982 
November G, 
manure around trees extending four or five feet from 
trunks; 1907 planted to potatoes, using one ton high- 
grade potato manure per acre; 1908 sowed to oats, 
using one-half ton grass and grain fertilizer; 1909 
planted to potatoes after plowing in heavy coat of 
barnyard manure and using 1800 pounds high-grade 
fertilizer per acre. No spraying of trees since 1904. 
Trees set 30 feet apart each way; 1909 crop, 195 
boxes per acre, netting something over $300. Pota¬ 
toes still green (September 28), and will probably 
yield around 200 bushels per acre, there being but 
six rows of potatoes between every two rows of 
trees.” __ 
THE STUDY OF A MULCHED ORCHARD. 
A Visit to the Hitchings Farm. 
Part hi. 
There can be no doubt that “thorough cultivation” 
in the Hitchings orchard hurt the trees. It is equally 
sure that the same sort of culture in that Western 
New York orchard made the trees more vigorous 
and productive. As far as these experiments have 
gone, it would seem a fair conclusion that Mr. Hitch¬ 
ings should keep his trees in sod, while the other 
orchard should be plowed and harrowed. These 
very opposite results ought to teach us that there 
can be no cast-iron rules laid down for orchard care. 
Jn trying to learn why culture blighted these Hitch¬ 
ings trees we should first understand what the mulch 
does. After these years of clipping and leaving the 
grass on the surface the soil is completely filled with 
organic matter. Dig into it and pick up a handful 
and it has a soft spongy feel, very unlike the sharp, 
gritty feeling of a handful of thoroughly cultivated 
soil. In the mulched soil there seems to he a steady 
accumulation of vegetable matter or humus. It seems 
to be. a steady storing up of what the chemists call 
“potential” plant food—that is, not yet available, but 
capable of being made so. This mulched soil appears 
to feed the tree in an entirely natural way—slowly 
and steadily, neither starving nor forcing it, but 
steadily giving out what is needed for a healthy, mod¬ 
erate growth. 
Cultivation breaks open the soil and stirs it up, 
admitting air and heat. This means a far more rapid 
effect upon that potential plant food. Breaking up 
this organic matter in the soil is much the same as 
burning roots or hay. The great difference is that 
the burning is so rapid that a high heat is given 
off, while the decay is too slow to make its heat per- 
ccptable. Both processes are the same, because in 
the end nothing is left of the organic matter except 
the minerals which will not burn. 
Now when that soil in the Hitchings orchard was 
turned over and cultivated it was like opening wide 
the draft under a steam boilerand driving the engine 
beyond its capacity. Through many years of accu¬ 
mulation that soil was stuffed full of organic matter. 
That was becoming available naturally and, I think, 
as rapidly as was good for the trees. Exposure to the 
air through cultivation of course rapidly quickened 
the decay of that plant food. Too much steam under 
the boiler would burst pipes, and too much nitrogen 
made suddenly available te those trees forced them 
too hard and they blighted. An overdose of nitrate 
of soda early in Spring might not have caused the 
same trouble, for the effect of that might have been 
over by July. The organic nitrogen in that great 
mass of humus in the Hitchings soil kept on giving 
up all through the season after growth should natur¬ 
ally have stopped. Under similar conditions, oats or 
wheat would have lodged, while corn would have 
made a great stalk with a poor ear. Most of us 
have seen the effect of a heavy coat of manure on 
pear or peach. The pear will blight and the 'peach 
breaks out with gum and broken bark. I think 
this will explain the injury done to these 
trees by cultivation. It was not the same 
thing as plowing under an ordinary old sod and 
working it up. That has often been done, without any 
injury to an orchard. The Hitchings soil is very dif¬ 
ferent from an “old sod.” It represents the accumu¬ 
lation of years of all the soil produced. 1 his experi¬ 
ment makes me think of a man who worked hard for 
many years to provide for his family. He accumu¬ 
lated a fair amount of money and invested it in good 
securities, bonds, mortgages and safe shares. These 
securities represent what I call potential money. I hey 
may be compared with the plant food which Mr. 
Hitchings has stored up in his soil. Now this man 
passed away, purposely leaving his property in this 
form in the hope that the steady cash income from it 
would satisfy his family. They were not satisfied 
with that potential money, but turned it all into cash. 
The effect upon most of the children was ruinous, for 
they had more cash than was good for them. 
