682 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
September 14, 
DENATURED ALCOHOL AS FUEL. 
What about free alcohol ? Letters are pouring in 
from farmers about it. Here is one from West 
Virginia: 
Tell how to build and operate a farm distillery. The com¬ 
bined gas companies here are ‘oppressing us, being unfor¬ 
tunately located. J. k. R. 
There is another from a western State: 
Now that the alcohol bill has passed I hope The It. N.-Y. 
will tell us bow to make it, the different things It can be 
made of, how much per barrel, and, most important, the cost 
of the apparatus for distilling it. There are bushels of 
fallen apples going to waste here every year. Would apple 
pomace be any good? Could any alcohol be made out of 
turnips? That would be getting something out of nothing 
sure enough. We have a 12-horse power gasoline engine 
that could be run much cheaper I think. We have used 
about $50 worth of gasoline since last August. Could al¬ 
cohol and gasoline be mixed to make the alcohol fire better? 
c. G. 
We did not from the first pay much attention to the 
large claims made for this free alcohol. According to 
some writers, the passage of the bill removing the gov¬ 
ernment tax from denatured alcohol would mean an 
immediate revolution for farmers. The theory was 
perfect. Alcohol can be made out of dozens of farm 
products—from potatoes • to silage. It can be used 
to burn in lamps, provide heat in stoves or power in 
small engines. Therefore, all a farmer had to do was 
to put up a small still in his back yard, make the alco¬ 
hol out of wastes and snap his fingers at coal barons, 
oil magnates and other public robbers. We once heard 
a man claim all these things for windmills. Moving 
air costs nothing. All you have to do is to put up 
a mill, harness it to needed machinery and you have 
a full supply of light, heat and power on tap. Those 
of us who own windmills have no fault to find with this 
theory, but somehow we can’t make it work. Most of 
the hope for denatured alcohol is built on the small 
still, in which a farmer can make his home supply, 
just as he would his home supply of vinegar or of 
pork or maple sugar. Just after the bilk passed, Dr. 
Wiley, of the Agricultural Department, told us he had 
little hope that the average farmer could go into the 
business of making alcohol. He said the business 
would develop like beet sugar—the distilling being done 
on a large scale at some central point. We have seen 
nothing yet to disprove this idea. For example, read 
this letter from Prof. F. H. King: 
So far as I am informed the general proposition of manu¬ 
facture and use of denatured alcohol is so little understood 
specifically, and so little developed practically, from the 
farmer's standpoint, that I do not see how the manufacture 
of alcohol, to be denatured, can at this time be set before 
farmers with a view of encouraging them to undertake the 
manufacture of alcohol for their own use. I think it is 
generally understood that the alcohol must first be made as 
alcohol and subsequently rendered unsuitable for use in 
drinks by compounding it with some ingredient which dis¬ 
qualifies it for that purpose, but permits it to be used in 
other ways. I understand that all of the national restric¬ 
tion in the manufacture of alcohol still hold and that it is 
only after the alcohol has been denatured that it ceases to 
be subject to the revenue tax. For these reasons I would 
say that it is hardly wise to set out manufacturing alcohol 
on a small scale, such as farmers might adopt, at this time. 
The subject needs to be advanced much farther than it is 
before such a step would be wise. At least this is my 
judgment in the matter. f. h. king. 
The papers have been well filled with glowing ac¬ 
counts of what farmers will do with small stills. We 
went to the parties most interested in making dena¬ 
tured alcohol a success, and obtained addresses of 
parties who are said to make lamps, stoves or distilling 
apparatus. We have written them all. As for devices 
for burning alcohol, the following is a fair sample. 
Relative to our manufacturing a stove for burning de¬ 
natured alcohol, beg to say that we have nothing at the 
present writing that we will put on the market, although 
we have been and are experimenting along these lines to get 
a stove that can be controlled same as any ordinary gas, 
gasoline or oil cooking stove. In fact, the writer has one in 
his own house that he has been using for the past three 
months, but until said alcohol is cheap enough to be used 
economiealy by the ordinary housewife, you can rest assured 
that we will not attempt to put a stove on the market. 
