1550 
•The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
December 20, 1924 
ness, lias retained in a large degree. Onr modern 
breeds would do well to receive new accessions of 
this revivifying blood. The breed which I think 
stands nearest to a consistently practical fowl to¬ 
day is the Buckeye, quite a strong resembler of the 
popular lied in color, but of a distinctly superior 
bodily type, with its pea-comb and more gamy build. 
This breed once had quite a start for popularity, 
but under competition with the Reds was gradually 
reduced to its present obscurity. It will be remem¬ 
bered that the originator of the Buckeye first crossed 
Rocks with Cochins and again with Game, having 
probably a larger proportion of this virile type than 
any other known breed possesses. I tried this breed 
for several years in its purity, and still have a 
small stock of fowls resulting from a cross upon 
Barred Rocks. These have proved more thrifty in 
growth, free from the waning vigor of the pure 
Rock, as shown in defective feathering. When ready 
to disseminate this stock it will be with a standard 
description which will call first for the bird's phys¬ 
ical structure, second, plumage structure and perfec¬ 
tion of external appearance, but specifically ignoring 
the quality or color of plumage—that consideration 
which more than any other has unfitted our breeds 
for useful performance. These breed very true to a 
Barred plumage, not the narrow banding exacted in 
the Rocks. 
ADVANTAGES OF CROSSING.—I mention this 
as an instance illustrative of the general supposition 
that the fruits of a first cross of differing breeds is 
lost if breeding is continued into future generations, 
which idea is fallacious and quite unreasonable. It 
is breeding to artificial types which deteriorate our 
breeds. The Game requires no feeding up from for¬ 
eign blood, and this brings us to the point. We will 
take the Plymouth Rock. Because of its artificial 
type we will cross it with a Leghorn. The progeny 
will retain the Leghorn’s prolific quality, backing up 
the laying capacity by receiving a better physical 
build. The accession of vigor resulting from the 
cross will be borne out by a lengthened life, good for 
several successive years of laying. The Rock mean¬ 
while had become too abdominally fat to lay. The 
Leghorn would have died from overworking its too 
delicate organism. We have seen advantages of 
crossing on two several counts; increased vitality 
from the blending of differing types, and a restora¬ 
tion of the Rock fatty degenerative type by addition 
of the Leghorn absence of that trait. 
BREEDING SUGGESTIONS.—I would take ex¬ 
ceptions to Mr. Stillman’s valuable contribution upon 
one point only. My own experience leads to the 
rule of using the male of the smaller, more active 
breed, with hens of the larger breed, instead of vice 
versa. And I would suggest several advisable 
crosses. If one is desirous of retaining a certain 
color of progeny the problem is a simple one. A 
cross of Single Comb White Leghorn upon White 
Rocks gives a very uniform colored flock, purely 
white, and combs typical of both ancestors. Or a 
Rose Comb Leghorn upon Wyandottes of same color 
will yield fowls with rose combs with a tendency 
to sport single combs. A Black Leghorn upon a Java 
of same color gives black chickens. A colored fowl, 
generally speaking, is vitally superior to white fowls. 
THE OLD DOMINIQUE—I should mention in 
this connection a pure breed, one of our oldest, an 
ancestor of our Barred Rocks and superior to it in 
every particular save the fancy for beautiful colors 
—the American Dominique. So near absolute perfec¬ 
tion in every economic trait is the Dominique that 
no improving cross is possible. It will outlive by 
several generations of layers the Rock. At an 
early period the Rock laid a larger, browner egg 
than the Dominique, but not of later years. Too bad 
that laying competitions tend to the overlooking of 
many superior breeds. The Buckeye, Black Java 
and Dominique are unsurpassed in economic worth, 
but the chances are that they are kept obscure by 
reason of want of knowledge concerning them. Of 
these three the Java seems most likely to regain 
some degree of popularity. With a better apprecia¬ 
tion of intrinsic worth among poultry-men the Buck¬ 
eye in several types of color should some day be¬ 
come foremost among our good breeds. 
FUTURE PROGRESS.—Starting to write upon 
the topic of cross-breeding I have wandered, but I 
trust what I have said may not be without interest 
to breeders not wedded to the more popular breeds. 
