834 
ness would never have done so had he himself been a 
practical market gardener. It would be next to impos¬ 
sible for the employer himself to hire a suitable man 
for that business, unless he knew every detail of mar¬ 
ket garden work so thoroughly that he could tell in 
15 seconds whether his employee was an expert by put¬ 
ting a hoe or some tool in his hand to see whether he 
“knew how to sling it,” as an old Irishman asked the 
writer to test him when asked if he “knew how to 
hoe.” Or by talking 15 minutes with your proposed 
employee if you know the business yourself; if not, a 
green or incompetent man, if disposed, might fool you 
for a month or six months before you would learn just 
how and why he was a failure. 
Allow me to quote myself by one extract from a lec¬ 
ture delivered before our Worcester Horticultural So¬ 
ciety in 1890, 20 years ago, after having 17 years’ 
experience in market gardening, on the theme of the 
culture of lettuce and cucumbers under glass, and 
after 20 years’ further experience I would emphasize 
my advice, not only in regard to the culture of vege¬ 
tables under glass, but as to expecting to make market 
gardening profitable by proxy: 
Do not think you can start into the business on a busi¬ 
ness scale and avoid such losses by hiring a professional 
expert to manage the business for you, and at the same 
time teach you the intricacies of the trade. Competent 
men cannot be hired for that business, at least, not by one 
who is himself a novice. Having hired the most competent 
man that you can secure, in all the States, and spread 
out your property for him to manage, the first you will 
realize as a tangible result of your enterprise will be a 
loss of $500 or $1,000 at a stroke by reason of his blun¬ 
ders, or rather his ignorance. 
A few years ago, a man having a lucrative business pur¬ 
chased an adjoining vegetable farm, with a greenhouse and 
four or live hundred liot-bed sashes, and proposed to make 
a little money out of lettuce growing, by hiring an expert 
market gardener to operate his glass on shares, while he 
himself continued his former business. lie asked me to 
refer him to the right kind of a man for such an enter¬ 
prise, if I could. I asked him if he himself had a prac¬ 
tical knowledge of growing lettuce under glass. He said 
he had not. But he thought if he could secure a man 
who had, the man, “while making a dollar for himself, 
might also make a dollar for him.” 1 told him 1 knew of 
no such man to be hired. And, besides, that 1 had never 
in all my life heard of but two such men that were hired 
to manage..such a business, and in both these cases the 
owners gave their personal and constant oversight to every 
detail of work. I told him that while not able, under the 
circumstances, to help him make any money, I was confi¬ 
dent that I could save him at least $5,000 if he would but 
adhere to the advice which I could give him in just fire 
words— “ Don’t do any such thing.” Of course I knew he 
would not follow it, for it would seem to him to be 
prompted by personal interest. He tried his experiment 
several years with two or more, I think, different men. 
1 occasionally looked in upon him to learn what success 
attended the enterprise. On my last visit to his place, 
I met several teams loaded with hot-bed sash which he 
had wisely leased or sold to a market gardener who under¬ 
stood his business. The greenhouse was desolate and cold, 
and, besides, had collapsed under a heavy snowdrift, and 
the busy hum of market garden work no longer enlivened 
the scene. He frankly admitted that my advice given him 
was sound, but boasted of wisdom enough to quit the busi¬ 
ness before he had sunken quite as large a sum of money 
as I had predicted. 
Massachusetts. S. h. record. 
THAT SPHERICAL BARN— A CORRECTION. 
I was much interested in the plans of a spherical 
barn published on pages 754 and 755 of The R. N.-Y 
under date of July 30, but it seems to me that the item 
needs explanation to the prospective builder. For 
instance, it is stated that it will require 14 rafters 14 
feet apart for a barn 64 feet in diameter (which is 
correct). Now, he says 14-foot fencing would be used 
to make these rafters, as follows: The lower 28 feet 
would consist of six boards each; the next 42 feet of 
live boards, and the last 28 feet of four boards in each 
rafter, making each rafter 98 feet in length (which is 
incorrect), while as a matter of fact each rafter would 
be 49 feet in length. Again he says the surface (out¬ 
side) of the smaller barn, omitting the cupola, is 
14,476 square feet, while in fact not omitting the cupola 
the surface is 6,434 feet; again be says the cubical 
contents is 68,630 cubic feet above the stable, while in 
fact the cubical contents of the entire barn is 65,129 
feet. In figuring out the above I have assumed that 
the rafters would be set on the sill of the structure; if 
one wished to raise the roof the height % of a stable 
the rafters should be about nine feet longer or 58 feet 
which would give an additional outside surface of 
about 1,800 feet. 