When the time comes we will have one that will be a world- 
beater, and we would be more than pleased to give you all 
the information, when alcohol becomes cheap enough. 
NOVELTY MFG. CO. 
There will be no stoves or lamps until alcohol be¬ 
comes cheaper in price. When that lime comes the 
apparatus will be ready. As for small stills, suitable for 
use in making a small supply of alcohol, we have not 
yet been able to find a manufacturer who will offer a 
practical outfit for sale. The following letters are fair 
samples: 
It is impossible to manufacture alcohol without the use 
of elaborate apparatus. This apparatus would cost $1,500 
upward, according to the capacity of the plant. Co-opera¬ 
tive farmers’ companies would be the only method for the 
farmers, as the cost of apparatus places the manufacture 
of alcohol out of the hands of the average farmer. 
Chicago, III. ARTHUR HARRIS & CO. 
We would not advise anyone to buy a small still for dis¬ 
tilling alcohol. It is not only the still they will need, but 
practically a complete distillery has to be built and it would 
not pay to run a distillery of a capacity less than 100 bushels 
per day. Herman stier mfg. co. 
If anyone can tell us how alcohol can be made on 
the farm and used in a practical way at present prices 
we shall be glad to have them. 
_ 
THREE YEARS IN POTATOES. 
In the Spring of 1906 I turned down corn stubble, 
well manured, and raised a good crop of nice clean 
BY-PRODUCTS ON A BERRY FARM. Fig. 333. 
potatoes. In the Fall of 1906 I plowed and sowed this 
potato ground with rye. In the Spring of 1907 I 
turned down this rye and used at the rate of 300 pounds 
per acre of the following home-mixed fertilizer: 20 
pounds tankage, 20 pounds muriate of potash and 60 
pounds acid fertilizer, 14 per cent; run it in rows 
with single planter. After potatoes got up good size 
I spread hen manure along the rows, not too thick; 
planted potatoes April 27; dug July 18; yield 185 
bushels per acre; Early Ohio Red; land a sandy loam. 
Should I sow this same potato ground with rye this 
coming Fall, and the next Spring manure with barn- 
A PAIR OF KIDS. Fig. 334. 
yard manure and use same kind of fertilizer and plant 
same ground with potatoes the Spring of 1908? Is 
there any danger of producing blight or scab, or any 
danger of growing too large tops? Would you con¬ 
sider it a good plan to use about 30 bushels of lime 
to the acre on account of acid, use lime this Fall? 
Should I run this same ground to potatoes for three 
seasons? e. h. s. 
Columbia Co., Pa. 
R. N.-Y.—We consider it a risk ever to plant pota¬ 
toes three years in succession on the same ground, 
though we have heard of cases where 10 crops or more 
FUMIGATING A HENHOUSE. Fig. 335. 
have been grown in this way. The great trouble comes 
from scab. As this is a germ disease the germs are left 
in the soil after one crop, so they are likely to affect 
the next one. Plowing under a crop of rye or other 
green crop is about the best preparation to overcome 
the scab. This green manuring is likely to sour the 
ground to some extent, and the scab germs are less 
active in an acid soil. Stable manure induces scab, and 
lime is about the worst thing you can use on potatoes. 
Do not use lime if you intend planting potatoes again. 
Your safest plan for another potato crop would be to 
sow the rye. We would sow some Crimson clover seed 
with it. Plow this under at the right time in Spring 
and pack it down with a roller. Use fertilizer and not 
stable manure. If this year’s potato crop was free from 
scab it would be safe to try it. 
FERTILIZERS WITH A “BONE BASIS ” 
Comparison with Phosphate Rock. 
Fertilizer agents who come here claim that their goods 
are made on a “bone basis,” and will improve the’ land from 
year to year, while other goods made from phosphate rock will 
destroy the best grass and render the land sour. I tried the 
two last year. The only difference I could see was that 
where the dissolved rock was used the crop ripened a few 
days ahead of the other. a. h. w. 
