174, 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[Mat, 
which is not wisely departed from. The 
young mule inherits the heavy limbs of 
the dam and its size, as also to some ex¬ 
tent its coarseness; the capacity for draft be¬ 
ing the great object to be attained. On the 
whole the French system of raising these mules 
is contrary to what we should consider as ex¬ 
actly proper, and it is quite possible that in a 
very short period we could surpass them in the 
character of the animals raised. For instance, 
the young foal is denied the first milk of the 
dam, and this frequently results in its injury or 
early death. Then as soon as the colts are 
weaned they are sold to farmers, who rear them 
until yearlings, when they are sold again and 
again to others who keep only mules of two, 
three, or four years, as the case may be, until 
finally they are sold to the foreign purchasers. 
A more enlightened treatment of the mules 
could not fail to be of service to them, and it 
is hardly questionable but that American bred 
mules would be superior to the imported ones. 
Walks and Talks on the Farm—No. 125. 
Mr. S. R. Elder, of Beaver Co., Pa., writes 
me an interesting letter. “ Corn is our surest 
crop,” he says, “and always follows a manured 
clover sod. We usually get about 70 bushels 
shelled corn per acre. The next spring we sow 
oats on the corn stubble. And here our trouble 
commences. The oats fall down and do not 
fill, and taking one season with another we do 
not get more than 35 bushels per acre. I once 
sowed five acres of oats and peas. They bad a 
splendid appearance when in bloom, but fell 
down and rolled before they showed any signs 
of ripening. Now, can you suggest any crop 
to take the place of the oats and leave the land 
in good condition for winter wheat ? ” 
In this section wheat does better after barley 
than after oats. I should try plaster or salt to 
see if it would not give stiffer oat straw. Sow 
200 lbs. broadcast per acre after the land is 
plowed and harrowed in the spring and before 
the seed is drilled in. If Mr. Elder has been 
in the habit of drawing his winter-made manure 
on to his sod land in spring, and plowing it 
under for corn, I would try the plan of piling 
the manure and turning it once or twice so as 
to thoroughly ferment it, and then draw it out 
in the fall on to the clover sod and plow this 
clover sod up for corn next spring. I think the 
oats that followed this corn crop would not be 
so likely to fall down as they would be on land 
where coarse, fresh manure was plowed under 
for corn. I think oats and wheat frequently 
fall down, not because the land is too rich, but 
because it is not rich enough. The trouble is 
probably due to an excessive amount of car¬ 
bonaceous matter in the soil, and to a deficiency 
of nitrogen, phosphates, and potash. One of 
the best remedies for this evil is to grow more 
root crops. A crop of mangel-wurzel or turnips 
will take up this carbonaceous matter from the 
soil and organize it into good nutritious food. 
But it is not an easy matter to hit on the best 
rotation of crops. If we could only get reli¬ 
able artificial manures at reasonable rates we 
could farm to much better advantage. The 
time will come, and that shortly, when such 
will be the case. We could then adopt any 
rotation that best suited our particular circum¬ 
stances. The old notion that there is any real 
chemical necessity for a rotation of crops is un¬ 
founded. Wheat can be grown after wheat, and 
barley after barley, and corn after corn, pro¬ 
vided we use the necessary manures and get 
the soil clean and in the right mechanical 
condition. 
“ What, then, do we gain by a rotation ? ” 
asked the Deacon. 
Much every way. A good rotation enables 
us to clean the land. We can put in different 
crops at different seasons. 
“ So we could,” broke in the Deacon, “if we 
sowed wheat after wheat, barley after barley, 
and corn after corn.” 
True, but if we sowed winter wheat after 
winter wheat there would not be time enough 
to clear the land. 
“ Just as much as when we sow wheat after 
oats, or peas, or barley.” 
“True again, Deacon,” I replied, “but we 
are supposed to have cleaned the land while it 
was in corn the previous year. I say supposed, 
because in point of fact one half our farmers 
do not half clean their land while it is in corn. 
It is the weak spot in our agriculture. If our 
land was as clean as it should be to start with, 
there is no rotation so convenient in this sec¬ 
tion as corn the first year, barley, peas, or oats 
the second year, followed by winter wheat 
seeded down. But to carry out this rotation 
to the best advantage we need artificial 
manures.” 
“ But will they pay ? ” asks the Deacon. 
‘ ‘ They will pay well provided we can get 
them at a fair price and get fair prices for our 
produce. If we could get a good superphos¬ 
phate made from Charleston phosphates for 11- 
cent per lb., and nitrate of soda for 4 cents per 
lb., and the German potash salts for 3 / 4 cent 
per lb., and could get on the average $1.25 per 
bushel for barley and $1.75 for good white 
wheat we could use these manures to great 
advantage.” 
