7^6 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
September 26, 
“CERTIFIED COWS.” 
What is a certified cow, and what is her place in 
the dairy industry? We have all heard of''certified 
milk and a few of us have tasted it. We know that 
the name is a guarantee of its purity and freedom 
from all kinds of dirt and disease germs, but a certi¬ 
fied cow is something new. In fact the name, certi¬ 
fied cow, originated but a few days ago, because there 
is constantly a growing demand by milk producers 
for health}’- cows which will not develop tuberculosis 
soon after they are purchased and transferred to a 
place where they are generally kept under entirely 
different conditions than those to which they were 
accustomed. There are many dairymen who are look¬ 
ing for healthy cows to replenish their herds, which 
are kept chiefly for the production of milk for city 
consumption. The crusade that is constantly being 
waged with increasing vigor against unsanitary milk 
containing the germs of tuberculosis has reached the 
stage where progressive dairymen, for the most part, 
are buying only cows which pass the tuberculin test. 
They have learned by experience that this is the safer 
method to pursue, but we have also learned by ex¬ 
perience that cows may have been exposed to the 
disease some time previous to the date of purchase and 
therefore soon develop the disease which was in a 
state of incubation and could not be detected at the 
time the test was made. The number of cows found 
to be affected from four to eight months after being 
purchased on the tuberculin test runs from five per 
cent to 15 per cent. In most cases this percentage 
depends largely upon the stage of the disease among 
the herds from which the cows were originally pur¬ 
chased. If these cows are not promptly detected and 
removed from the herd, of course they will communi¬ 
cate the disease to others. 
It is this loss that we want to avoid and there is a 
way to do it. Give us certified cows. By this we 
mean cows which are not only free from tuberculosis 
but which have never been exposed to its deadly 
germs. This also means that every animal in the 
herd must successfully pass the tuberculin test the 
first time it is applied, and that no animals from a 
herd where the disease exists have been added to the 
herd within at least six months. The requirements 
are very simple, but they mean a great deal to every 
dairyman, and to the advancement of the dairy in¬ 
dustry in general. It has been estimated by no less 
authority than Dr. Moore of the New York State 
Veterinary College at Cornell University that between 
70 and 75 per cent of the herds of dairy cattle in the 
State are more or less affected with tuberculosis. 
This estimate leaves from 25 to 30 per cent of the 
herds of the State perfectly free from the disease, 
and it is to these herds that we must look for certi¬ 
fied cows. The demand for healthy cows is so great 
that if a certificate of inspection can be produced 
showing the entire herd to be free from tuberculosis, 
such cows will easily be worth $10 each above the 
market value of, not only untested cows for dairy 
or breeding purposes, but also tested cows which may 
develop the disease soon after purchase. 
The question arises, where can they be purchased? 
I have never seen them advertised or offered for 
sale. Can it be that the owners of such herds are not 
aware of their true worth? That they are killing 
their heifer calves for veal, while others are raising 
tuberculous calves as a result of feeding them tuber¬ 
culous milk? I believe that here is a chance for 
dairymen to do some thinking such as they have never 
done before. I believe that the State Department of 
Agriculture should give a certificate of inspection to 
the owners of healthy herds and that such owners will 
find that their surplus stock can be sold very easily 
at a material advance in price, because they are worth 
more to the buyer. I am very sure that the adoption 
of this plan would result in a material advantage to 
the breeders of healthy dairy cattle, and the pro¬ 
ducers and consumers of wholesome dairy products. 
It would also be a great incentive for dairymen to 
have their herds tested, especially those who are con¬ 
fident that their cattle are entirely free from the dis¬ 
ease, when they learn that such animals have an in¬ 
creased market value amounting to several hundred 
dollars on an average sized herd. 
We know that dairymen throughout the State have 
not taken kindly to the tuberculin test for two 
reasons: first, they did not understand the nature of 
the disease and its effects, and second, the only out¬ 
come from subjecting the herds to the test seemed to 
be the confiscation of some of the animals by the 
State authorities, allowing the owners but a small 
part of their appraised value. No reward whatever 
has been in sight for the owners of healthy herds, not 
even an extra price for their milk. I want to ask a 
public question here. Is it not only just and fair 
that the men who own healthy herds of cattle—men 
who have kept the disease out of their herds by con¬ 
stant effort and expense—should receive some reward 
for their pains? Can this be done in any better way 
than by the State giving to such- owners a certificate 
of inspection after examination, so the demand for 
certified cows can be filled at a profit to both buyer 
and seller? __ c. s. greene. 
PRICES OF GRAIN EAST AND WEST. 
