338 
[September, 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
The finer osiers are then woven jn amongst them, 
and the filling goes on until the bottom (fig. 8) is 
finished, when the frame-pieces are bent up¬ 
wards (fig. 9), or fresh osiers are inserted, to form 
a foundation for 
the sides. When 
the sides arc car- 
r i c d up suflfi- 
c i e n 11 y, the 
frame-pieces are 
bent down and 
woven in 
amongst the fili¬ 
ng. HA-MAKING HANDLE. g{) ag tQ ho j d 
them securely in place for a short piece, 
when they are cut off, and the top of the bas¬ 
ket finished off. Figs. 10 and 11 show how the 
filling and finishing are done. The last work 
of all is to sharpen off the last remaining osiers 
Fig. 11.— A FINISHED BASKET. 
and thrust their ends through the frame in 
such a manner that they can not work out. The 
basket is trimmed inside, all ends sticking out 
are smoothly cut off, and the basket is done. 
Wolf-Teeth. — In reply to numerous in¬ 
quiries as to whether “wolf-teeth” in horses 
cause blindness, we explain this question some¬ 
what fully, that our correspondents may see the 
matter in its true light. At the age of five years 
every horse has or has had what are called 
wolf-teeth. They are pointed teeth, situated at 
the sides of the jaws towards the front. These 
teeth are naturally shed soon after their appear¬ 
ance 'in most cases, but sometimes remain dur¬ 
ing a lengthened period, and as Ihey are followed 
by other teeth, it sometimes occurs that an inter¬ 
ference is occasioned when they do not fall out, 
and they are crowded in the gums and cause 
irritation. In cases when from cold or neglect 
the eyes of the horse are injuriously affected 
and at the same time there is trouble with these 
teeth, it is very probable that the irritation may 
sympathetically increase the trouble with the 
eyes. But it is altogether an indirect effect, and 
if the eyes are properly cared for, the teeth 
would never affect them. When the interference 
is noticed, the wolf-teeth should be drawn, not 
knocked out; when there is no interference, 
they may stay in their place, without inconven¬ 
ience, until they drop out. 
Moule’s Earth-Closet System and the 
Manure it Produces. 
BY GBORGE 0. WARING, JR., OF OGDEN FARM. 
Having taken an active part in the introduc¬ 
tion of the earth-closet in this country, and 
having attached especial importance to the 
economical bearings of the question, I desire to 
say a word in reference to a new development 
concerning it recently made in England. Dr. 
Augustus Voelcker, the Chemist of the Royal 
Agricultural Society, has long been known as 
an able investigator whose conclusions have 
been stated with so much clearness and mode¬ 
ration as to command the highest respect. In 
the last number of the Society’s Journal lie 
publishes the result of a careful investigation of 
the effect produced on the earth used in closets 
by the faeces they receive, which must radically 
modify our previous conclusions. The sub¬ 
stance of his paper, briefly stated, is that human 
faeces are of less value, or rather that they 
amount to less, than has generally been sup¬ 
posed, and that the quantity of earth required 
to disinfect them is so large that they produce 
an almost inappreciable effect in increasing 
their content of ammonia, phosphates, and 
potash—the three important constituents of 
manure. This he states with such evidence as 
to settle the question definitely; but in doing so 
he bears the strongest testimony to the value of 
Moule’s system as a domestic and sanitary con¬ 
venience, and expresses the opinion that under 
suitable circumstances it is the most desirable. 
Dr. Yoelcker’s investigations were made upon 
earth that had been used five times, and, so far 
as the earth that he examined is concerned, the 
argument seems to be closed. 
Of course he does not intend to gainsay an 
opinion which he must hold as firmly as any 
other scientific man in the world, that however 
little the faeces produced by a single man may 
be worth, the faeces produced by all mankind it 
is of vast importance to save. It would extend 
this article too much to repeat what has been 
so often stated before concerning the manurial 
constituents of the food of large populations— 
the item of phosphoric acid contained in the 
food of the inhabitants of New York City alone 
amounting to 7,000 tons per annum. It would 
be impossible to review Dr. Yoelcker’s whole 
'paper without reopening the discussion of the 
entire subject. The point that it seems to me 
most important to make relates to the applica¬ 
tion of his argument. He claims that earth 
which has been used five times contains so small 
a proportion of the remains of the faecal addi¬ 
tion as not to be worth as a manure the cost of 
handling that would attend its collection and 
transportation in the case of large towns. It 
seems to me that this is the very best argument 
that could be used in favor of the speedy adop¬ 
tion of Moule’s system under these very circum¬ 
stances. If the earth remains nearly pure after 
five uses, it is evidence (confirming my own ob¬ 
servation) that the earth may be used much 
more than five times. Viewed in the light of 
his experiments, it seems evident that it.may be 
used even twenty or fifty times over, and that 
with proper facilities for redrying (which may 
be of the simplest character), the adoption of 
the system will require but one fourth or one 
tenth of the quantity that has been supposed to 
be necessary. A few tons of prepared earth, 
used over and over again, would suffice for an 
ordinary family for some years. Not until the 
accumulated matters had so far increased as to 
make the earth a valuable manure would there 
be theleast objection to it for use in the closets. 