I have been a contracting carpenter and builder for 
about 20 years, and if above figures are not approxi¬ 
mately correct I will be pleased to be shown where 
they are wrong. I intend to build a spherical barn in 
the near future after the following plan: I shall use 
one by six-inch boards for the main rafters, using six 
boards at bottom of rafter and gradually reduce them 
to three boards at top. I will then fill the spaces be¬ 
tween main rafters with lighter rafters made of two 
pieces of one by four-inch, set 16 inches on centers, 
running a band of one by six-inch stuff around the 
lower portion of roof and one by four-inch around 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
upper portion, placing bands four feet apart. I will 
then nail one by two-inch on outside of rafters to 
make outside surface of rafters even with surface of 
bands. I will then place either wood or metal lath 
directly on the rafters, using no sheathing. If metal 
lath are used I would advise putting a light coat of 
cement on the inside (after the outside is finished), 
so all part of the metal are covered to prevent rust, 
and to make the stable warmer in the cold sections I 
would simply place lath directly on the inside of the 
rafters or studding close up to the loft floor, and put 
on a one-inch coat of cement the same as on the out¬ 
side. This will give a three-inch dead-air space, and 
if barn is used as a dairy barn there will seldom be any 
frost found inside if properly ventilated, even in the 
cold States of the North. o. g. marston. 
Alabama. 
R. N.-Y.—We have received the following note from 
Prof. F. H. King: 
“Please insert the following in your columns, cor¬ 
recting a misstatement which occurs in the article on 
the spherical type of barn in the recent number of The 
R. N.-Y. to which Mr. O. G. Marston has very kindly 
called attention. Through an oversight the entire cir¬ 
cumference of the sphere was used in stating the length 
of rafters and in calculating the surface, instead of 
one-half of it, which should have been taken. The 
drawing is correct and shows the error to which Mr. 
Marston calls attention. The length of the rafters 
should be 54 feet, as they are represented and the 
outside surface should have been given as 8,243 square 
feet or 1,809 square feet more than half the surface 
of the sphere, this being the outside surface of the 
stable.” F - H - KING - 
THE SUCKERS ON SWEET CORN. 
1 send a clipping and wish to ask your opinion as to 
whether the conclusions deducted are coirect regaiding 
removing suckers from corn stalks. If this work can be 
saved it would he many dollars in the hands of the farm¬ 
ers in this section who raise sweet corn. It is often 
necessary to go through the entire corn crop and pull 
off all suckers. J - H - H - 
Maine. 
The clipping is from Wallace’s Farmer and states 
that there is no need of removing suckers from corn: 
In the past suckers on corn were regarded as very un¬ 
desirable and oftentimes the small boy had to go through 
the cornfield and pull them off. Recent experiments show 
that suckering of the corn plant is merely a response to 
its surroundings. When the stand is thin, as it is this 
year, there will always be plenty of suckers. The corn 
plants simply try to remedy the thin stand by suckering. 
Another cause for suckering is the richness of the land. 
Rich, new land has been found to produce nearly twice the 
number of suckers as old, worn-out land. To some extent 
the tendency to sucker is no doubt inherited, but the 
main causes of suckering are the thinness of the stand, 
the richness of the ground, and the weather conditions. 
We have observed that some varieties of corn—es¬ 
pecially the flints—are more inclined to sucker than 
others. Prof. J. L. Stone, of Cornell, sends us the fol¬ 
lowing opinion: 
So far as my observation goes it has not been the prac¬ 
tice of farmers to put forth any considerable effort to 
remove the suckers from the corn hills. If the corn 
chances to stand so thick that it is thought advisable to 
do some thinning, then the suckers are likely to be the 
first stalks removed, followed by the weaker plants of the 
hill. But unless thinning is required, little or no atten¬ 
tion is paid to the suckers. The clipping from Wallace’s 
Farmer seems to state the case about as 1 understand 
it. I do not know from what source the information is 
secured. There are no experiments reported in the Ex¬ 
periment Station Record corresponding to these, and Wal¬ 
lace’s Farmer does not give definite statement as to the 
source of the information. According to the Experiment 
Station Record the Kansas Station, in 1887-88, experi¬ 
mented along this line and got negative results. They 
found that on the average the corn from which the suckers 
were removed yielded five bushels per acre less than where 
they were not removed. Since that time there have been 
no similar experiments reported. It was observed that the 
ears on the plants where the suckers were removed were 
somewhat increased in size, but nevertheless the total 
yield was somewhat reduced. Unless the sweet corn 
growers, referred to, have some definite experience to back 
up their practice. I should say that they are going to 
unnecessary expense in removing the suckers. 
j. L. STONE. 
BUYING ALFALFA DIRECT FROM GROWERS. 
A few weeks ago a reader in Colorado stated that 
Alfalfa hay could be bought direct at $10 per ton. As 
an • experiment we printed his statement to see if our 
eastern renders were interested. There were at once 
enough calls to sell this hay 10 times over. We have 
written some of our western readers to see what can be 
done about direct shipment. Here is one reply. We have 
no object in view except to bring buyer and seller closer 
together if possible. 
First, seven years of “overflow” has greatly reduced 
the acreage of Alfalfa on the bottom lands where it 
produces best. Second, it is quite out of the question 
for an easterner to buy direct from the producer here. 
