SUCCESS WITH A MULCHED ORCHARD. 
I have read with a great deal of interest and 
pleasure your articles on the mulched orchard, as I 
am a firm believer in the mulch system, especially 
on my clay soil. I have an orchard of 170 Baldwin 
and 30 Grimes Golden trees, 21 years old, that this 
year produced over 3,000 bushels of very fine smooth 
high-colored apples, and as I sell a good deal of my 
fruit from my wagon in Cleveland, I have been told 
by a number of good grocers that my Baldwins are 
the finest they have seen this year. The only fault 
I can find with my fruit is that about one-third are 
No. 2 in size, which means they needed thinning. The 
first 15 years after planting the orchard had very 
indifferent care. For 10 years or so it was run under 
a four-year rotation, one in corn, one in oats and 
two in grass. Then for five years or so, it was used 
for a meadow. About six years ago I became inter¬ 
ested in the “mulch theory,” and began by mowing 
and raking what little grass grew in it, and spreading 
it under the trees; also using all my surplus straw 
or refuse of any kind, and mowing swales, pastures, 
etc., whenever I could get enough to pay for the labor. 
The orchard has been well top-dressed, and part of 
it the second time in the last six years. The orchard 
has been well pruned and sprayed. The trees are 
low; a large portion of the lower branches were bent 
to the ground with their burden. The fruit and 
foliage was retained to the last. Of wormy, bruised 
and prematurely dropped apples I sold something like 
100 bushels, and cider apples 50 bushels, and had 
3,000 bushels left. My success up to this year has 
been rather indifferent, but the orchard made a fair 
wood growth, and is well set with fruit buds for 
another year. I feel the crop this year is in return 
for the labor and expenditures of the past six years, 
with promise of many more such returns. My crop 
a year ago was 750 bushels; two years ago 650; three 
years 400; four years ago 500, and from th .t on down 
to the time it began to bear. To have it jump in one 
year 400 per cent is a pretty big story to tell, but I 
can verify it if necessary. w. k. crary. 
Ohio. _ 
THE VALUE OF “NITROGEN CULTURES.” 
Will you give a fair statement of the value of the 
nitrogen cultures or “bottled germs” offered for sale? Ex¬ 
travagant claims are made for some of them. What is 
the real truth about them? 
In so far as cultures for the inoculation of legumes 
are concerned there has been considerable improve¬ 
ment made in their preparation and in their use. 
Cultures like “Farmogerm” and “Nitragin” give in 
most instances satisfactory results when used in con* 
nection with Alfalfa or other legumes new to the land. 
But even in such cases positive results are not secured 
except when the land is in proper tilth, properly limed 
and supplied with available phosphoric acid and potash. 
He who would claim that these and similar cultures 
can transform waste land into fruitful fields may be 
speaking the truth, but he is not speaking the whole 
truth. 
Simply stated the status of the whole matter is this. 
Plants cannot grow without nitrogen. Poor, waste 
and barren soils are unproductive because among other 
things most of them are improperly supplied with nit¬ 
rogen compounds. Legumes like clover, Alfalfa, 
vetch, cow peas, etc., are independent of the supply 
of nitrogen in the soil, since they can get all of the 
nitrogen that they need from the inexhaustible sup¬ 
plies of the air. Even these plants, however, cannot 
make use of atmospheric nitrogen without the help of 
certain bacteria that enter their roots and cause the 
formation of the well-known tubercles. Hence when 
other conditions are suitable the presence of the right 
bacteria may mean the difference between success and 
failure. The cultures placed on the market can supply 
these bacteria, and they can do no more. 
After all, the bacteria are but one of the essential 
factors in the successful growing of legumes on poor 
soils. Moisture, lime, potash, phosphoric acid, etc., 
are just tfs essential. One might claim with as much 
show of propriety that lime transforms barren land 
into productive soil, or that potash makes a wilderness 
blossom like a garden. The manufacturers and ven¬ 
ders of legume cultures have a right to say that they 
can supply bacteria for the production of tubercles 
when soil conditions are otherwise favorable. They 
have a right to point out that without proper inocula¬ 
tion clover or Alfalfa might fail,—but here their 
claims should stop. 
By the judicious use of leguminous green manures, 
lime, and mineral fertilizers poor soil can be built up 
gradually so as to become very productive. This fact 
was familiar to scientists and practical farmers many 
years before cultures of legume bacteria made their 
appearance. Similarly one can to-day establish a new 
legume without inoculation by merely plowing under 
one or two poor crops until the bacteria became grad¬ 
ually established in the soil. The same purpose may 
THE HURAb NEW-YORKER 
be accomplished more readily by inoculating with 
earth from a field where this particular legume had 
been grown successfully; and the use of cultures, 
(in so far as they are efficient), may be recommended 
because they are more convenient and more economical 
than either of the other methods. Having said that, 
we have said all that can be said in favor of pure 
cultures for the inoculation of legumes, and he who 
claims more for them does not tell the whole truth. 
