674 
known as sulphide of load. This, of course, dark¬ 
ens the paper which it touches. When there is but 
;i small amount of this gas arising from the test of 
soil, there will be but a small amount of black color, 
and the paper will show a pale yellow. As more 
and more of the sulphur arises the paper gets black¬ 
er and blacker. Thus it follows that the more acid 
there is in the soil, the more of this gas will be 
given off. The more the gas is given off. the more 
sulphur will come upon this paper, and the blacker 
the color will become. Thus the darker the mark 
upon the test paper, the greater the amount of acid 
contained in the soil. A chart is given with differ¬ 
ent colors, so that all the tester has to do is to com¬ 
pare the cold’ on his paper with the color on his 
chart, and lie will know from this whether the soil 
is very highly acid, or whether it would be called a 
very strong acid. In a general way this is the meth¬ 
od followed in this new test. Next week we shall 
try to tell just exactly how the test is made. It is 
a simple operation, easily within the reach of every 
intelligent farmer. 
Is Bean Growing Profitable ? 
It All Depends on Soil, Climate and Markets. 
Part IT. 
OXT OF PRODUCTION.—The eost of growing 
beans is much larger than the average per¬ 
son realizes. Only under favorable circum¬ 
stances is it as low as $25 an acre, and the 
average cost is probably between $30 and $55 an 
acre. This is three times the cost of growing hay, 
about iy 2 to two times the cost of growing wheat, 
and about one-third the cost of growing apples. In 
the accompanying table which shows the average 
cost of growing an acre of beans in each of six 
years on a total of nearly 100 acres, these costs are 
divided into labor, materials and fixed charges. 
TABLE 1. ACRE COST OF GROWING BEANS. 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
Avg. 
Total neres 
. 10.6 
11.5 
8.4 
24.6 
19.7 
23.1 
16.3 
Labor— 
Mail hours. 
ISo. . 52.5 
41.4 
45.2 
37.8 
37.0 
48.8 
43.7 
Horse hours. 
15c.. 63.3 
52.4 
68.5 
46.0 
47.0 
57.1 
55.7 
Value ..., 
.$18.94 
$15.31 
$18.42 
II 
$13.71 
$17.15 
$16.21 
Materials— 
as on 
$3.74 
$4.11 
8.68 
$3.19 
7.02 
$2.53 
4.28 
$4.79 
6.02 
$3.56 
4.86 
Fort, and manure 1.06 
2.08 
Threshing . . 
1.15 
.89 
1.08 
.44 
.60 
.IK) 
Total .... 
$0.97 
$13.68 $11.29 
$7.25 $11.47 
$9.32 
Fixed' Charges— 
Interest . . . . 
$5.00 
$5.00 
$5.00 
$5.00 
$5.00 
$5.00 
Use of equipment 2.22 
1.96 
2.11 
1.02 
1.04 
1.90 
1.90 
Overhead ... 
. 2.92 
2.71 
3.61 
2.98 
2.06 
3.08 
2.89 
Total .... 
$9.07 
$10.72 
$9.90 
$8.70 
$9.98 
$9.85 
Grand Total ..$34.34 $31.95 $42.82 $34.89 $29.00 $38.00 $35.38 
The labor cost of bean production is practically 
half of the total cost. In spite of the fact that the 
labor cost has been considerably lower in the last 
three years, the cost of production has increased. 
This is chiefly due to the lack of rainfall, as has 
been pointed out previously, which has caused a 
low yield, and consequent larger cost per bushel. 
The average man hours necessary to produce an 
acre of beans is 44, and the average number of 
horse hours 50. Computing these hours at IS cents 
for a man and 15 cents for a horse, which is approx¬ 
imately the actual cost, we find the average labor 
involved in producing an acre of beans is $10.21. 
The materials necessary in bean production amount 
to $9.32 a year. Seed and thrashing, of course, do 
not vary greatly from year to year. The cost of 
fertilization depends chiefly on whether or not barn¬ 
yard manure is used on the crop. In 1911 and 1912 
the heavy use of manure greatly increased the cost 
of production, without increasing the yield. The 
fixed charges, including interest on the land which 
is valued at $100 an acre, use of equipment and 
overhead charges, which include taxes, and miscel¬ 
laneous cost, amount to about one-fourth of the 
whole. 
BUSHEL COST OF GROWING BEANS. 
Value of 
Cost an Yield bu. fodder at Net eost Cost per 
Acres acre an acre $6 a ton of beans bushel 
1909 . 10.6 $34.34 17.0 $4.02 $30.32 $1.78 
1910 . 11.5 31.95 15.9 4.20 27.75 ' 1.74 
1911 . 8.4 42.82 12.7 4.20 38.62 3.04 
1912 . 24.6 34.89 15.5 6.00 28.89 1.86 
1913 . 19.7 29.66 7.2 3.00 26.66 3.70 
1914 . 23.1 38.60 10.4 6.00 32.00 3.13 
Average 0 years-$35.37 13.1 $4.56 $30.81 $2.54 
Average yield in 1911, 1913 and' 1914 equals 10.1 bushels. 