Much progress is yet to come in the poultry field, as 
well as in all branches of husbandry. The day is 
approaching when the question of poultry meat, 
economy of production and comparative excellence 
of breeds in this respect will not be so generally 
ignored. fred w. proctor. 
Tacoma, Wash. 
Protecting Chestnut Trees from Goats 
I have chestnut orchards planted on rough land that 
has never been cleared; just shrubbed off and pastured 
with sheep. The sheep do not browse the brush growth 
close enough to kill same, so have put in goats; they 
go for the brush all right, but they also eat the outside 
bark of the chestnut trees, even off trees 8 to 10 in. in 
diameter. They eat only the green outside part of the 
bark, not disturbing the cambium. Do not know wheth¬ 
er this would hurt the trees or not, but would prefer 
not to have the trees disfigured. 
I notice that goats will not eat anything that has any 
foreign matter on it. They do not touch bark on which 
marks have been put with paint, but will eat all around 
such marks. I would like to know if painting the bodies 
of the trees with fish oil, pine tar or some similar sub¬ 
stance would be injurious to the trees. I am satisfied 
it would stop the goats from eating the bark. 
My chestnut orchards are still doing well. They are 
the surest crop that I grow. Our nuts, being free from 
worms, sell readily at 25 to 40 cents per pound, whole¬ 
sale. E. A. KIEIIL. 
Illinois. 
F OR accurate information we must submit this 
question to readers who have had experience. 
Judging from the effect on fruit trees, we should 
think either the fish oil or pine tar would be safe. 
Some of our Eastern fruit men use a thick solution 
This portable motor is shown in a bulletin of the Ala¬ 
bama College. It can be easily transported to any part 
of the farm, and where the electric current is supplied 
it is very useful. 
of lime-sulphur solution painted on the trunks as 
protection from mice or rabbits. This helps. We 
do not know of any experiments in painting chestnut 
trees. The chestnuts have practically all been killed 
off on the North Atlantic slope. In the Middle West 
the chestnut is still a px-ofitable crop. 
Mixing Fertilizers by Hand 
P ERSONAL EXPERIENCE.—-On page 1451 there 
is a discussion, with illustrations, of ‘‘Mixers 
for Chemicals and Chicken Feed.” In my trucking 
and strawberry growing operations I and my help 
have mixed some hundreds of tons of fertilizers by 
the shovel method, and although I am always on the 
lookout for efficiency and economy in every line of 
my work, I have never been able to figure out that 
any “mixer,” for home using, could possibly rival 
the shovel, or rather the scoop-shovel, if skilfully 
handled, either in economy of effort and time or in 
the thoroughness of the work. We have found the 
labor of actual mixing rather secondary to the labor 
of emptying the original sacks of material and re- 
sacking after mixing. That would have to be done, 
regardless of the process by which the mixing was 
accomplished. 
DIFFICULTIES IN THE WORK.—One great 
trouble with any small mechanical mixer is that 
with a number of different materials, as is necessary 
for a well-balanced fertilizer, the material does not 
match up, sack for sack, or even if it did the mixer 
would not hold a sack of each ingredient of the 
combination, so' it would be necessary to empty the 
material and partly .mix it with the shovel anyway, 
to get an even mixture. That necessity, it seems to 
me, disqualifies the mixer entirely. As I have said, 
we find the actual mixing less than half the work. 
The first requirement for rapid work is a good scoop- 
snovel or grain shovel, as they are variously called. 
It should hold about a peck. With such a shovel a 
man can turn over a ton of material in from 20 to 
30 minutes. We turn the material four times, 
though usually it shows no streaks after the third 
turning. 