As to the inoculating of land for oats, corn, turnips 
and other non-legumes, this much may be said: 
Within the past few years several new kinds of bac¬ 
teria have been discovered that can ‘‘fix'’ nitrogen. 
, That is, they can take the nitrogen gas of the air, 
which plants cannot use as such, and transform them 
into certain compounds of nitrogen that later become 
available for the feeding of crops. These bacteria 
do not form tubercles on the roots of any plants. 
They live and multiply in the soil itself, irrespective 
of the fact whether crops are growing on it or not 
When conditions are favorable these bacteria may 
multiply rapidly and enrich the soil in nitrogen com¬ 
pounds. It has been demonstrated, however, that 
these organisms will not grow in soils poor in humus, 
or in soils poor in lime and phosphoric acid. In the 
course of time we may learn to utilize these bacteria 
for enriching our soils in nitrogen compounds, but 
the progress to be made in this direction will come 
not by introducing cultures of these bacteria into the 
soil, but by improving the mechanical and chemical 
properties of the land so as to enable the bacteria 
already present there to accomplish the work that 
they are fitted to do. The experiments carried on by 
the writer at the New Jersey Station and by a number 
of investigators abroad have shown that there is, at 
present, no practical method for utilizing profitably 
cultures of these bacteria in the growing of field crops. 
Let the farmer beware of men who would sell him 
cultures for the inoculation of oats, corn, turnips, etc. 
JACOB G. LIPMAN, 
N. J. Experiment Station. Soil Chemist. 
A DEAL IN ALFALFA SEED. 
“About the Poorest I Ever Saw”. 
Last July I sent Moore Seed Co., 339 Market street, 
Philadelphia, Pa., the following order: 
Please ship to me by U. S. Express 40 pounds Harding’s 
Hardy Upland Alfalfa seed at 22 cents per pound. 
I order this seed with the understanding that if on having 
it examined by the Agricultural Department or any ex¬ 
periment station it is found to contain any dodder, or 
an unsatisfactorily large amount of other foul stuff, or 
to be of poor germination I have ttie privilege to return 
it to you—you to refund my money, and to pay transporta¬ 
tion charges one way. If you do not care to accept the 
order on these conditions please return my check and 
oblige. 
I sent samples of the seed to the United States 
Department of Agriculture, and received the report 
that it contained the following weed seeds: Buckhorn, 
dodder. Green foxtail, vervain, ox-tongue, Centaurea 
species, hawkweed, self-heal, wild chicory, wild carrot, 
knotted hedge parsley, charlock, and a percentage of 
undetermined weed seeds. It also contained Red 
clover and White clover seed. The report stated that 
in sowing this seed at the rate of 10 pounds per acre, 
746 weed seeds, including 123 dodder seeds, would be 
sown on each square rod. The percentage of germin¬ 
ation was 72. 
I also sent sample to the College of Agriculture at 
Ithaca, N. Y., and received the following report: 
I have examined the sample of Alfalfa seed you en¬ 
closed and I think it about the poorest 1 have ever seen. 
Nearly half of it is small and shrunken, and it contains a 
great many seeds of buckhorn, besides some dirt and a 
few other weed seeds. I cannot find any dodder in it, 
but I should not buy such seed, as there is much better 
seed on the market, I know. edward k. minks. 
I then returned the seed to the Moore Seed Corn- 
pan}', and requested them to return my money as per 
my order, but I have not been able to get it. I send 
you all the correspondence, and put the matter in 
your hands for treatment. subscriber. 
New York. 
Before the above order was made, the Moore Seed 
Co. wrote this to the purchaser: 
In replying to yours of the 17th inst., our present stock 
of Harding’s Hardy Upland Alfalfa seed is of 1908 crop, 
and we guarantee it free from dodder. 
Again a week later they wrote this: 
Regarding your inquiry about Harding’s Hardy Upland 
Alfalfa seed, we respectfully state you can have it tested 
at any source most convenient to you. We would not like 
to send you 100 pounds of seed in advance. We can assure 
you, however, that our seed is all right, and will be found 
up to the market in every respect, and if any experimental 
station will say aught to the contrary, you are privileged 
to return the seed. 