Average cost per bushel in 1911. 1913 and 1914 equals $3.29. 
Average June and July rainfall 1911, 1913 and 1914 equals 3.3 
inches. 
Average yield in 1909, 1910 and 1912 equals 16.1 bushels. 
Average cost per bushel in 1909, 1910 and 1912 equals $1.79. 
Average June and July rainfall 1909, 1910 and 1912 equals 5.1 
Inches. 
BUSHEL COSTS.—The second table shows the 
cost per bushel. The average area devoted to the 
crop during the past six years was 1G.3 acres. It 
will be noted that this averaged nearly 10 acres 
more in the last three than in the first three years. 
The average yield decreased in the last three years 
from 15.2 bushels to 11 bushels an acre, and aver¬ 
aged only 13.1 bushels for the entire period. This 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
is less than the State average, but the variety is red 
marrow which usually yields smaller crops. I be¬ 
lieve this is chiefly due to the lack of rainfall, be¬ 
cause cultural methods have been improved to a 
marked degree, during 1913 and 1914 especially. It 
is also due to some extent to bean anthracnose and 
other bean troubles. From the total cost of pro¬ 
ducing an acre, the value of the bean pods, uni¬ 
formly computed at $6 a ton, has been deducted. 
The yield of pods varied from one-half ton to a 
ton per acre, averaging about two-thirds of a ton. 
This leaves a net cost of $30.81 per acre, and gives 
an average cost of $2.54 per bushel. This cost varied 
from $1.74 in 1910 to $3.70 in 1913. It should be 
noted that the cost per bushel is directly propor¬ 
tional to yield per acre, the lowest yields giving the 
highest cost and the highest yields the lowest cost. 
M. O. BURRITT. 
One Southern Plantation’s Rotation and 
Yield of Crops. 
I AM “sort of a back-to-the-lander," having been 
born on this plantation, but having been North 
at school and college, and in business in New 
York for several years before starting to farm. 
My plantation consists of about 800 acres, but only 
330 under cultivation of crops to be gathered by 
man: 250 acres are enclosed in three pastures, but 
only about 70 of this is “improved" pasturage. 
About half my cultivated land is level and a clay 
loam of the best quality, while the rest is consider¬ 
ably inferior, mostly terraced red clay hillsides, and 
some sandy land with clay subsoil. Over 600 acres 
are enclosed by woven wire fence with some cross 
fences, so that I can turn out my live stock to 
glean the fields in the Autumn and use my cover 
crops as pasturage. 
Generally speaking, my rotation is as follows: 
First year, cotton with cover crop sowed in mid- 
Apparatus for Testing Acid Soils. Fig. 246. 
dies, either at laying-by time in August, or Octo¬ 
ber. Cover crops used either singly or in mixture 
are oats, rye, vetch and Crimson clover. Second 
year, cotton; third year, corn with eowpeas planted 
in middles at laying-by time in June or early July. 
Same to be picked for seed, and vines turned under 
in October, when oats are planted for the final year 
in the rotation. These oats are often mixed 
with vetch, and are either cut for hay in latter part 
of May or for thrashing in early June. Then cow 
peas are planted to be cut for hay in the Autumn. 
A fair volunteer crop of oats usually appears when 
the cow peas are cut, and thus in three out of four 
years the land is covered, at least to a considerable 
extent by a growing crop in Winter. 
All stable manure is put under cotton and besides 
700 pounds commercial fertilizer, the bulk of which 
is phosphate. A second application in June or early 
July is used. This consists of 75 pounds nitrate of 
soda on' the red clay hillsides, or 200 pounds mixed 
top-dresser on the other land. Corn is not fertil¬ 
ized at planting time but receives 600 pounds at 
about the time it bunches for tassel. Oats are fer¬ 
tilized with 500 pounds phosphate rock ground, “un¬ 
treated," at planting time, and in the Spring, top 
dressed with 75 pounds nitrate of soda and 150 
pounds kainit. No fertilizer is put under cow peas. 
The increased price of grain in the South as com¬ 
pared to the Middle West usually more than pays 
for the fertilizer we put on it. All crops, except 
cow peas for grain, are a fairly sure crop in this 
locality, Winter oats being the surest. In 14 years 
I have never known of corn yield being as small as 
50 per cent, of a maximum, and cotton only once in 
14 years has varied more than 15 per cent, from an 
average. By improved cultivation and fertilization 
our yields of grain are double what we grew 10 
years ago, but cotton yield has only slightly in¬ 
creased. 