One cutting or parts of cutting might be Al, while 
other cuttings or parts of cuttings would vary many 
degrees from first class. One carload of good quality 
might be purchased “sight-unseen,” and the next one 
might prove disappointing. Third, assuming quality 
September 3, 
to be always here ready to be shipped; it is doubtful 
if a railroad rate could be gotten whereby the con¬ 
sumer could stand the risk. Some few years ago I 
was in Ohio when hay was selling at $20 per ton and 
truly scarce at that. I wrote here and a few weeks 
later came home and found choice prairie selling on 
the market at $5 per ton. I interviewed an extensive 
shipper who said he couldn’t get anything beyond 
Chicago without going through the commission hands. 
“Aye, there’s the rub!” I also went to the shipping 
agent, who told me while it was pitiful for our surplus 
to be a drug on the market, nothing could be done on 
account of Chicago. 
We have two mills here (one-half mile away) 
grinding all the time, eight or ten loads occasionally 
unloading (or waiting) at once. One versed in Alfalfa 
lore can see many shades of quality coming from the 
various farmers, and at the mill if it varies greatly it 
is graded, while in car lots baled it would be more 
difficult to get all good quality. I believe it much 
preferable to buy the meal than the hay. Without tak¬ 
ing space for argument, accept this as a fact and corre¬ 
spond with our (Kansas) mills, insisting on best 
quality, and it will prove all that is claimed for it. 
Kansas. John e. hinsiiaw. 
LEACHING OF PLANT FOOD. 
Will you inform me as to the truth of the popular idea 
that soluble plant food is much more rapidly lost by 
leaching from the surface downward below the reach of 
plant roots in the case of the light sandy and gravelly loam 
soils than it is in the more compact clay loams? If it is 
not true that the elements of plant food are leached out 
of such soils, to what must bo ascribed the more evane¬ 
scent effect of barnyard manures and commercial fertiliz¬ 
ers when applied to them? My impression is that the 
elements of plant food are held in such chemical combina¬ 
tions as not to be subject to such a leaching process 
through percolation of the soil water, but if I am mistaken 
I should like to be corrected. M. b. d. 
Candor, N. Y. 
The light, open soils are more likely to lose plant 
food than the heavier clays or soils that are full of 
humus. The heaviest loss is in nitrogen in the form 
of nitric acid. In the drainage water from an English 
field at the Rothamsted experiment farm the heaviest 
loss was in lime, the next largest in nitric acid with 
very small amounts of potash and phosphoric acid. 
The plant food is retained in the soil partly by a 
chemical action and partly by mechanical power. The 
chemical action depends largely upon lime. When or¬ 
ganic matter is broken up or decays ammonia is 
formed. If the chemical changes go further nitrates 
are formed, and the loss of nitrogen in drainage water 
is largely in this form. The ammonia in the soil is 
often held there by making a combination with lime. 
The result of this is that while the ammonia remains 
fixed in the soil, the combination with lime is soluble 
and passes off in the water. This partly accounts for 
the large amount of lime which the soil loses. The 
action in the soil to hold potash is much the same— 
lime being needed to promote the chemical action. 
Here also the lime leaves its combination in the soil 
to form a new combination to hold the potash while 
the lime itself enters a soluble form and passes off in 
the water. With phosphoric acid there can be but 
little loss by drainage since lime, iron oxide and other 
substances quickly combine with the soluble phosphoric 
acid and hold it in new forms. It will be seen there¬ 
fore that it is very important that soils should contain 
an abundance of lime, since this element is so neces¬ 
sary in holding this plant food. The lighter soils and 
gravels are often deficient in lime and thus the chemi¬ 
cal action which serves to hold plant food does not 
go on rapidly. Lime benefits these soils by supplying 
this need and also by making them more compact. 
With phosphoric acid in particular on these light sands 
there is often a loss—not from leaching, but in form¬ 
ing insoluble compounds. If lime were abundant the 
soluble phosphoric acid in fertilizers and manures 
would combine with it first, and this would be the best 
form in which to hold it. If lime is lacking the com¬ 
bination may be made with iron or silicates of alumina, 
and this will lock up the plant food out of reach of 
the plants. That is one reason why complaint is often 
made that acid phosphate does not give as satisfactory 
results on many light sands as on the heavier clays. 
One reason why manures seem to “give out” quicker 
on light soils is because such soils are warmer and 
more open to the air. This hastens decay, or what is 
called “burning up” of the organic matter. This means 
a rapid formation of nitrates if there is no living crop 
on the land, and as we have seen, these nitrates are 
about the only part of the plant food that is likely to 
be lost. The open soils are more “leachy”—that is 
they permit a more rapid movement of water than 
the compact soils or those that are stuffed with or¬ 
ganic matter. When nitrate of soda is used on the 
lighter soils there is little if any of its nitrogen left 
for another season except what has been taken up by 
crops. That is why nitrate is used only in compara¬ 
tively small quantities, and during the growing season, 
where it will be used at once. 
