174 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST, 
[May, 
novelties of the season ; nor always supplied with better 
skill than my own to bestow among my flowers. What 
they have, of human care, they generally get from me, 
and if my fingers are held fast with business or sickness, 
the flowers must wait. I will not say that they are al¬ 
ways the gainers by this state of the case, but / am. I do 
not wish it changed, on the whole. Nobody knows what 
a garden is worth, who is a mere spectator there. Look¬ 
ing back over the season, I remember first very gratefully, 
how much kindness I received from different dealers in 
plants and seeds, and this ought to be a letter of thanks. 
It is wonderfully pleasant to have the hard lines of busi¬ 
ness softened down a little, and to have this thought of 
kindliness come in. I cannot return the favor by large 
orders,—yet as it is all nonsense that desert roses are 
wasted, so is it often true that powerless thanks and secret 
good wishes do silently sweeten and freshen the air. All 
through the season a thought, of gratitude hovered about 
my flowers—from the first purple crocus that bloomed in 
my window, to the last cox-comb that paled before the 
frost: from the time when hyacinths and tulips stood, 
‘ready for duty,’ beneath the leafy covering of their beds, 
until even the sturdy chrysanthemums hung their heads 
in the November wind. Yes, and at the back of the 
house as well; for I know what turnip tops look like 
when their comfortable roots are in the ground, and never 
even imagine that strawberries grow on bushes. So my 
thanks cover a good deal of ground, reaching even from 
New York to Indiana. Did not Mr. A. M. Purdy send me 
a package of Purple Canes, marked ‘ good count,’ which 
were certainly numbered off by somebody who quite lost 
count before he got through? Did not my half dozen 
chrysanthemums multiply in the hands of Mr. Peter Hen¬ 
derson, at a rate to bewilder any ordinary propagator of 
rare plants ? As for Mr. Vick, everybody knows that he 
uses a sort of packing peculiarly his own ; consisting of 
extra papers of seed, and bulbs that you never sent for, 
and thought you couldn’t afford ! But what would my 
tulip bed have been, without the ‘ Manage de ma Fille,’ 
and ‘ Le Itoi Pepin’ ? And how could I have missed the 
exquisite 1 La Perouse,’ and 1 Tuba Flora,’ among my 
hyacinths?—Or the lovely ‘Victoria,’ and ‘Emperor’ 
Asters ?—Or the ‘ Branching German ’ Stocks—the fair¬ 
est, I think, I ever saw?—Or, again, that fleecy white 
beauty of a chrysanthemum, with blossoms like balls of 
the lightest snow, come down through the stillest air ? 
I suppose, Mr. Editor, you have no room for ecstasies, and 
therefore can admit but little feminine writing at a time : 
but I wish you’d let me say a word now and then about 
the season past. I’ll try to be practical. You see, there 
are some things which you (being Editor) can hardly find 
out. For instance—do you know what a queer thing 
packing is ; and what a different thing, in different hands ? 
Mr. Vick’s bulbs don’t stir on their journey (the box is 
always too full for that!). Mr. Henderson's plants each 
turned out of the pot with ball of earth entire, and, care¬ 
fully and separately wrapped up, don’t seem to know 
what has happened to them. My strawberries from 
South Bend came a little weary of their moss bandage, 
but no more; my cranberries from Plymouth were safe and 
grand in their gutta percha silk. So far so good, you will 
say. But then the packer of small orders at one great 
firm is not a careful man. My young fruit trees had not 
much but the box around them, and the roses seemed to be 
laid in on top to pack themselves—and the roses don’t like 
it; while my Noisette Augusta came looking as if it 
had but just stepped out of the green-house of Mr. Bliss, 
and was all ready for action. The Rochester roses were 
fresh and charming as soon as they could get their wits 
together, I will say that. Do all your readers know the 
fragrance of the Hybrid Perpetual, ‘Souvenir Henry Clay ;’ 
or the beauty of the perpetual moss rose, ‘ Saleb’ ; or 
Mme. Plantier’s cloud of whiteness? Pleasure, civility, 
kindness,—all those I received from dealers, the season 
past. Now, I want to ask a question, nas the pretty 
Daphne Cneoram any special idiosyncrasy that one is 
bound to respect? Two plants of it last year I had in 
succession, and both died. And plants seldom do that 
for me. The individuals were good—from Mr. Hender¬ 
son : the soil, a generally approved sandy loam.” [We 
have grown Daphne Cneorum, one of the most charming 
of little shrubs, on almost pure sand and in a very heavy 
soil, but in both cases it was sheltered from the hottest 
sun, and we think that too warm an exposure must 
have been the trouble in this case. Try again.] 