“Nothing like barn-yard manure,” says the 
Deacon. 
No doubt on that point, provided it is good 
manure. Barn-yard manure, whether rich or 
poor, contains all the elements of plant-food, 
but there is a great difference between rich and 
poor manure. The rich manure contains twice 
or three times as much nitrogen and phosphoric 
acid as ordinary or poor manure. And this is 
the reason why artificial manures are valuable 
in proportion to the nitrogen and phosphoric 
acid that they contain in an available condition. 
When we use two or three hundred pounds per 
acre of a good artificial manure we in effect, 
directly or indirectly, convert poor manure into 
rich manure. There is manure in our soil, but 
it is poor. There is manure in our barn-yards, 
but it is poor also. Nitrogen and phosphoric 
acid will make these manures rich. This is the 
reason why a few pounds of a good artificial 
manure will produce as great an effect as tons 
of common manure. Depend upon it, the 
coming farmer will avail himself of the discov¬ 
eries of science, and will use more artificial 
fertilizers. 
I have several times alluded to the experi¬ 
ments of Lawes and Gilbert on barley, giving 
the main facts. For twenty years barley has 
been grown year after year on the same land. 
Oue plot has been left entirely without manure; 
one plot has had 14 tons of barn-yard manure 
per acre every year; other plots have had 
superphosphate of lime; others sulphate of 
potash, soda, and magnesia, with and without 
superphosphate. On other plots, nitrate of 
soda and salts of ammonia have been used, 
alone, and in connection with superphosphate, 
and also in connection with salts of potash, 
soda, and magnesia. One plot had 2,000 lbs. 
of rape cake each year per acre, alone, and also 
in connection with superphosphate, alone, and 
in connection also with potash, soda, .and mag¬ 
nesia alone, and with superphosphate added. 
The results of the experiments for twenty 
years have recently been published. They 
show that we have much to learn—and, what 
is equally important, a good deal to unlearn. 
They are, however, on the whole, decidedly 
encouraging. They show that great crops can 
be raised, and that it is well worth a farmer’s 
while to study agricultural chemistry. 
The crop on the plot that was sown to barley 
every year for twenty years without manure 
produced an average of 23 of our bushels per 
acre and over 1,300 lbs. of straw. This, in 
itself, is a striking result. 
“ It must be very rich land,” remarks the 
Deacon. 
“No,” I replied, “it is no richer land than 
yours or mine. It is what we should call a 
rather heavy wheat soil. It is some such land 
as my north lot, but I think not naturally 
as rich.” 
“ When you sowed barley in that field, if I 
remember right,” unkindly remarked the Dea¬ 
con, “you did not get over 15 bushels per acre.” 
This was not because the land was poor. It 
was because it had never been more than half 
plow r ed and worked, and was full of weeds. 
The plot that was manured every year with 
barn-yard manure averaged 544 bushels per 
acre and over 14 ton of straw. The smallest 
yield on this plot during the twenty years was 
34£ bushels per acre, and the largest yield 
65 bushels. 
The smallest yield during the twenty years 
on two plots which received nothing but the 
best artificial manures was 33J bushels per 
acre on the one plot and 394 bushels on the 
other. The largest yield on these two plots 
was 714 bushels per acre on the one and 731- 
bushels on the other. 
“ That will do,” says the Deacon, “ but after 
all it is not as big a crop as your oats and peas 
last year. You had 854 bushels per acre, with¬ 
out any artificial manures.” 
The year before I had 884 bushels by weight, 
reckoning a bushel 32 lbs. This would be 
2,832 lbs. per acre. Mr. Lawes’s largest crop of 
barley, at 48 lbs. per bushel, was 3,540 lbs. per 
acre. This, by weight, is equal to over 1104 
bushels of oats per acre. 
“I suppose,” says the Deacon, “that Mr. 
Lawes had spent a small fortune in underdrain¬ 
ing the land.” 
“ It so happens,” I replied, “ that this field 
was not artificially drained at all. The only 
reason for such large crops was the application, 
in an available condition, of nitrogen and 
phosphoric acid. But recollect one thing, 
Deacon, it is vain for you or for me to hope 
to get big crops until we make our land clean. 
In a letter just published, Mr. Lawes, in allud¬ 
ing to the fact that nitrate of soda and super¬ 
phosphate can be used with profit on the barley 
crop, well says: ‘ It is hardly necessary to add 
that the land should be clean; many of the 
weeds which infest our fields are quite as fond 
of ammonia and phosphate as are the grain 
crops, and if allowed to do so they will appro¬ 
priate to themselves a very considerable por¬ 
tion of the manure.” 
The Deacon got up to go. I have only to 
speak of “ weeds” to start him at any time. 
“ Don’t be in a hurry,” I said, “ there are 