But if this is so,, what about that Western New 
York orchard? There the grass was cut for some 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
years and left on the ground, yet trees fell behind 
those that were cultivated. There the conditions were 
entirely different. As I understand it there was a 
rather poor sod to start with. The grass did not 
make a good growth, so the trees got some of the 
plant food. As a result of the cutting and mulching 
I understand the grass crop grew heavier with each 
year—just as it has in that young orchard of Mr. 
Hitchings. This means that more and more plant 
food was taken by the grass and less left for the 
trees. In the cultivated side the old sod was thorough¬ 
ly broken up by cultivation, and gave its plant food 
at once. In time the organic matter on that side 
where the grass was cut will decay and work into the 
soil as it has in the Hitchings orchard. Until it 
does so it is evident that the soil will accumulate 
plant food rather than give it up. My conviction is 
that if a quantity of soluble plant food equal in value 
to the cost of tillage in the cultivated side had heen 
used on the mulch there would have been little if any 
difference in yield. This plant food would have off¬ 
set what was set free by the cultivation. In time the 
soil would have become very much like that in the 
Hitchings orchard, and would then, I believe, have 
taken care of the trees year after year—possibly need¬ 
ing lime at intervals. 
I have tried to make clear what seems to be the 
reason for Mr. Ilitchings’s success. His soil repre¬ 
sents long years of accumulation. The true question, 
as I see it, is whether it will pay on_ all soils or in 
all conditions to get the land into this conditon. I 
think we should admit that when we can get soil like 
this sod culture is practical. I can see conditions 
under which this might not pay, and I will try to 
consider some of them. h. w. c. 
FARMER AND THE FARMERS INSTITUTE. 
I am very glad you have brought up this subject of 
farmers’ institutes from the standpoint of the farmer 
in the audience, there for information, not to criti¬ 
cize. I think the new departure in calling together 
interested persons in the various sections of the State 
to consider this subject is getting closer to the farmer, 
and those men should be able to advise the Commis¬ 
sioner as to the subjects they want discussed in each 
particular section. Discussions should deal with the 
subject in which the farmer is interested and in which 
he is having trouble, or perhaps there should he a 
talker who is able to interest the farmer in some 
new departure, not practical in that locality. I have 
sat on a hard seat for an hour listening to a very 
good man dwelling on a subject of farm or garden 
production that was a terrible waste of valuable time, 
and that never would be any earthly good to anyone. 
A set talk, with notes, is not commendable. The 
speaker should be able to stop any place in his talk, 
answer the question and make it plain, so that his 
hearers know he has done that with his own hands. 
The leading workman in the shop ought to be able to 
put on the overalls, take the tools in his hands and 
show the other man a completed piece of work on 
which he has been giving instructions. Men learning 
the trade will have much more confidence in instruc¬ 
tion from this man than before, and would have a 
better opinion of him. 
It always seemed to me that a successful farmer’s 
opinion was received with more confidence in his 
own locality where well known and his advice sought 
for, rather than one who has not made farming a 
success. The man who has made a success of it 
stands out before an audience of farmers who want 
to know, and he can stop any place, answer and ex¬ 
plain. I think it is the man, not a speech—we want 
something that we can think about; if nothing else, 
dispute about, for if that is accomplished, the Com¬ 
missioner is making a gain, for he sets the men 
thinking—puts the “leaven” in them, and it is going 
to do good. 
There are two conditions of things in our institutes 
which are hard to overcome; the speaker finds it 
hard to get a hold of his audience, and break up 
that formality and distant feeling which usually sur¬ 
rounds almost every assembly, and the reserve of the 
man, who wants to ask something and has fears that 
his grammar and pronunciation may not be right, 
and some one may laugh at his question. Let us 
have it right on the spot. The object of all talk is to 
reach the soil; the speaker and hearer should not act 
as non-conductors, for if our institute work never 
reaches the soil the effort is a failure in that locality. 
I am pleased to see you take this matter up, for it 
is a great problem, hardly second to the tariff. I am 
aware that in this “free-for-all” talk there might be 
danger of some man in an audience talking too much, 
but a good conductor will always be able to control 
this, and leave the man feeling well. I have often 
seen a lot of information got out of an institute 
meeting, or session rather, in half an hour following 
an adjournment, when the audience would surround 
the conductor in the middle of the hall and there 
have a very interesting _ and instructive talk. The 
manner of an institute talker should be slow and easy, 
for he is giving instructions to a class, not book stu¬ 
dents, as are found in high schools and universities; 
dealing with a class of good thinkers, hut not always 
rapid. Good successful attorneys realize this situa¬ 
tion; when leaving their case with the jury they go 
through it slowly and often repeat it in some points. 