Tree Belts. —II. Horton, Delaware Co., Iowa, 
writes: “Would it be well to enclose a farm with 
one or two rows of trees, forming a belt as a wind¬ 
break? Will it in any way affect the crops? Please tell 
me what you would advise, and what kind of tree, if any, 
would be best, and how and when planted.”—It would be 
very well to put a belt of trees around the farm. The 
effect on the crops would be beneficial, except close to 
the trees. Some land must be given up to them. For 
simply a wind-break, we should use Norway Spruce and 
Austrian or White Pine, If fuel is an object, use Maples; 
Sugar is best, but the "White grows faster. Put the trees in 
two or three rows, with the trees in one row opposite the 
spaces in the other. Let them stand about twelve feet 
apart in the rows, which should be the same distance apart. 
Tree Htivss’ova.loi’s. —Several have sent 
us circulars setting forth the claims of a “Tree Invigora- 
tor,” aud asking our advice about investing. As we do 
not know the composition of the article, we cannot speak 
with any certainty in the case. The circular is calcu¬ 
lated to throw doubts on the matter, for it claims too 
much, and we do not wonder that people hesitate. With 
our present knowledge we advise our readers to let all 
tree medicines, “ invigorators,” and the like, alone, and 
try for a while the effect of manure, lime, and ashes, keep¬ 
ing off insects, and giving the whole land up to the trees. 
IIo>v JFssr Docs it Pay to Ma.ul 
Stable Manure ?—A correspondent in the Country 
Gentleman takes exception to a remark, made in our 
February issue, that “ four and a half miles is a long way 
to cart stable manure.” We are glad of this, both for 
the information he gives, and for the opportunity it affords 
to express more fully our views upon this point. He says 
of the farmers in the neighborhood of Philadelphia: 
“ They do not think fifteen or eighteen miles too far to 
haul stable manure, even at this enormous expense 
(from five to seven dollars a ton); and it is my experience, 
that the farmers who do it are the men whose farms are 
the most highly improved ; the men who have the most 
money for improved machinery—and who are altogether 
the best off among us. I could mention one of my ac¬ 
quaintances, who last year, off a farm of eighty-five acres, 
sold $1500 worth of hay in the Philadelphia market, be¬ 
sides keeping a large stock on the place. If it pays us to 
send hay and straw fifteen miles to market, it must pay 
to bring back a load of stable manure for every such 
load of hay or straw that, goes off the farm. A ton of hay 
or straw sells for $25 to $30. A ton of manure brought 
back on the place costs $5 to $7. Who will say that the 
farmer who makes this exchange is not making money, 
and enriching his land?” We certainly should not say 
it, for he has either to carry manure as his return load 
or go home empty. And yet, we think, he might do much 
better than to carry the stable manure, nine-tenths of 
which is carbon and water—articles to be had on his 
farm for the mere labor of handling. According to Dr. 
Vcelcker’s analysis, the mixed manures of the yard contain 
only $4 worth of ammonia, phosphoric acid, and potash, 
per ton, and these are the only constituents usually taken 
into account in estimating the value of a fertilizer. 
These articles, which do the work of fertilizing, can be 
had in a much cheaper form, in concentrated fertilizers, 
and if a man has to cart manure even three or four miles, 
we claim that it is much more economical to buy and cart 
them, rather than stable manure, so large a part of which 
is worthless. In a ton of fine ground fish guano, you 
have by analysis as much fertilizing matter as there is in 
fifteen tons of stable manure, and it can be bought in 
quantity for nearly a third less than the stable manure at 
$1 a ton. In a ton of Peruvian guano you have nearly a 
third more in value. In bone-dust, and in a good super¬ 
phosphate, you have fertilizers in a concentrated form. 
If carting stable manure to the farm, as a return load, 
pays so well, would not carting the same value in one- 
tenth of the bulk or weight pay a great deal better? 
Feeding 1 Corn Meal to Milch Cows. 
The types made us say last month, that it would pay to 
“feed milch cows all the corn meal they would eat.” 
What we wrote was that with butter at 40 cents a pound, 
it would “ pay to feed cows all the corn meal they will 
eat and convert into butter. It would be a great mistake 
to give milch cows or fatting beasts all the corn meal 
they would eat. It would be very likely to kill them. 
There is far less need of cautioning most people against 
feeding too much than feeding too little. There is, how¬ 
ever, a disposition on the part of many who feed meal to 
cows, to give a liberal supply for a short time, and then 
to stop altogether. The meal disappears rapidly, and 
they are frightened at the expense. With cows worth 
$100 apiece and butter 40 cents a pound, there can be no 
doubt of the advantage of liberal feeding. But it must 
be done systematically. There is a very general opinion 
that corn meal is “ too heating,” and that it will dry up 
a milch cow. There can be no doubt that corn is “ heat¬ 
ing”—that is to say, it contains a large proportion of 
starch and oil. And this is just what we want for the 
production of butter. It is possible, however, that when 
corn meal is fed in large quantity, there may be a deficiency 
of nitrogenous or cheese-forming material. This is not 
likely to be the case when the pasture or the hay contains 
considerable clover. Clover contains much more nitrog¬ 
enous matter than timothy and other grasses, When 
cows are fed on Timothy and a liberal allowance of corn 
meal, there may be an excessive quantity of fat-forming 
matter in the food. In such a case, pea meal, or oil-cake, 
or shorts, might be substituted for apart of the corn meal. 