SOME POINTS IN MIXING.—There are a few 
simple “tricks” in mixing grain or chemicals in this 
way, that make all the difference between an abso¬ 
lutely even mixture and a hopelessly streaked and 
uneven product. The first consists in properly lay¬ 
ing down the material. One of the most bulky in¬ 
gredients should be put down first, and should be 
spread out evenly over a space at least eight feet 
square if the “batch” is to consist of a ton. We have 
found that the most economical unit to handle. The 
other ingredients should be added and spread out, 
layer by layer, sandwiching the more concentrated 
materials between the bulkier ones. We are now 
ready to shovel it over. This is done by starting a 
cone-shaped heap, and placing each additional 
shovelful squarely on the point of the cone, so that 
the material rolls and slides in all directions from 
the top. The shovel is always thrust into the ma¬ 
terial, sliding on the floor, so that some of all the 
different ingredients are taken up with each shovel¬ 
ful. Also in turning the material the first time, we 
take the precaution to turn the shovel alternately 
right and left, to prevent the weightier materials 
from gravitating to one side of the cone. Also we 
shovel alternately from one side and then the other 
of the layers of material. After the first turning 
these precautions are not so important, but always 
the cone shape of the building heap is retained, and 
always the shovel is kept sliding on the floor, so the 
material keeps falling and rolling to the shovel, and 
rolling and sliding from the point of the cone-shaped 
pile that is being built. When properly done, with 
four turnings the mixture is perfect. The actual 
mixing of a ton of material requires less than 
two hours of one man’s labor, and it is difficult 
to see how a mixer could be used to any better ad¬ 
vantage. D. L . HARTMAN. 
Florida. 
Why Are Eastern Lands so Cheap? 
W HY does the acre of “good plow land” sell so 
low in the East? Why doesn’t the farmer, 
before he buys, ask “What will it pay?” the same as 
he would if he was going to buy railroad or bank 
shares? Why does he buy “poor plow land” at any 
old price when he knows, or ought to know, that he 
cannot make it pay? 
I have no fault to find with the $250 acre in Iowa 
or any other State. If President Coolidge’s warning 
comes true as to an agricultural crisis coming in the 
near future, we may see good land selling at $1,500 
an acre, as I am told it now does in Japan, owing 
to the over-crowded conditions that exist in that 
country. One thing is certain, i. e., that the number 
of acres of good land will not increase, as they were 
fixed when the world was created. Another thing 
equally sure is that the population is steadily in¬ 
creasing and that we all live on the products of the 
land. 
Perhaps the following tables will more fully ex¬ 
plain the situation, and enable your readers' to vis¬ 
ualize the disparity in prices of good plow lands as 
based on their earnings. The figures are taken from 
the Year Book of the United States Department of 
Agriculture for 1923: 
Average crops per acre for seven years, 1914-1920: 
Corn Wheat Oats Potatoes Hay 
, -Bushels-Tons 
New York . 
. 37.3 
21.5 
34.0 
101 
1.35 
Pennsylvania. . . 
. 41.6 
17.7 
34.7 
91 
1.41 
Iowa. 
37.9 
18.0 
38.9 
79 
1.48 
Illinois. 
34.1 
17.4 
39.8 
72 
1.29 
Indiana. 
35.9 
16.1 
36.5 
76 
1.34 
Average price 
1914-1920: 
per bushel 
on 
farms for 
seven 
years, 
Corn Wheat Oats Potatoes Hay 
, -Bushels- N Thus 
New York . $1.32 $1.70 $0.67 $1.14 $17.40 
Pennsylvania. 1.14 1.6S .64 1.21 18.94 
Iowa.83 1.54 .50 1.24 13.7S 
Illinois.88 1.64 .54 1.34 17.07 
Indiana.89 1.66 .53 1.27 16.49 
Average price per acre for good plow land in 1924 : 
New York . $75.00 
Pennsylvania. 68.00 
Iowa. 169.00 
Illinois. 148.00 
Indiana. 101.00 
With the interest charge of only $4.50 on the New 
York acre to $10.14 on the Iowa acre, both at 6 per 
cent, and a price per bushel ranging from 17 cents 
on oats to 49 cents on wheat in favor of New York, 
please tell us why the New York acre sells so low. 
Saratoga Co., N. Y. frank whalen. 
Auto Wrecking Business 
A LL sorts of new lines of business are springing 
up in an effort to utilize what would be wasted 
in the ordinary course of trade. Here is a new one 
in Ohio: 
Three years ago this man began buying old wrecks of 
cars. He pays $20 for any Ford that comes in under 
its own power, and $10 to $15 for any other car. He 
has 1.000 cars on his farm, and he allows men to go in, 
dissect these cars with monkey wrenches and crow¬ 
bars, get out what parts they want, and he puts a price 
on them. His place is strictly closed on Sunday, but 
he is doing well. People come for 100 miles for parts of 
out-of-date cars. 
Soon this man will be advertising and supplying 
people in all corners of the country. It just shows 
what a man with a salesman’s brain can do with old 
material. 
