638 
q'HE} RURAb NEW-YORKER 
April 29, ' 
sheds, under glaciers and waterfalls, beside crystal 
mountain lakes. Then down, down, racing with a 
mountain torrent. Down at breakneck speed, racing 
into the night. Morning finds us spinning past wheat- 
fields abandoned to mud and snow, treeless, houses 
widely scattered, country in the arms of late Winter 
and mud. We left our own little garden with early 
vegetables in their prime, and we were a little thank¬ 
ful that northwest Canada was not our destination. 
On we sped, glued to the windows or trying to amuse 
the youngsters, receiving kind and courteous help 
from passengers and porters. At last granite rocks, 
sparkling lakes, lazy little rivers, mills, towns, boats, 
woods, orchards and vineyards tell of rural prosperity 
and plenty. We think that eastern Canada has much 
to offer to prospective settlers which she is silent 
about. 
We reached the town at midnight and stop at a 
hotel. In the morning in the rain we drive to “our 
farm.” That farm begins back from the main road. 
Jt lies on a side bill and over the hill. The house 
is one-half a mile up the hill, and the elevation at 
the house is 1400 feet, at the foot of the hill it is 
947 feet. The horses could barely pull the carriage 
up the hill. There was not one field in grass; a few 
in buckwheat stubble and the whole thing a stone pile. 
The boys said, “Don’t buy this, papa; it’s too stony.” 
There was not a spot where a horse’s foot would go 
between the stones. And the buildings! The house- 
roof leaked and water stood on the floor ; a sort of 
ell had tumbled in, and there huddled around an old 
cook-stove we found a woman and her children in a 
pitiable condition of indescribable filth and desola¬ 
tion. The man was off fishin’; had received a letter 
to vacate but refused to. I said, “Please don’t. Stay 
right here.” We refuse to accept the farm and go 
back to the hotel. Subsequently I met a lawyer who 
had written the description of that farm and sent it 
to the State for free advertising. He thought it a 
huge joke. But it’s a joke the State should not be 
a party to. 
I said we went to the hotel. I should have said 
saloon with bedrooms. The barkeeper, who was pro¬ 
prietor, amused himself by teaching our four-year-old 
baby to swear, giving him a penny to repeat after 
him the foulest oaths while the rest of the children 
stood about. If I had heard it, one saloon in that 
town would have been closed—for a funeral. 
We found a vacant house on the outskirts, an old 
abandoned house. We had our trunks, blankets, four 
chairs, a box or two, a kerosene stove, and thus we 
camped in the rain. Joseph p. carv. 
COST OF AN APPLE ORCHARD. 
In the article on page 458 by a man who has had 65 
years of experience in apple growing he gives figures 
for a 10-acre orchard for first 10 years. He fails to 
add in his items of yearly expense the item of spray¬ 
ing, or give any offset from year to year of increased 
value of his trees, as against the total cost of the or¬ 
chard. On the face of the matter, this man has had 
65 years of experience in owning an orchard or or¬ 
chards, and has yet to learn what all interested in 
orchard work are trying to get at each year; a better 
system, .easier manner of cultivation, and funda¬ 
mentally pushing the young trees in their early growth. 
That this man shows no return from his 10-acre or¬ 
chard during the 10-year period is conclusive evidence 
he could not attain success in that line or any other, 
without a change of system, or applied system. No 
doubt his orchard would not sell at the end of the 
10 -year period for over the $1540, for likely the trees 
would be dwarf, and would require two or three 
years to get them into working shape. In the matter 
of an orchard it is an individual matter, and indi¬ 
viduals differ in opinion as to what constitutes a 
good orchard proposition; two neighbors having equal 
conditions, might exchange orchards, and both fail to 
produce as good results as the original grower, be¬ 
cause of lack of knowledge as to individual trees. It 
is like handling a group of skilled workmen; requires 
care, judgment and eternal personal application to the 
business. I doubt if you can get a man who has 
made a success of apple growing to tell you on paper 
how he attained that pinnacle. J. D. Rockefeller tells 
us how he made his pile, but somehow we all fail to 
connect with or grasp the magic power. 
Connecticut. H. R. Howard. 
C. E. B., page 458, says he will make some figures. 
This he probably has done (made them). I do not 
think he took them from any accurate records. It 
seems a little strange to us here in eastern Penn¬ 
sylvania that he should value land at $/5 per acre 
that requires $5 worth of fertilizer per acre to grow 
trees the first year under cultivation. Land can be 
bought here at $50 per acre with plenty of fertility 
, to grow trees to the bearing age. His trees are 10 
years old and still he has no credit side to the ac¬ 
count. At the Exeter Fruit Farms we would cut 
them down and quit the business if they would not 
pay for themselves and the land at that age. The 
following is* an accurate account with 660 trees three 
years of age occupying six acres of land: 
First year, 1908. 