A. N. Peaslee’s question on page 632 is a matter 
of wide importance, and I hope will bring out many 
answers from the great corn-producing States. It is 
not alone the New England feeder who is up against 
the present high prices of feed stuffs, but it hits us all, 
and perhaps my experience in an effort to economize 
in dairy feeding may be of interest. During the past 
two years the writer has bought several cars of gluten 
and other feeds on a co-operative basis, sharing the 
same with about a dozen neighbors, according to 
their requirements, resulting in a saving of $2.50 to $4 
per ton, and full satisfaction. Small shipments would 
not be practical, but if farmers would anticipate their 
wants and ship full cars from the producing points, 
the amount thus saved would be attractive and help¬ 
ful. B. W. PUTNAM. 
Michigan. 
This is a new prairie country, settlement only com¬ 
menced two years ago. All the corn was used here, 
and a great deal shipped in, farmers paying $2.20 per 
100 pounds, but many fields are showing 40 to 50 
bushels per acre, and home market will be nearly 
supplied this year. Oats also have been selling at 
$2.20 per 100. j. b. m. 
Philip, S. D. 
Corn is worth 64cents; oats, 42 cents; wheat, 84 
cents; barley, 44 cents. The oats in this section were 
so badly damaged by rust that some will not pay the 
expense of harvesting and thrashing. It weighs 20 
pounds to the bushel and up. Corn will be a good 
crop if the frost holds off long enough. Potatoes 
were badly blighted. Winter wheat, barley and hay 
were good crops. r. j. w. 
Carroll, Neb. 
Corn has been a good price here; 1906 crop from 
50 to 54 cents per bushel shelled; 1907 crop from 
50 to 70 cents per bushel. As to shipping corn, pre¬ 
paid corn is counted cash and parties buying direct 
would have to pay from two to five cents per bushel 
more than prices stated to get it scooped on cars, 
and pay for it as soon as loaded, or pay extra and 
deposit in bank, so parties could draw on same. Oats 
have sold from 30 to 45 cents per bushel and a poor 
quality at that. Corn has been loaded on car and 
shipped to feeders in Iowa and nearby States. The 
cars can be got to ship in but it would be hard to 
get it so far in good condition early in the season, 
that is, new corn when first shelled, but later on it 
would ship all right. j. b. rossiter. 
Nebraska. 
On page 632 the New Hampshire man inquires the 
price the western farmers are paid for their grain. 
Here is August 6 market at Yankton, S. D.: Wheat, 
No. 2 Winter, 95 cents; No. 2 hard Chicago, 97^4 to 
98^4corn, 65 cents; Chicago, 77J4 to 78^4. The local 
mill is responsible for a bid of about 10 cents over 
market prices as they would normally be for wheat. 
Yankton oats, 38 cents; Minneapolis oats, about 50 
cents; Yankton barley, 44 cents; new barley, 50 to 58 
cents. Grain rate to Minneapolis is 14 cents per 
hundred; to Chicago, 18 cents per hundred. I think 
the wheat rate a little higher, at least to Chicago. The 
ruling prices at the elevators for corn last November 
and December ranged from 38 to 49 cents. I am 
unable to quote Chicago prices for the same period. 
Neither do I know the grain freight rate east of 
Chicago. I know nothing of the rates east of Chicago. 
From the western farmer’s standpoint the grain 
markets are not so bad as they might be, and were 
years ago. There are so many farmers and inde¬ 
pendent elevators doing business that a dealer thinks 
a three-cent margin on grain freight and commission 
is not bad at all. Nevertheless farmers can generally 
get well paid for their trouble in shipping their own 
grain; though few care to market a car at one time, 
and few feel confidence enough in themselves to go 
ahead, though it is seldom difficult to get cars. Besides, 
the grain dump at the elevator is regarded as a great 
improvement over the old-fashioned scoop shovel. 
I have known men to sell corn at an elevator for 
$1.50 a load less than they could get of a private party, 
rather than go to the trouble of unloading with elbow 
grease. A farmer will have to shovel into his own 
car. If I were on the market in the East for a car 
of corn I think I should try to get it from some in¬ 
dependent dealer, though no doubt it could be got 
to as good advantage on the Chicago market. Either 
elevator or farmer would doubtless sell to a com¬ 
mission man in preference to a private party of 
whom he knew nothing, if the price was the same, 
which must be considered by a prospective buyer. 
Yankton, S. D. v. f. 
MAKING OVER AN ASPARAGUS BED. 
My field, 2% acres, is three years old from planting. 