Give a quart of corn meal and a quart of pea meal or oil¬ 
cake a day, or a quart of corn meal and two quarts of 
shorts. But when the cows have considerable clover 
there will be no danger in feeding two quarts of com 
meal a day all through the summer. It will not dry up 
the cow, or if it does, such a cow is not worth keeping in 
the dairy. Better fat her and sell her for beef. We have 
never yet happened to meet with a cow that can be dried 
up with two, three, or four quarts of corn meal a day, when 
fed systematically through the whole year. If we could 
be sure of getting forty cents a pound for butter it will 
certainly pay to feed all the corn meal our cows will di¬ 
gest and turn into milk. Commence with a quart a day, 
and gradually increase it as the milk increases. Let the 
cows have access to fresh water at all times, and salt them 
regularly once a week, but not in excessive quantity. 
Treat them gently, card occasionally, milk regularly, and 
strip clean. Give good pasture or other succulent food, 
and if corn meal, with a little pea meal or oil-cake, or 
shorts, dries up the milk, we should like to know the fact. 
Culture of Field Peas. 
We have for many years advocated the more extensive 
cultivation of peas and beans, as a means of enriching 
the land. They contain twice as much nitrogen as wheat 
and corn, and consequently make rich manure. A crop 
of peas of forty bushels per acre contains in seed and 
straw about 120 pounds of nitrogen, while a crop of wheat 
of forty bushels per acre, in seed and straw (calculating 
the straw to weigh as much as the grain, which, we think, 
is about the average in this climate,) contains about 57 
pounds of nitrogen. Peas, Beans, and Clover, are all 
leguminous plants (i. e., belong to the pea family) and 
all contain a large proportion of nitrogen. When con¬ 
sumed on the farm they afford rich manure. The manure 
from a bushel of peas is worth as much again as the 
manure from a bushel of corn. 
Where peas can be grown and consumed on the farm, 
therefore, they are eminently a renovating crop. On the 
other hand, if sold, they remove more fertilizing elements 
from the farm than a crop of wheat or barley. Peas 
do well on sod land, and are generally grown as a crop to 
precede winter wheat. On an old, tough, Timothy sod 
this is not a good rotation. The peas may do well, but 
the sod is seldom sufficiently rotted to produce good 
wheat. On a two or three year old clover sod the practice 
of sowing peas to be followed by wheat is a good one, 
provided the land is rich enough, or can be manured for 
the wheat. If the peas were drilled in rows a foot apart, 
and we had a good horse hoe, that would hoe ten or 
twelve rows at once, there can be no doubt that peas 
might be extensively grown on wheat farms, to great ad¬ 
vantage-provided always that they are fed out and not 
sold. If not hoed, it is very important to secure a large 
growth of vines, so that they may smother the weeds. 
We have had wheat after a heavy crop of peas, that was 
as clean as if the land had been well summer-fallowed, 
and far cleaner than it frequently is after a poor, neglect¬ 
ed summer-fallow. But on poor, dirty land, a crop of 
peas sown rather late in a wet spring, followed in a week 
or two by such a drouth as we had last season, is about 
the worst preparation for wheat that can be adopted. 
The fact is, all our renovating crops, such as peas, beans, 
clover, turnips, and other roots, need clean, rich land, and 
the best of culture. Occasionally, in a wet season, a large 
crop is obtained on poor, badly cultivated land, but this 
is the exception. Generally such treatment results in 
half a crop of peas and a full crop of weeds—requiring 
more labor to harvest them and leaving the land foul. 
It is best to sow peas with a drill, but if this cannot be 
done, take great pains in plowing the land, and sow the 
peas on the furrows without previous harrowing. The 
seed will roll into the hollows between the furrows, and 
the harrow, passed lengthwise of the furrows, will cover 
them. Share’s harrow, with steel teeth, is a good imple¬ 
ment to cover peas. As the object is to get a heavy, 
smothering crop, it is well to seed thick, say three bushels 
per acre, or if large peas, three and a half. The small 
Canada creeper is the kind usually raised in Western 
New York. Fortunately the pea bug attacks our peas 
and renders them unsalable. They can only be raised 
for the purpose of feeding out on the farm. There is 
nothing better for hogs, especially in connection with 
corn. If fed out by the middle of November the hugs do 
comparatively little damage. Many farmers feed them to 
pigs, straw and all, without thrashing. This will answer 
very well while the crop is green, and the pigs will eat 
nearly all the vines, but when the crop is matured it is a 
wasteful and slovenly practice. If the peas are properly 
cured, the straw, especially if a large crop, makes excel¬ 
lent fodder for sheep, and should be carefully saved. 