6 acres of land...-. $600.00 
660 trees . 119.45 
Flowing, harrowing, setting, trimming, interest 
taxes and all other expenses the first year.... 147.93 
$867.38 
$90.72 
121.07 
Second year, 1909. 
Cutting mulch, trimming, spraying, taking out 
worms, interest, taxes and all other expenses.. 
Third year, 1910. 
Same as above . 
Total three years .$1,079.17 
CR. 
$200.00 
Total net cost $879.17, or $1.33 per tree including 
land, as against C. E. B.’s $1524.78, or $3.05 per tree. 
We value the land at $100 per acre, as it is good 
enough to grow trees to the bearing age, plenty of 
mulch and a surplus for hay. We charge every last 
cent of expense to the trees, even the interest quar¬ 
terly, as that is the way we would have to pay if we 
borrowed at a bank. Fruit growing is our business, 
and we have put every expense into these trees to 
make them do their very best. w. j. lewis. 
Luzerne Co., Pa. 
be foolish. If he did so dispose of the berries, can 
you, or any of your readers, tell me why the “acre” 
he mentions should not be credited with the advanced 
price? As a matter of fact, the only reason he 
would fail so to credit it would be because he re¬ 
ceived only about 9 or 10 cents per box for the 
berries and the man who made the shortcake 
increased the cost to the consumer about 750 per 
cent. 
Regarding his argument concerning milk from the 
“scrub cow,” I can only point to Mr. Schimmel. Is 
he not doing exactly that, and does he not give the 
cow credit? As I remember his letter, he claimed he 
received one dollar per day per cow. Where in the 
world would the credit go, if not there? For my 
part, I am open for argument, and am perfectly 
willing to be convinced if I am wrong in my views* 
although I am like the man from Missouri—I must 
be “shown.” To follow out his principle, I will cite 
a calf. If he fattened a calf for veal and was offered 
11 cents per pound alive, or 14 cents dressed, and he 
dressed it, would he give the cited three cents a 
pound to the cow? In both cases he would have 
goods in raw state against the finished product, but 
the credit (advanced) must go to whatever pro¬ 
duced it. If his citation is correct, those farmers 
who get big prices for seed corn cannot figure that 
an acre made so much additional, just because they 
shelled the corn instead of selling it on the cob. 
New Jersey. w. j. dougan. 
FROM HEN TO HEN. 
I have followed the statements and discussions on 
those $9 and $12 hens with interest, and as so far 
none has figured as I would, I am responding to your 
invitation to “sail in.” On page 480 Mr. Wm. Gibson 
analyzes the statement of Gori & Son, as given on 
page 381, and instead of finding they have $12 hens, 
shows the net profit of the 11.5 hens to be but $18.24, 
or $1.59 per hen. While with Mr. Gibson I cannot 
see that they have $12 hens, yet neither do I think 
his figures just. The egg is not the final product of 
the hen as Mr. Gibson states, but the chick, and in 
reckoning the hen’s year’s work the chicks she is 
mother of must be credited to her. From hen to egg 
is not the complete cycle of life, but from hen to hen. 
The egg originally was intended only as a means for 
the perpetuation of the species, and the mother, egg 
and young bore the same relationship one to the other 
as the mother, egg and young of the undomesticated 
birds of to-day. That forces, foreign to nature, have 
been brought to bear does not in any way alter the 
original relationship, though the quantity or quality of 
hen, egg or chick may thus have been very materially 
changed. Surely the calf is credited to the cow as 
part of her year’s earnings; then why does he deny 
the hen her offspring? 
Again, neither is it fair for Gori & Son to credit to 
the mother hen the product of the pullet, whether it 
be but prepared for incubation—the egg—or incubated 
—the chick. In crediting the mother hen with her 
pullet’s eggs they err, for then they are entering the 
next cycle of life, with which she has nothing to do 
whatsoever. All cost of raising the pullets to the lay¬ 
ing age must be charged to the mother hen. So if I 
were to figure the net earnings of Gori & Son’s 11.5 
hens it would be as follows: 
DR. 
Feed, etc., for 115 hens, 1 cockerel. $17.75 
Feed, etc., for 210 chicks to maturity. 115.;i0 
Eggs incubated . 5-90 
Interest on parent stock. -90 
Interest in plant. -60 
Total Dr.$139.75 
Eggs from breeders. $35.<4 
Males, poultry sold . 54.94 
Poultry used (home).i. 54.94 
Pullets (layers and those chosen for breeders) and 
cockerels—about . 130.00 
Manure (old stock—young stock to maturing). 1.20 
Total Cr. . 
