83o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
DEC. 9 
NOTES FROM THE RURAL GROUNDS. 
The Effect of Nitrogen In Varying Quantities 
Upon Potatoes. Effects of Increasing 
Quantities of Fertilizers. 
That well known and respected fertilizer authority, 
Joseph Harris, has said that “ it is a matter of surprise 
that the Editor of The Rural New-Yorker does not see 
that his own experiments demonstrate that, so far as the 
production of potatoes is concerned, his worn-out soil was 
more deficient in nitrogen than in any other constituent of 
plant food.” 
It was to throw more light upon this question that the 
following trials were made during the past season. Mr. 
Harris contends that the chemical fertilizers of to-day, as 
a rule, contain too small a quantity of nitrogen ; that the 
minerals (potash and phosphate) are the strong links, and 
that a deficiency of nitrogen is the weak link of the chain 
by which the crop, in due proportion, will bo diminished. 
An injudicious advocacy of the good effects to be derived 
from nitrate of soda on the part of many writers, has had 
a decided effect upon those who have not studied chemical 
fertilizer problems to induce them to jump at the conclu¬ 
sion that it will insure a profitable increase of crops re¬ 
gardless of the needs of the soil. The writer has therefore 
repeatedly cautioned his readers not to use nitrate of soda 
(or nitrogen in any soluble form), unless it is known that 
the land is already proportionately supplied with corres¬ 
ponding amounts of available minerals. Nitrogen is neither 
more nor less valuable to the farmer or gardener than is 
either potash or phosphate. It is far more costly and, 
while the phosphate and potash remain in the soil for sub¬ 
sequent crops if not used up by the current crop, nitrate 
of soda, unless supplied in repeated doses, often fails to 
carry a late crop through to maturity. 
The plots (23 in number) were planted April 26, by the 
trench method, so often described. The variety was the 
Rural Blush, the fertilizer was the Mapes, with the follow¬ 
ing analysis: 
Ammonia. 
Phosphoric acid 
Potash. 
4.50 to 5 percent. 
.8 to 10 
6 to 8 “ 
Plot 1. 
“ 2. 
“ 3. 
“ 4. 
“ 5. 
“ 6 . 
Bush, per acre. 
No fertilizer of any hind . 
440 lbs. potato fertilizer to the acre- 
440 “ “ “ “ and 
53 “ to the acre of nitrate of soda.. 
440 “ potato fertilizer and 
110 “ nitrate of soda. 
440 “ potato fertilizer and 
220 “ nitrateofsoda.. 
440 “ potato fertilizer and 
330 “ nitrate of soda. 
207.50 
214.5C 
'249.33 
J- 249.33 
I 284.17 
j-309.83 
In the above experiment it is plain that the yield in¬ 
creases (with one exception, when they are the same) as the 
quantity of nitrate of soda increases. It must be borne in 
mind that but 440 pounds to the acre of the potato fertil¬ 
izer was used in any one of the above six trials. 
Plot 
10 , 
11 . 
12 . 
Bush, per acre. 
No fertilizer of any kind. 260 
880 lbs. potato fertilizer and ) 007 
55 “ nitrate of soda. \ 
880 “ potato fertilizer and I oit 
110 “ nitrate of soda.i 
880 “ potato fertilizer and )_ qco en 
220 “ nitrate of soda. \ a 
880 “ potato fertilizer and ) o n8 
330 “ nitrate of soda. j 0 
880 “ potato fertilizer without any ni-)o,e 
trate of soda.) 
Here it would appear that there are indications that the 
larger amount of potato fertilizer gave the crop nearly all 
the nitrogen needed, since 880 lbs., without additional 
nitrate, gave as large a yield (315 bushels) as did the addi¬ 
tion of 110 lbs. of nitrate of soda, as in plot 9. It is true 
that plot 10, with 220 lbs. of nitrate, gives the heaviest 
yield, offset by the yield of plot 11, which received330 lbs., 
yielding but 308 bushels. 
Bush, per acre. 
Plot 13. 
“ 14. 
“ 15. 
“ 16. 
“ 17. 
1,320 lbs. potato fertilizer, no nitrate of 
soda . 
1,320 “ potato fertilizer and 
55 “ nitrate of soda... 
