and one can 
drive closer to trees or vines than when whiffletrees are used. 
Many farmers use the harness only for plowing or drag¬ 
ging, but we have used it on the wagon for nearly two 
years with satisfaction. It would seem as though any 
reasonable man ought to see the advantage of using this 
harness. The “ average farmer ” cannot profitably do 
without good farm appliances and, therefore, should have 
this. 
T. J. H., Wheeling, IF. Va .—Is there any danger of The 
R. N.-Y. wheats mixing if planted in adjacent plots ? 
Ans.—N o, there is little or no danger. 
E. E. M., Doming, Wash .—Why is not Horsford’s 
Market-Garden Pea, as a field pea, excellent for hogs ? I 
have never seen anything better for them, or anything 
that would produce a larger crop. 
ANS.— Probably it is, though we have never tried it for 
that purpose and thus cannot speak of it from personal 
experience. We would like to hear from those who have 
had actual experience with it in this connection. 
M. G., Kingston, Pa.— Could The R. N.-Y. furnish any 
information regarding Accomack County, Ya. ? Soil, 
climate, production, society ? Does that section offer any 
inducement to investors ? 
Ans. —Not from personal experience. Of course, we can¬ 
not give intelligent advice about sections that we have not 
recently visited. The area of the county is 480 square miles, 
and its population, in 1SS0, was 24,408, of whom 15,015 
were white and 9,393 colored. The surface is level and the 
soil light and moderately fertile. The chief products are 
corn, oats, Irish and sweet potatoes, wool and butter. 
Some of our readers in that section will doubtless tell us 
the good things to be said about the county. 
J. H. McC., Wrightsville, Pa.— 1. Would it be safe to 
plant early cabbages next spring on laud cleared this 
winter, or would there be auy danger of grubs and worms ? 
2. What is the best fertilizer to prolong the fruitage of an 
old orchard still in bearing, and when should it be applied? 
ANS.—1. Yes, we think so; better such laud than that in 
which cabbages have been previously raised. 2. Use 
muriate of potash and raw bone-meal or flour. Apply it 
early next spring before the leaves push. 