Less total Dr. 
$226.88 
139.75 
Net Cr. $87.13 
or $7.57 net per hen. 
In the above statement I have figured with the un¬ 
derstanding the young stock chosen for breeders were 
products of the eggs laid by the original 11.5 hens, and 
as from Gori & Son’s statement there is no means of 
knowing their number, I cannot be exact, but would 
value them at about $1 per head as with laying stock. 
Ohio. h. o. MERTZ. 
Figuring on the Hens. 
On page 508 C. E. W. criticises Gori & Son’s 
statement, and not being just satisfied with the logic 
of his argument, I submit my idea. Of course, I 
believe Gori & Son figured in the proper manner. 
You, or any person of sense, knows very well that 
shortcake at 25 cents per portion will place the price 
of the berries at 75 cents per quart; therefore, if C. 
E. W. is so situated that he could dispose of his 
berries in that manner, and failed to do so, he would 
EXPRESS COMPANIES AND EGGS. 
On January 31 I began shipping eggs to a grocer in 
New York City. Below is a statement of shipments 
with express charge in each case, as the grocer pays 
the expressage on receipt of the shipment. The dates 
given are from the returns he sends me: 
Feb. 1st, 1 case eggs. 
Feb. 10th, 1 case eggs. 
Feb. 20th, 1 case eggs. 
Feb. 25th, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 3d, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 10th, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 16th, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 20th, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 21st, 1 case eggs. 
Mar. 25th, 2 cases. 
Mar. 31st, 1 case. 
Expressage 
.$0.35 
.35 
.35 
.46 
.46 
.46 
.46 
.55 
.60 
.82 
.41 
When the rate jumped from 35 to 46 cents I asked 
our local United States Express agent for an ex¬ 
planation. I might as well have asked an Egyptian 
mummy. I then wrote the grocer asking him to in¬ 
vestigate. Following is his reply: “I spoke to the 
American Express agent about the charge. He says 
that their charges are 15 cents a case and the United 
States charges one time 25 and another time 31 cents.” 
It will be seen that this explanation limps. This was 
the first I knew the eggs were handled by two ex¬ 
press companies. I had just read the Boston man’s 
experience with his trunk, so I understood that my 
grocer happened to be located in the district allotted 
the American Express. When the rate soared to 55. 
and 60 cents the grocer sent me his receipt: “To 
American Express, Dr. For transportation one box 
eggs our charges, 40 cents; advanced charges, 20 cents; 
total, 60 cents. (U. S. Express.)” It is probably 
useless for me to try to get from the express com¬ 
panies the trifling sum that belongs to me, but with 
the help of The R. N.-Y. I can show them up. 
Cayuga Co., N. Y. J. f. c. 
A NEW PARTY IN POLITICS. 
I was much pleased to read In The R. N.-Y. a sug¬ 
gestion of a new party organized in the interests of the 
farmers. It seems to me that recent developments em¬ 
phasizes the necessity. In fact, I believe it imperative 
if the farmer of this country expects to compete with 
Canada and Argentina where the farming interests are 
taken care of and encouraged in every way possible, 
while we have to fight every inch of our way. Especially 
is this so in West Virginia, where there are so many 
other interests that are organized and beset our Legisla¬ 
ture with their hired lobbies, so much so that it is often 
hard to find a man in the Legislature with nerve enough 
to introduce a bill in the interest of the farmer after it 
has been carefully prepared. I believe the time is now 
ripe for such an organization. Do what you can to bring 
the matter before the people. Why should not we 
organize in our interest? It seems to me that it is the 
only way to get that which is coming to us. We certainly 
have no' reason to expect anything as a class from either 
of the parties now clamoring for control. I stand ready 
to do all I can, and I believe that there are hundreds 
of farmers in West Virginia just as ready as I am. 
West Virginia. _ R. e. thkashek. 
No doubt of it. Our correspondence shows that 
such farmers are everywhere. The suggestion we 
made was that there should be in this country a party 
or group, like the German Agrarians—pledged to put 
the political needs of agriculture above any other 
public demand. These men may vote with one great 
party or the other on many questions, but when it 
comes to questions wherein all farmers are interested 
they get together and stay there. The result is that 
German farmers carry some weight, and their demands 
are respected. What we need in America are solid 
groups of men in State and National legislatures 
who are able to forget that they are Democrats or 
Republicans when it comes to questions in which 
farmers are vitally interested. There are many elec¬ 
tion districts which are controlled by farmers in 
which farming is the chief business. As a matter ot 
self preservation these farmers must work out some 
such plan as we have suggested. 
