1907. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
523 
PREPARING WHITE ARSENIC AND 
ARSENATE OF LEAD . 
On page 170 Mr. Van Alstyne speaks of preparing white 
arsenic, without boiling, for spraying. Will he kindly give 
specific directions for making the mixture, and also state 
what quantity to use with 50 gallons of water, and any 
other direction for its preparation or use which he thinks 
advisable. Also state how to prepare arsenate of lead. 
Albion, N. Y. J. H. S. 
To make white arsenic suitable for use without boil¬ 
ing, take one pound of Babbitt’s lye, or potash, dissolve 
it in enough water to make solution. Then add one 
pound of the white arsenic. The potash will cut it in 
a few minutes. Use one-fourth of the total bulk to 50 
gallons Bordeaux Mixture for fruit trees, one-half to 
same amount for potatoes. If mixed with water alone, 
there should be at least four pounds of lime added. 
1 he only advantage this has over the one pound of 
white arsenic boiled with four pounds of sal soda and' 
four quarts of water, is that it saves the time and 
trouble of boiling—really not very great. The one 
pound potash will cost 12 Va cents, the four pounds sal 
soda not to exceed six cents; quite an item when one 
Ins to use a large amount. Both are equally effective. 
I have used the potash when I wanted a small amount, 
and had none of the boiled mixture at hand. For the 
sal-soda mixture use one quart to 50 gallons; double 
that for potatoes. This is on the basis of one-half pound 
of Paris-green to 50 gallons Bordeaux for fruit trees; 
one pound for potatoes. The white arsenic has twice 
the poisoning properties of the Paris-green. In addi¬ 
tion it costs only half as much, and being a liquid, 
stays in suspension much better. In adding same to 
Bordeaux Mixture, pour in gradually as the tank is 
filled. In this way it will be more thoroughly mixed 
than when it is to be put in all at 
once; one or two quarts to 50 gal¬ 
lons is a pretty small proportion, 
and unless it gets very thoroughly 
mixed, will not give best results. 
I would riot advise the making of 
arsenate of lead, as it is quite diffi¬ 
cult to get a good mixture. Better 
buy the Swift’s arsenate of lead or 
"Disparene”—the same thing under 
a trade name. The latter as now 
put up gives satisfaction. Arsenate 
of lead has the advantage of stay¬ 
ing on much longer than any other 
poison, and will never injure the 
foliage. The only objection to it, 
is the expense. It will be necessary 
to use at least three pounds to the 
50 gallons for fruit, and five pounds 
for potatoes. It will cost from 12 
to 20 cents a pound, according to 
the quantity purchased. Arsenate 
of lead can be made according to 
following formula, but I repeat, it 
is wiser to purchase the prepared 
article: acetate of lead, 11 ounces; 
arsenate of soda, 4 ounces; water, 
50 gallons. Dissolve acetate of lead 
in one-half gallon water; the arsen¬ 
ate of soda in another half gal¬ 
lon. pour the two solutions together In a tank contain¬ 
ing 48 gallons water. The white precipitate formed is 
arsenate of lead. Purchase chemicals from a first-class 
dealer, and specify that the acetate of lead shall contain 
about 59 per cent available lead oxide, and the arsenate 
of soda not more than two to three per cent of chloride. 
_E. VAN ALSTYNE. 
FARMERS, "SPORTSMEN ” AND DEER. 
The question of damage to farm crops by wild deer 
interests me very much, because I have always stood 
for reasonable protection to all harmless wild animals, 
and especially for deer. I have just been reading on 
page 442 of The R. N.-Y. of the deplorable state of 
affairs in Hampden County, Mass., and if actual con¬ 
ditions are half as bad as Mr. Beebe paints them it is 
high time that some of those surplus deer were salted 
down in somebody’s corned-beef barrel. We have some 
deer here with us, and I frequently see them in my 
fields, and also in the garden, too, but I have yet to 
find the first instance of their having done any damage. 