There is one branch of the subject of which 
Dr. Voelcker has omitted to speak—that is, the 
effect upon the earth itself of the decomposition 
of organic matter within it. Precisely what 
this effect may be is not known, but it is un¬ 
questionably true that inert, fertilizing ingre¬ 
dients of the soil are made useful and available 
by the action of decomposing manure on the 
compounds or on the particles in which they 
exist in the soil. I have now had constant ex¬ 
perience of the use of earth-closet manure for 
four years—in the open ground in summer, and 
under glass in winter—and I can not be mis¬ 
taken in my conviction that it is a very valuable 
fertilizer. Its effect has been especially marked 
in the growth of roses and celery, both of which, 
require a very rich soil, and both of which I 
have grown to greater perfection with earth- 
closet manure than with any other. My expe¬ 
rience has not been singular, but accords with 
that of many others whose results have come 
to my knowledge. Even supposing that the 
effect produced bj' these manures is not enough 
to repay the high cost of labor here and in Eng¬ 
land, we must not lose sight of the fact that-the 
wonderful agriculture of China and Japan is 
based almost entirely upon the strictest economy 
and the most skillful use of human manure. 
There is still another consideration suggested 
by the article in question that has a bearing on 
the question of fallows, to which I refer in my 
regular paper in this number. 
Deep Milk-Cans.— Captain H. E. Alvord, of 
Fairfax Co.,Va., writes: “The system of deep¬ 
setting milk is very old here. On my farm we 
have a stone spring-house, with deep pools of 
flowing water, at a temperature of 55°. For 
seventy years pans have been unknown here. 
In their place we use deep, straight-sided ‘ milk- 
crocks ’ or stone jars, about six inches in diam¬ 
eter. These stand in the pools. The milk in 
them is from six inches to ten inches deep, and 
they are skimmed with a ladle.” Verily there 
is nothing new under the sun. 
Ox-Teams vs. Horses. 
In this go-ahead age it is a dismal sight to see 
an able-bodied man toiling along the road at the 
slow pace of a pair of oxen, and we have pro¬ 
bably had as much to say as any one in favor of 
the substitution of the faster horse or mule team. 
We are bound to confess, however, that the 
picture has another side which is worthy of care¬ 
ful consideration. Ox-teams are slow, it is true, 
but they are effective, cheap, and convenient. 
Horses are a necessity for regular road-work 
and for many operations on the farm, but it is 
almost indispensable to have for occasions con¬ 
siderably more team-force than is needed regu¬ 
larly. If the extra work of plowing, harvesting, 
and hauling manure is to be done by horses, we 
may make up our minds to have them more 
than half the year eating off their heads in idle¬ 
ness, and to be in constant danger of loss from 
the thousand ills that horse-flesh is heir to. To 
state the case in a nutshell, an idle horse is idle 
capital, - invested in an extra hazardous risk, 
without insurance, and consuming itself month 
after month. 
Oxen, on the other hand, if properly treated, 
are a tolerably safe storehouse of working power. 
When not at work, they are laying on flesh which 
is worth so much per pound in a ready market 
if we choose to sell, or which may be taken out 
again in the form of hard work whenever we 
may call upon it. In case of accident we may 
realize the full amount of our investment at the 
hands of the nearest butcher. An idle ox is 
active capital, the investment is safe and well 
insured, and his fodder is pretty certain to get 
paid for, either in flesh or in work. 
The difference in returns in the two cases is a 
very important one, and the extra cost of team¬ 
ster in the use of the slower animals is probably 
well compensated for by the saving in saddlery 
bills. And after all, the question of speed is of 
less consequence than we often imagine it to be. 
We have lately had an opportunity to watch two 