1,320 “ potato fertilizer and 
110 “ nitrate of soda. 
1,320 “ potato fertilizer and 
220 “ nitrate of soda. 
1,320 “ potato fertilizer and 
330 “ nitrate of soda. 
} 344.60 
[403.33 
[375.83 
j 396 
[ 353.83 
The above results, as will be seen, are contradictory. It 
is evident that 1,320 lbs. of the potato fertilizer should fur¬ 
nish, of itself, all the nitrogen which the crop could use. 
Nevertheless, an addition of 55 lbs to the acre of nitrate qf 
soda gives the largest yield of any. Larger quantities 
seem to reduce the yield more or less, though the addition 
of 220 lbs. gives the next heaviest yield. 
On a different part of the field, where the land is a trifle 
lighter and apparently more uniform, nitrate of soda in 
varying quantities was used without any potato fertilizer. 
The following are the results : 
* Bush, per acre. 
Plot 18. 55 lbs. of nitrate of soda..403.33 
“ 19. 110 “ “ “ .302.50 
“ 20. 220 “ “ “ .352 
“ 21. 330 “ “ “ .315 
Here it will be seen that the small amount of 55 lbs. to 
the acre of nitrate of sod a, without any potato fertilizer, 
gave as large a yield as plot 14, which received the same 
amount of nitrate of soda and 1,320 lbs. of the potato fer¬ 
tilizer. 
In the two following experiments a fertilizer high in 
ammonia, 7.50 per cent, high also in potash, 10.50 per cent, 
but low in phosphoric acid, 4.50 per cent, was tried. The 
results were as follows : 
Bush, per acre. 
Plot 1. 440 lbs. to the acre.279 
“ 2. 880 “ “ “ .330 
SUMMARY. 
We may summarize in this way: 
Average of plots that did not receive either potato fertil¬ 
izer or nitrate of soda alone, 233.75 bushels to the acre. 
With 440 lbs. of potato fertilizer, nitrate of soda, from 55 
to 330 lbs. to the acre, increased the yield over the no¬ 
fertilizer plots 39.41 bushels per acre. 
With 880 lbs. of potato fertilizer, nitrate of soda, from 55 
to 330 lbs. to the acre increased the yield over the no-fertil¬ 
izer plots 87.50 bushels per acre, or but 6.25 bushels over the 
plot which received the same amount of potato fertilizer 
(880 lbs.) without nitrateof soda. 
With 1,320 lbs. of fertilizer, nitrate of soda from 55 to 330 
lbs. to the acre, increased the yield over the no-fertilizer 
plots 148.50 bushels to the acre, or 35.65 bushels over the 
plot which received the 1,320 lbs. of fertilizer alone. 
The results of the above experiments would seem, though 
in a feeble way, to justify Mr. Harris’s conclusions that the 
potato fertilizers of to day are too low in nitrogen. Still 
we would as urgently as ever advise our readers not to de¬ 
pend upon nitrogen for a profitable increase of crops, but 
rather to see to it that the land is well supplied with min¬ 
erals and to experiment with the costly nitrogen, using on 
different portions of the same field, as we have done, all 
the way from 55 to 330 lbs. to the acre—an experiment 
which, conducted on small plots, involves neither much 
trouble nor expense. Remember, good readers, that what 
you do not recover of nitrate of soda or sulphate of am¬ 
monia in the crops of the season, you will never recover. 
But the phosphates and potash that one crop may not use 
will remain for the next. , 
A PREMIUM JERSEY BULL. 
On the first page will be found the picture of an animal 
which The Rural New-Yorker is proud to claim as a 
namesake. “ Rural New Yorker,” 25808, is one of the best 
bred bulls in the country. He was bred by Miller & Sib¬ 
ley, of Franklin, Pa., who have the reputation of never 
permitting an inferior animal to be sold from their herd. 
“Rural New r Yorker’s” pedigree is fat with butter. As 
his ancestors have done so will his offspring do—with in¬ 
terest. This assumption is a perfectly safe one. Four of 
his ancestors are pictured with him—what have they done? 
Michael Angelo 10116 is the grandsire of our namesake. 