When the purchaser wrote the result of his reports 
from Washington and Ithaca, he received this: 
In reply to yours of the 16th inst. stating that a 
certain amount of dodder was found in the Alfalfa clover 
seed, we respectfully state that we bought that clover 
seed with the guarantee of being dodder free, and we 
. January 1, 
would like to have your authority for your report. We 
intend to go back on the other party if we can prove it. 
After assuring them that the authority was the 
United States Department of Agriculture, and sending 
a duplicate of the report, he received this: 
We have carefully examined the Harding’s Alfalfa seed 
and have not discovered the mixture reported. This 
morning we have had your report, which shows a percent¬ 
age of foreign seed of only a trifle over one per cent. It 
is quite impossible to get grass seed of any kind abso¬ 
lutely pure. 
That ended the transaction as far as the Moore 
Seed Company is concerned to date. We have written 
them several times for an explanation, but get no 
reply. The evidence is conclusive. The farmer u ed 
every rightful means to protect himself. He accepted 
their written guarantee to return the seed and get 
his money, if any experiment station found it impure. 
They probably expected that he would take their word 
for it, and neglect to get the test. The seeds were 
returned as per agreement, and now they have the 
seeds and the money—$8.80. Of course, the money 
could be collected in the courts; but a New York 
State farmer cannot afford to go to Pennsylvania 
courts to collect $8.80. It seems to us that the Seed 
Trade Association ought to take up a case of this 
kind, and put their brand of disapproval on it. Cer¬ 
tainly such transactions are a menace to the legitimate 
and reliable seed houses, and it is to their interest 
as well as the interests of the growers that such trans¬ 
actions be discouraged. The Moore Seed Company 
will probably keep the $8.80. They probably think 
the purchaser has no redress; but we think they will 
yet have reason to wish they had returned the money. 
AID FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION. 
In an article in the press given wide circulation it 
has been suggested that the State of New York 
assume in the future a larger control over Cornell 
University. This means, in my opinion, that if the 
State wall make the appropriation large enough, 
Cornell will be willing that the majority of the Board 
of Control shall be appointed by the Governor. I 
do not believe the farmers of the State want the 
agricultural education of their boys under the control 
of the politicians in good standing with the political 
party in power. At present some $300,000 is appro¬ 
priated for agriculture. Most of this is turned over 
to -the treasury at Cornell University. I am not just 
sure how all of this money is expended. Rather than 
to mix politics in the matter it would be better in 
results to establish scholarships, say of $50 each, and 
then let each student make his own selection of college 
to attend. This would at once start up a competition 
among the different colleges of the State in offering 
attractive agricultural courses. It would be fair to all, 
and much better for the real cause of agriculture 
than the plan proposed. The more general adoption 
of agricultural courses by our colleges would tend 
to dignify the calling, and help to hold our young 
men on the farm. The tendency has been to educate 
away from the farms. We want to reverse this. 
Along this line I note that the courses as laid out 
for our academF high schools are quite barren of 
subjects that would be a direct benefit to those who 
propose to stay on the farms. What we want for the 
preparatory school is a five-months course commenc¬ 
ing November 1 of theory; the remaining seven 
months of the year should be put into farm practice 
at home, the boys being paid good wages by their 
fathers or guardians for their sendees. This teaches 
the boy at once in a very practical way that he 
amounts to something; also that the farm amounts to 
something, and those who have tried out this plan 
have found that it also amounts to no small sum 
financially to them. Education w’ell mixed with work 
at full pay is going to solve the problem of keeping 
the boys on the farm. A full discussion of this 
subject in The R. N.-Y. I believe would result in 
giving us something of great benefit to agriculture. 
Onondaga Co., N. Y. grant g. hitchings. 
Durum wheat, originally imported from Europe, 
grows well in the dry sections of the Northwest. For 
“dry farming” on the deserts when there is no water 
for irrigation Durum gives by far the best yield 
of any variety. In North Dakota alone last year 
22,000,000 bushels of this wheat were grown. There 
is a prejudice against Durum—the millers saying that 
it makes an inferior flour. As a result the price of 
Durum ran 15 to 27 cents less per bushel than the 
same grade of Fife and Bluestem. This was a serious 
matter, since Durum proved so satisfactory a yielder. 
To overcome this prejudice the Dakota people adopted 
a wise plan. “Durum day” was appointed. On that 
day all Dakotans were asked to eat Durum flour and 
talk about it. The Experiment Station distributed 
samples of Durum flour—people used it for bread 
and pastry and reported. They proved that this flour 
is fully equal to any other, and superior in some 
respects. The result of this will be a demand for 
Durum that will raise the price to the level of other 
varieties. 