I enjoy seeing them about the farm, but if, as many 
writers in the farm papers of late contend, much actual 
damage is done by deer, and this is conclusively shown, 
I think it would be comparatively an easy matter to 
have the laws so changed as to give.farmers a reason¬ 
able measure of protection, and just here lies the trouble. 
I can only speak of conditions in our own State, but 
here nine out of every ten cases of alleged damage by 
deer, upon investigation, are found to be “hot air.” 
Losses have been greatly exaggerated, and in many in¬ 
stances no actual damage can be shown. Our Legis¬ 
lature provides a fund out of which real damages by 
deer shall be paid for. I think thus far less than a 
hundred dollars a year has been expended. 
Another thing in connection with this question I 
never could understand; why it is that the farmers and 
the sportsmen are so often “by the ears.” They have 
many interests in common, and it seems to me that both 
would be benefited by a sort of get-together spirit. 
Sportsmen as a rule are a very decent sort of people, 
and quite as apt to pay a good fat tax for the support 
of our State institutions as do the farmers, and in many 
other ways are quite as good citizens as are the farmers 
who complain so bitterly about them. By sportsmen I 
mean sportsmen, not the class of irresponsible hoodlums 
roaming the country with a large portion of gun and 
mighty small portion of brains, shooting at everything 
animate and inanimate that comes under their observa¬ 
tion. For this class of animals I am heartily in favor 
of an open season the year round. They do far more 
damage to the farmers than all the deer in New Eng¬ 
land. w. E. ROBINSON. 
Vermont. 
“Destructive Deer ” 
Were I E. O. Beebe and the deer were destroying my 
crops, and a menace to the lives of my family, I would 
do this: Get a choke-bore shotgun and some shells 
loaded with No. 7 shot, sit up some moonlight nights, or 
rise early some moonlight mornings. After the deer 
have felt a few charges of the shot at long range prob¬ 
ably necessary they will learn to shun the neighborhood 
permanently. Did they threaten any member of the 
family I should not hesitate to exchange the loads for 
buckshot and use it. Then if suit were commenced by 
the State I should demand a jury trial. No jury would 
convict a farmer for protecting his crops, at least to an 
extent less than the maiming or killing which the law 
forbids, nor for exercising the right of self-defense of 
himself or family, permissible even to the taking of 
human life. C. p. 
Litchfield Co., Conn. 
I have just been reading the complaint of E. O. Beebe, 
of Hampden Co., Mass. What I would like to know is 
this: Why do not the farmers, laborers, truckmen and 
all others who are troubled as he is with the deer 
nuisance send men to their Legislature * who would re¬ 
peal that law that protects the deer and its friends? I 
am glad that I live in a State that gets waked up once 
in a while and elects a farmer to help make the laws. 
What is the matter with those eastern folks? 1 have 
read enough in The R. N.-Y. about such laws to make 
me want to come down East and start a crusade. I 
like the stand that The R. N.-Y. takes against the 
crooks. But what can you do if the farmers will not 
drop old political lines and vote solid for their own 
interests? G. s. G. 
Tobias, Neb. _ 
ARE CONCRETE HOUSES DRY? 
Is a house built of cement likely to sweat or become 
damp on tUq inside in wet weather? I have been told It 
would by men claiming to know. h. p- e. 
Tulsa, I. T. 