I am not to be understood as opposed to a man talk¬ 
ing from an institute .platform who does it wholly 
from a scientific standpoint, as chemist for instance, 
but he should so state. A lot of good can be got out 
of such a discourse and no one deceived, and no 
chance for the critic to say, “I told you so.” You 
state in The R.'N.-Y that in New York institutes 
the coming season it is proposed to secure a few 
additional speakers who have thorough and scientific 
knowledge of their subjects as well as the practical 
training in the subjects they discuss. Commissioner 
Pearson is on the way to bring farmers' institutes 
of New York to a place where we belong, leading 
in agriculture. ANDREW tuck. 
FREIGHT RATES CHANGED ON COMPLAINT. 
We have explained several times how complaint re¬ 
garding unfair railroad charges is made to the Inter¬ 
state Commerce Commission. The railroads are free 
to make their rates, but the Commission on complaint 
may change them if they are found to be unreason¬ 
able. Here are several more actual cases to show 
what shippers have been able to do. 
Overcharge for Hauling Barley. 
Four cars of barley were hauled from Brawley, 
Cal., to Tucson, Arizona. This distance is 337 miles. 
There was no special “commodity” rate for barley, 
so the railroad charged a class rate of $16.70 per 
ton. The four cars weighed 250,595 pounds, so the 
freight bill was $2,092.46. This is nearly one cent 
per pound. It was found that there was a “com¬ 
modity” rate of $6.50 from Imperial, Cal.—a point 
nine miles farther. The shipper complained and de¬ 
manded this rate, which would make his bill $814.43, 
and he \yill recover a refund $1,269.03 But even this 
is unreasonable. The same railroad hauls a load of 
lemons from Los Angeles to Boston, over 3000 miles, 
for $260, and charges over $203 for hauling a car of 
barley 346 miles ! The point about this is that on the 
long haul there is competition—on the short haul 
monopoly. 
Freight on Government Powder. 
In this case 7,000 pounds of powder were sent from 
Highland Beach, N. J., to Fortress Monroe, Va. 
There were three possible ways of shipment, but the 
first railroad carried the car as far as it could on its 
own line and then turned it over to another road 
under the same management. The object was to 
make as long a haul as possible and then charge the 
sum of all the local rates. As a result the railroad 
charged for a full carload at $1.25 per hundred, or 
$125. The government refused to pay, and claimed 
a rate of $75 by a shorter route. The railroad finally 
settled for $75. 
A Texas Watermelon Case. 
In this case a car of melons weighing 27,600 
pounds was sent from Chatterton, Texas, to Shreve¬ 
port, La. The distance is but 35 miles, the towns 
lying close to the line which separates the States. Yet 
the charge was 34 cents per hundred, or $93.84 for 
the shipment. At the same time the rate from Chat¬ 
terton to St. Louis, 850 miles, was only one cent 
more, or 35 cents per hundred. If this shipment had 
been wholly within the State of Texas the rate for 
35 miles would have been 11 cents. The Texas rate 
commissioner has settled that. Now the shipper de¬ 
mands a refund of the difference between 34 cents 
and 11, which amounts to $63.48. That is what he will 
make by standing up for his rights. 
A Rebate on Lime Freight. 
A farmer at Bretz, W. Va., bought a carload of lime 
at Hyndman, Pa. He received figures from lime deal¬ 
ers 1 at Martinsburg, W. Va., and Frederick, Md. The 
distances from his station were: Hyndman, 122 miles; 
Martinsburg, 190 and Frederick 250. He was quoted 
freight rates from the two last-named places at $1.50 
per ton. As Hyndman was nearer he supposed the 
freight rate would be less, so he ordered the lime. 
His bill was for 65,100 pounds of lime at $2.95 per 
ton, a total of $90.03. This farmer remembered the 
offer to ship at $1.50 per ton from the other two 
places, and he wrote the Commission. As a result 
the rate of $1.50 will be made from Hyndman and 
this farmer will receive a rebate of $47.20. Now, all 
three of these lime-producing centers will be put on 
the same freight basis. 