This bull cost $12,500 in cash when only six weeks old—the 
highest bona-fide price ever paid for a bull. He represents 
the full blood of his dam, Eurotas, pictured below him— 
one of the most noted animals in all Jersey history 
Ida of St. Lambert 24990, is the granddam of Rural 
New-Yorker, and mother of the younger bull shown above 
her. This cow has a test of 30 pounds 2ounces of butter 
in seven days. 
Ida’s Rioter of St. Lambert 13659.— This is the sire of 
Rural New Yorker. He is also sire of Highland Ida, with 
a butter record of 18 pounds 1% ounce in seven days, and 
Ida Zoe Pogis, with a record of 16 pounds ounces. This 
young bull then, has, as we said, a pedigree simply fat 
with butter. Placed in any herd of ordinary cows, he 
would enable the owners to produce heifers 50 per cent 
better for butter production than their mothers were. 
“ Breed to the best.” Intelligent dairymen know that this 
statement is an axiom. “Rural New-Yorker” is one of 
the “ best ”—one of the Jersey “400,” so to speak, and close 
to the head, at that. 
WINTER ECONOMIES. 
J. W. NEWTON. 
As competition forces farmers to conduct their work on 
a more business-like basis, they are led to consider care¬ 
fully the wastes and leaks of farm operations. The great 
question for cold weather relates to stock feed, how to save 
foods and to combine them so as to get the j, reatest value, 
both as regards nutrition and manure. I expect many 
farmers have a great deal to learn about all these things; 
in fact, we are just beginning to learn. 
We can easily classify farm stock: There are young, 
growing animals, working oxen and horses, milch-cows, 
fattening animals, and maybe others. An animal that has 
not attained its growth and is not working or giving milk 
or being fattened, will use food only to repair the wastes 
going on in the system. In cold weather the greatest of 
these is that resulting from the maintenance of heat in the 
animal’s body. The latter must be kept at a temperature 
of nearly 100 degrees, and of course the lower the tempera¬ 
ture of the air surrounding the animal, the greater the 
amount of food necessary to keep the heat of the body at 
its normal standard. 
If one cow stands in a stable where the temperature is 
20 degrees, and another where it is 60 degrees, it must re¬ 
quire more heat to keep the body of the former at 98 de¬ 
grees than to keep that at the same point of the latter; 
just as it takes more heat to keep a loosely-boarded house 
warm than a tight, comfortable one. In the last case one 
has to burn more wood or coal; in the first, more feed. 
Warm stables save feed. Feed costs money ; warm stables 
save it. No matter if one raises his own feed, it costs 
some time, toil, fertility and wear of tools. If one raises 
feed enough to keep 20 cattle in a cold stable or yard, 
he might in a warm stable keep two or three head more 
with the same feed. 
But let us look at the philosophy of keeping rooms 
warm. What we want is to keep the heat in, and the cold 
out. Some substances are good conductors of heat; others 
bad. Air is one of the poorest; hence if one can make a 
wall of it about his stable or room or house, he will be able 
to keep it warm. To do this, he must confine the air, for 
air in motion will carry off heat very rapidly. He must 
secure a dead-air space in the walls whether the heat is to 
be kept in, as in case of a stable, or out, as in case of an 
ice-house or refrigerator. Paper is cheap, light, and easily 
made impervious to the air, if not already so. Matched 
boarding, plastered, concrete or double stone walls laid in 
mortar or cement, or walls boarded outside and inside with 
common boards, the space between being filled with 
sawdust, tan bark, shavings, chaff, leaves, or cut straw, 
are all useful to keep heat in and cold out. Perhaps some 
readers of The Rural live where it is fashionable to win¬ 
ter stock in the shelter of a hay or straw stack. Well, let 
them set a better fashion. A straw stack can be arranged 
so as to keep stock comfortable with the aid of posts and 
poles, but then it could not easily be made convenient 
for feeding stock. Still, if I had nothing else, I would do 
the best I could with straw. 
It is not to be expected that the man whose stable lets 
in the light through the cracks, and whose cattle never 
taste grain, will concern himself to warm water for his 
stock, but this is evidently what every progressive farmer 
is coming to. Think of a cow standing in a dark, cold 
stable where the manure is frozen solid on the stable floor, 
and plastered upon the cow’s sides; and then think of her 
turned out in the wind and snow to drink ice water and go 
back chilled and shivering to the stable, or, what is worse, 
left to stand in the cold wind for hours. Winter dairying 
would not pay with cows treated thus, nor does it pay in 
any point of view to use any kind of stock in such a way. 