Massachusetts. 
Some of the scientific men tell us that phosphoric 
acid is the same, no matter in what form it appears 
or is bought. This statement is not exactly true; in 
fact, the chemists’ analysis does not tell the whole story. 
No doubt a dog and a sheep, if killed and analyzed, will 
give pretty much the same analysis, yet the character 
would be very different. The phosphoric acid found 
in bone depends largely upon the fineness with which 
it is ground for its ability to feed the plants. As we 
all know, bone is a porous substance. Even the small¬ 
est portion of it, when viewed through a microscope, 
will show more or less of a spongy, porous character. 
We all know also that it contains more or less animal 
or organic matter, so that it decays slowly, more or 
less, when put into the soil. If we take a large bone 
and grind it up into a fine powder, and then take a 
piece of phosphate rock and also grind it up just 
as fine as the bone is, the bone will give better results 
than the rock. In order to make the rock available, 
equal quantities, by weight, of sulphuric acid are put 
with it, which dissolves or breaks up the combination 
of lime and phosphate. This acid is, of course, sour, 
whereas the bone is very largely alkaline. When the 
dissolved acid in the rock is put into the ground it 
begins at once to “revert;” that is, it forms a combi¬ 
nation with anything in the soil that will combine with 
it. The trouble is that in many sandy soils there is a 
quantity of iron, aluminum and other materials, which 
form with this phosphate insoluble compounds, even 
more insoluble than the rock was before it was touched 
by the acid. Thus while acid phosphate or a fertilizer 
containing that material might give first-rate results 
the first year, there is a chance that after that its effect 
would be largely lost, because of this combination with 
other materials in the soil. On the other hand, the 
bone is in such a form that it is not likely to make new 
combinations. Most of us have seen the roots of a vine 
or tree with a bone planted near it. The roots grow 
to the bone and actually eat into it, using quite a little 
of it in the course of time. When the ground bone 
goes into the ground a portion of it is available to the 
first crop. The remainder stays in the soil and is not 
reverted as the acid phosophate is, but decays more or 
less slowlv, becoming more and more available each 
year. That is why the claim is made that the fer¬ 
tilizers with a “bone basis” or with their phosphoric 
acid derived from bone, will improve the land year after 
year, as the bone becomes more and more available. 
It is true that large dressings of acid phosphate will 
act to sour the land, more or less, and, as we have tried 
to tell you, the effect of this acid phosphate will be 
lessened year after year instead of increased. It is very 
hard to make the average farmer understand that a 
fertilizer costing $4S a ton may be. in the end, cheaper 
than one costing $25. If, however, you went to one 
of these same people and told them that a barrel of 
hen manure was worth 50 cents, while a barrel of 
average stable manure was worth only 15 cents, he 
would agree with you. The high-grade fertilizer, for 
much the same reason, is worth, proportionately, as 
much more than the low grade as the hen manure is 
worth more than the stable manure. 
LOCUST AND GOLDENROD.—The article on page 585, 
“Locust Timber for Profit,” is good, and to the point. I 
was glad to read it, as it has elucidated a matter which 
lias been a mystery to me for some time. I planted out 
three or four thousand locust trees on my farm, planting 
a few hundred each year. The trees grew amazingly, and 
seemed to be strong and healthy always, and are (at this 
date) a source of much profit to their present owner, to 
whom I sold my farm seven years ago. At that time I 
bought a goldenrod infested farm two miles south of the 
former place. The first thing I did was to plant locust 
trees. They grew right off, and I was much elated at their 
appearance, but alas, the borer got into them, and of 
four or five thousand trees I do not think I have got one 
absolutely sound tree at this time. The. only difference 
that I can see in my present farm and my former one, is 
that the former was free from goldenrod, while the present 
is covered with it. I cannot help thinking S. S. D.’s arti¬ 
cle is the true explanation. It sounds plausible. Cannot 
you get the experience of some other of your correspond¬ 
ents and subscribers? w. e. m. 
Albemarle Co., Va. 