I can speak very positively, for I have lived in a 
concrete house with solid walls, doors (wood covered) 
and partitions for nearly four years. The houses that I 
have built of concrete are the driest houses that I have 
ever seen, but I am far from wishing this statement, 
which I cannot make too positive, to apply to all styles 
of concrete houses. The dryness of a residence is 1 
mainly dependent upon two things: First, the impervi¬ 
ousness of its roof and walls to moisture, and second, 
the conductive quality of the walls as to heat. In plain 
terms, the house may be damp because of the percola¬ 
tion of moisture from a cloud or the atmosphere 
through porous crevices and openings in the walls, and 
the house may be damp because the walls, being of a 
very conductive nature as to heat, convey the warmth 
from within to the exterior atmosphere so rapidly that 
condensation of moisture in suspension within the house 
takes place on the inner surface of the walls. I pre¬ 
sume that it is the fear of this action that inspires the 
question so often asked, but the houses that I have 
built have walls composed of concrete made of a very 
porous material, my aim being to make the cores of the 
walls as porous as possible, and still maintain sufficient 
strength with an abundant factor of safety. I then 
finish the exterior of the walls with an impervious coat 
of cement, and treat them in such a way as to prevent 
saturation from storms, and as the walls, being so 
porous, are very refractory to the passage of heat, I 
overcome the tendency to condensation that other walls 
might show very strongly. 
There is another reason why concrete houses such as 
I am building are the driest houses in the world, and 
this is that Portland cement is for many years after 
its initial composition very thirsty for water, and this 
quality is much enhanced by the use of the porous ma¬ 
terials; so the walls of concrete houses built of porous 
materials and cement, instead of shedding moisture, are 
continually absorbing it. You have undoubtedly heard 
it stated that concrete continues to increase in strength 
for many years after the time of its initial set. This 
is because it takes up additional water, and the waters 
of crystallization arc continually augmented. 
As compared with other durable styles of building, it 
may be well to mention that common brick will absorb 
during a heavy rainstorm an average of eight ounces 
each of water, and that the sand 
mortar is almost equally absorptive. 
In stone houses the absorption of 
most stone suitable for building 
purposes is much less than in brick, 
but the mortar is frequently fully 
as absorptive. It is also to be con¬ 
sidered that the average mason in 
laying up brick or stone falls far 
short of hermetically sealing them 
together (and this is very emphat¬ 
ically true in the customary method 
of laying up hollow concrete blocks). 
Many a chimney laid up by the 
average mason with the average 
brick has 40 per cent of its natural 
drafting power lost by the suction 
of air through pores and interstices 
not filLd by the mortar. This has 
been frequently proven by the hot¬ 
air heating people. In walls of 
concrete made and dressed external¬ 
ly as I dress them a great advantage 
is dryness and warmth is gained 
over every other kind of construc¬ 
tion in common use. 
New Jersey. w. n. wight. 
R. N.-Y.—Mr. Wight refers to 
the house pictured on page 409, 
issue of May 18, 1907. 
DRY BORDEAUX MIXTURE.—I notice your edi¬ 
torial about dry Bordeaux. Why should anyone ask 
whether dry Bordeaux is effective? The remedy, cop¬ 
per sulphate, is the same, the carrier, lime dust, is a 
fungicide, while water, the carrier for liquid Bordeaux, 
is of no value at all. I have had several years of ex¬ 
perience with both dry and wet Bordeaux, and would 
certainly not go back to using the wet wherever and 
whenever I could use the dry. For very large apple 
trees and in very dry, windy weather dust will not 
adhere, but when leaves are wet with dew, rain or 
fog, I can spray more trees in two hours with dust 
than I can in five hours with liquid, and the material 
will not cost over half what the liquid would. For 
grapes, plums, peaches, cherries, currants, gooseberries 
and medium-sized apple trees dust will replace liquid 
just as soon as practical men get acquainted with it. 
Dust will control Grape rot as well as Plum and Peach 
rot; liquid will not. By adding some sulphur you 
have a good remedy for mildew. c. v. 
La Crescent, Minn. 
The question of G. W. A. regarding dry Bordeaux 
is one I should like to see discussed fully. Last year 
I used it for the first time on potatoes, and with appar¬ 
ently as good results as the wet process. The vines re¬ 
mained green until frost, giving me a good crop, with 
no rot, while the unprotected crops of my neighbors 
went down with blight early in the season. Not having 
a pump I was unable to use the wet process as a check. 
I say apparently good results, because I am not fully 
satisfied that it is as good as the wet process. However, 
I shall give it another trial this season. . A. c. I. 
Ridgefield, Conn. 