My level clay loam land in a favorable season, 
fertilized as 1 have stated will yield slightly over 
May S, 1915. 
one bale of cotton. 45 bushels of corn, 55 bushels of 
oats and one and a half tons of cow pea hay per 
acre. My inferior land with the same treatment 
will yield about two-thirds of what my first quality 
land yields. I have kept farm books pretty carefully 
since 190S, and allowing as my salary for manage¬ 
ment the vegetables, milk cream, butter eggs, 
poultry, pork, etc., used in my house, I find it takes 
over 11 cents average price of cotton to show a 
profit of seven per cent, (the legal rate of interest i 
on what I paid for the plantation, and working cap¬ 
ital. This is in spite of the fact that my yields per 
acre are rather more than twice the average yields 
of the Xtate, and my fertilizer cost is rather less 
than twice the average per acre of the fertilizer 
cost in this State. At present prices the grain crops 
show more profit per acre than cotton would have 
shown, even if it had sold at 12 cents per pound. 
Aiken County. S. C. c. b. w. 
Top-Working Kieffer Pear Trees. 
V ERY often we see the question asked: “Can the 
Kieffer be successfully top-worked?" and the 
answer usually given is about the same as that 
on page 514. “Many trials made with Kieffer. Bar¬ 
ber and LeConte as stocks for European pears have 
proven utter failures; therefore, if you wish to 
make any change of varieties in this orchard your 
only recourse is to dig out the Kieffers and replant 
with such sorts as will meet your requirements." 
The first half of this answer is correct, for there 
have been many failures, but the statement that 
“the only recourse is to dig out the Kieffers and to 
replant” fails to take into account the numerous 
orchards of top-worked Kieffers that are not fail¬ 
ures. I was also a little surprised at the statement 
reported in The R. N.-Y. of Jan. 30, 1915. as hav¬ 
ing been made by Col. Morrill before the Western 
New York Horticultural Society, in which he said 
that Bose pears did not do well on Kieffers. because 
I know of an orchard of top-worked Bose of 350 or 
more trees within four miles of Col. Morrill's Mich¬ 
igan home, that is very satisfactory. 
Some time ago I made a special study of this 
problem. I found that while most horticultural 
writers were quite decided in their views, some for 
and some against, there is in horticultural literature 
a dearth of evidence supporting either contention, 
giving rise to the suspicion that these views are fre¬ 
quently general deductions based on little or no 
investigation. 
Two authorities, whose opinion is worthy of con¬ 
sideration, may be quoted as recommending the Kief¬ 
fer as a stock. Mr. S. D. Willard of Geneva. N. Y., 
in answer to a question before the Michigan Horti¬ 
cultural Society, regarding the value of the Kieffer 
as a stock, said: “So good that we don't want any¬ 
thing better." Mr. Powell says: “I have grafted the 
Kieffer pear and had the best Anjous and Boses I 
have ever grown.” Other writers could be quoted 
who say the union is poor and the trees are short¬ 
lived. 
The New York Experiment Station (Bulletin 332) 
gives a tabulated report of replies to inquiries sent 
to growers in different portions of the United States. 
Unfortunately the writers do not agree, eight re¬ 
commending Kieffer as a stock and 11 refusing to 
recommend. The number of trees grafted is not 
given in any case, but there is reason to suppose 
from the answers that in some cases the number 
was quite small, making the observations less valu¬ 
able. In studying this problem it seems to the writer 
to be important to get observations on as many 
grafted trees as possible, and so more or less com¬ 
plete information through correspondence, interview 
and observation was gathered on nearly 30 orchards, 
containing upwards of 5,000 bearing top-worked 
Kieffers. The number of such trees in each orchard 
varies from a couple of dozen up to 500. 740 . and in 
one case 1,000 trees. 
In analyzing the observations it is well to separ¬ 
ate the problem into its several factors: 
(a) Will the Kieffer readily unite with oth<r 
pears? 
Yes. Men report 90%, 95% and even more of a 
perfect stand of scions. Mr. Murphy reported that 
the second year he received enough pears from 70< MI 
Bartlett scions on Kieffer to pay for the grafting, 
(b) Is the union strong? 
Yes, as strong as any graft. The best unions for 
looks and strength seem to be on the trees not over 
six or eight years of age. I saw grafts made four 
years in which only a single scion on each stub 
lived, but the Kieffer stock had thrown out so much 
new tissue along the wound on the side opposite tin- 
scion that the stubs were healed as well as though 
both scions had lived. In sectioning grafts I found 
that the scion frequently filled the cleft with new 
wood making the strongest possible kind of a union 