Yet hundreds of farmers do nearly or quite as badly or 
even worse. But such methods cause a terrible waste. 
Probably it would not cost more than one-half or two- 
thirds as much to keep a cow in a warm, well lighted, well- 
ventilated stable, with a supply of bedding and plenty of 
warm water to drink and turned out only when it is warm 
or else turned into a covered yard, as it would to keep her 
in the way described above. The saving in dollars and 
cents would, in one winter, more than pay the extra cost 
of making the stable warm, and, after it was once ar¬ 
ranged it would be permanent, while the cost of bedding 
and warm water would be small. 
Cows would do better the whole year, young stock grow 
far faster, fattening animals tako on flesh more rapidly, 
and working cattle do much more work if properly cared 
for. But I suppose many farmers never think of all this. 
They go on year after year in the same old ruts, doing 
their work in a mechanical way, not using their minds, or 
learning anything new. It is this class that such papers as 
The Rural would benefit more than any other, and yet 
how many farmers scarcely ever see an agricultural paper. 
The cost of warming water is not nearly so great as the 
benefit derived from it, especially if given to milch cows. 
Winter dairying is by far the most profitable, but warm 
water is indispensable for success. In the West where 
fuel is scarce and feed plentiful, the question may bear a 
different aspect; but in the East or wherever else fuel can 
be got for any reasonable price, it would pay to warm 
water for stock. Western as well as many Eastern 
farmers should think more about the care their stock get 
in cold weather. The best blooded stock will degenerate, 
if not well cared for. Shelter and care will tell as well as 
blood, and common stock well cared for will be more 
profitable than the finest thoroughbreds which are allowed 
to suffer from exposure and neglect. 
Lamoille County, Vt. 
WINTER PROTECTION. 
1. Cover the rows of tender canes with sod, laying a few 
under the canes so that the latter can be bent over them, to 
prevent breakage. In the spring pound up the sods for 
manure on the lawn. Tea roses dig and heel in in a pit, or 
even in ashed. If grown in a warm situation, they can be 
hilled up high with earth and covered with evergreen 
boughs. 
2. Cover tender shrubs with barrels stuffed with leaves. 
For tall shrubs use two barrels one over another, the upper 
overlapping the lower by a few inches. Drive stout stakes 
about them. 
3. Mahonias, rhododendrons and yuccas should be pro¬ 
tected with leaves, held in place by evergreen boughs or 
fine brush. 
4. Hollyhocks should be covered with sod, set roof-like 
on each side; cr with a forkful of coarse manure. Beware 
of smothering and rotting them. 
5. All lilies are benefited by a heavy coat of leaves held 
in place with brush. The Lancifolium and Candidum are 
very hardy, but Auratum and the Easter or Longlflorum 
varieties need protection. Use manure carefully about 
them. 
6. Violets and pansies are heaved out by the frost, and 
need a light covering of leaves, evergreen boughs or litter. 
7. Invariably cover with leaves Sweet Williams and 
snapdragons. They are not quite hardy, the latter es¬ 
pecially. 
8. Young shrubs, like althaeas, are tender until they are 
three or four years old. Bend them carefully and cover 
them with sod. 
9. Tie the limbs of half-hardy shrubs together with 
coarse soft twine ; then bind on straw, hay or stalks. 
10. Do the same with peaches and quinces if your section 
is too cold for them. 
11. Cover strawberries lightly with horse manure. 
Leaves will do if held on. The plants, however, must not be 
smothered with too heavy covering. 
12. Tender blackberries and raspberries may be carefully 
bent down and covered with leaves or litter if you think it 
pays. 
13. Grapes should be pegged down to the ground. A 
few sorts, like Goethe, Iona and Duchess, must be cov¬ 
ered. I use sometimes earth, sometimes loose manure, and 
at times leaves. 
Whatever mice will nest in is poor material forcovering; 
therefore I seldom use stalks when I can easily use other 
stuffs. Leaves are admirable when held in place. Nature 
made them for covering. E. P. p. 