Plants were two and three years old when set out: rows 
six feet apart and plants 12 to 15 inches apart, and were 
supposed to have been put in at average depth of 12 
inches. Last Spring one of my hired men cross-plowed too 
deeply during my absence, rooting up a large number of the 
plants, creating spaces of various lengths up to 15 feet or 
more. The field is undulating, with sufficient hill at one 
end and corner to produce some wash during heavy rains 
and Winter thaws, which may have exposed some of these 
plants, but not all. They seem to be coming to the sur¬ 
face. Can this condition be prevented? Will it be prac¬ 
tical or advisable to replace these plants in the larger 
spaces? The trouble is all over the field and the labor 
of digging down and replacing no small item. W r ill this 
pay, if for example, que-third of the field is gone? Or 
will these spaces fill in, in time, with offshoots? The larg¬ 
est spaces probably will have to be replanted. Will 
it be advisable to take the outside row, now too 
near the fence, and replace with these? Or should 
younger plants be used? Having a large poultry plant. 
(1,000), the fertilizer used is hen manure, and the field 
looks exceedingly well, barring, of course, the spaces 
which are an eyesore and probably a great loss as to future 
• income. c. e. t. 
New York. 
If I were going simply to answer C. E. T. as 
shortly and concisely as possible, I would say, “No, 
it will not pay to reset his 2*4 acres,” but evidently 
he, and perhaps many others, want to know “why.” 
Further than the resetting, come other things brought 
out in this set of questions that should be mentioned. 
I am satisfied that aside from the vacant spaces in 
inquirer’s field, his plantation will never be what it 
should, for two or more reasons. First, the field was 
planted with two and five-year-old crowns, which 
never make as good and permanent a bed as one 
planted with one-year-old crowns. Second, inquirer 
fertilizers with hen manure, as I understand him, 
solely. This method of fertilization is not ideal for 
asparagus; it is too one-sided, not enough of the min¬ 
eral elements, phosphoric acid and potash. Another 
point is, this bed was “supposed” to have been set 
at an average depth of 12 inches. Here is where so 
many fall down. I have heard men insist that their 
plants were set 10 or 12 inches deep, when on digging 
down you could strike the crown in from five to six 
inches. A plow furrow turned each way through 
freshly plowed ground is very deceiving indeed. Had 
C. E. T. set his plants 12 inches deep no ordinary 
plowing would have torn them out as stated. A 
better plan would have been not to cross-plow the 
field. That is a practice never done here, and the 
writer lives where one can see 1,000 acres of aspara¬ 
gus in an hour’s drive. 
Asparagus crowns coming to the surface is a ques¬ 
tion that has been discussed for some time, and grow¬ 
ers differ on it yet. I believe that the soil under a 
bed and the method under which it is handled have 
much to do with how fast the crowns come up. 
Some years ago a neighbor and myself planted a bed; 
his subsoil was stiff hard clay, while mine was sandy 
and easily penetrated. Both beds are now eight or 
nine years old. My neighbor’s crowns are now act¬ 
ually above the natural level, while mine are from 
four to six inches below. Both beds were planted 
the same time. I believe a hard subsoil has a tend¬ 
ency to bring crowns to surface faster than where 
plants are set on a loose sandy subsoil. Manuring 
on the surface also has a tendency to bring the root 
system up. Nothing can be done to keep the crowns 
where first planted except as suggested above. They 
will slowly work toward the surface. The main thing 
is to set them where you “think you do,” not set 
them six inches and imagine they are 12 inches, as is 
too often the case. 
The inquirer asks, “Will spaces fill in from off¬ 
shoots?” No, they will not to any extent. The “off¬ 
shoot” as he terms it is just as likely to start cross¬ 
wise of the row as in any other direction, and they 
rarely get more than a foot in any one direction. 
Taking up the outside row to reset this bed would 
not be of any advantage. Plants are too old. Such 
plants never overcome such radical root pruning. To 
fill this bed in with young plants would be the only 
way. But I do not believe it would pay. It would be 
an expensive task to put them in, and a still worse 
one to keep the soil away from the.young plants while 
the older ones were cultivated level, and if it is not 
kept away and they are allowed to become covered too 
deeply many will smother. Another drawback is in a 
three-year-old bed the root system is so extended that 
the younger plants have but little show for existence. 
If inquirer’s bed was mine, and I needed the lost 
ground, I would start another and be sure how deep 
I set the plants. I would set it with one-year-old 
plants. I would not cross-plow it at all, but do all 
cultivation between and alongside of rows. I would 
use 800 to 1,000 pounds mineral fertilizer per acre, 
composed of one-third muriate of potash to two-thirds 
acid phosphate in addition to the hen manure. When 
ready to cut plow up the old bed. The asparagus 
crop is too costly to produce, too valuable to hare- -,t, 
to make so many mistakes. The crop in this section 
the past season was much larger in volume than that 
of 1907, but prices ruled lower; nevertheless it reached 
above $200 per acre in some instances, and paid in 
general about as well as any crop the farmer has 
gathered this season of scarcity of mono; and general 
low markets. c c. hulsart. 
Monmouth Co., N. J. 
