/ 
 
 20 CENTS. 
 
 TMB RURAL LIBRARY. 
 
 Vol. I., No. 3. NEW YORK. J.nn. 1, 1892. 
 
 [Entered at New York Post-Office as Second-Class Matter. 
 
 Issued Monthly. S3 a Year. Single Copy, 20 Crs. 
 
 S 633 
 .C7 
 Copy 1 
 
 an d Clover 
 
 SUCCESSFUL FARM OPERATIONS WHERE HIGH-GRADE COMPLETE 
 
 MANURES AND SOD SUPPLY A CHEAPER MANURE THAN 
 
 THAT OBTAINED FROM KEEPING LIVE STOCK. 
 
 H. W. COLLIMGWOOD, 
 
 THE RURAL PUBLISHING CO., TIMES BUILDING, HEW YORK. 
 
ESTABLISHED 18SO: 
 
 The Rural New-Yorker. 
 
 "THE RURAL NEW-YORKER has more to say about fertilizers than any 
 other newspaper." — Joseph Harris. 
 
 " THE RURAL NEW-YORKER has done more for farmers than all of the 
 Agricultural Colleges." — JV. Y. Tribune. " More than all the Experi- 
 ment Stations," adds the N. Y. Times. 
 
 "BEST FARM PAPER in existence," says the N. Y. World. "The most 
 
 reliable of its class," add T. T. Harrison and thousands of others. 
 
 SEND FOR FREE SPECIMEN COPY. 
 
 ESTABLISHED 1846: 
 
 American Gardening. 
 
 For the most practical information about the culture of Fruits, Vege- 
 tables. Flowers and about Ornamental Gardening send 10 cts for 
 a large and handsome number of American Gardening. 64 pages 
 nearly twice the size of this, profusely illustrated, containing more 
 of practical value than any dollar book on the subject. 
 
 Here are some Fresh and Practical 
 
 BOOKS OF GREAT VALUE 
 
 at low cost. 
 
 THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding Poultry for Profit. By a 
 dozen practical poultrymen. Cloth, 75 cts. ; paper, 40 cts. 
 
 IMPROVING THE FARM. Cloth, $1. 
 
 HORTICULTURISTS' RULE-BOOK. Thousands of practical directions for 
 daily use. Cloth, $1 ; paper, 50 cts. 
 
 ANNALS OF HORTICULTURE. A record of progress. Cloth, $1 ; paper, 
 60 cts. 
 
 LANDSCAPE GARDENING. 32 plates and plans with descriptions. 50 cts. 
 
 FEEDING ANIMALS. $2. 
 
 CELERY CULTURE A SUCCESS. $1. 
 
 THE NURSERY BOOK. A complete manual of the propagation of plants. 
 Cloth, $1 ; paper, 50 cts. 
 
 THE NEW POTATO CULTURE. An account of The Rural New-Yorker's 
 15 years' experiments in growing potatoes on fertilizers, and raising 
 1,000 bushels per acre. Cloth, 75 cts. ; paper, 40 cts. 
 
 For any Farm Books Wanted Always Address 
 
 THE RURAL PUBLISHING COmPflNY, 
 Times Building, Hew York. 
 
Chemicals and Clover 
 
 Farming with Concentrated Dung 
 
 A RECORD OF 
 
 Successful Farm Operations in New Jersey, where High-Grade 
 Complete Manures and Sod supply a Cheaper Mam 
 than that obtained from keeping Live Stock 
 
 uire 
 
 HERBERT IV. COLUNGIVOOD 
 
 Managing Editor of The Rural New-Yorker. 
 
 New York 
 
 The Rural Publishing Company 
 
 Times Building 
 
 V 
 
Other Numbers of 
 THE RURAL LIBRARY SERIES, 
 
 Issued (Monthly. $? a Year. 
 
 THE TUBEROUS BEGONIA. Illustrated. 20 cts. 
 
 RATS, How to Rid Buildings of. 20 cts. 
 
 HOW TO PLANT A PLACE. 60 illustrations. A 
 
 concise guide for popular us e. 20 cts. 
 THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding 
 
 Poultry for Profit. By H. W. Collingwood. 
 
 Double ntimber. 40 cts. 
 CROSS BREEDING AND HYBRIDIZING. The 
 
 Philosophy of theCrossing of Plants, Considered 
 
 with Reference to their Cultivation. 40 cts. 
 
 Other Announcements to Follow. 
 
 copyrighted, 1892, by 
 
 The Rural Publishing Company. 
 
 electrotyped and printed br 
 
 The Rural Publishing company* 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SINCE the publication of a few crude articles on " Chemi- 
 cals and Clover" in The Rural New-Yorker, many 
 requests have come to me for further information 
 respecting the details of this unique system of farm- 
 ing. I have therefore elaborated and expanded those arti- 
 cles, in the 'hope of making the matter clearer. One can 
 be easily misunderstood on such a subject. Chemical manures 
 have a certain place in American agriculture. Like anything 
 else of real value, their use will bring profit — their abuse will 
 bring loss. Chemicals and sod supply every element that is 
 supplied in stable manure. That fact cannot be disputed by 
 any thoughtful man. On some farms the chemicals are 
 cheaper than the manure. Wh.-.l I have attempted in this 
 little book is to give an idea o: what these farms are and 
 how they may be found. The Rural New- Yorker has fre- 
 quently been accused of "talking fertilizers too much." 
 We have not "talked about" them half enough. The farmers 
 of this country pay out each year over $50,000,000 for com- 
 mercial fertilizers. A good deal of this money is lost and wasted 
 because poor and unsuitable goods are bought, and because 
 they are wrongly used. One reason for these mistakes is that 
 fertilizers are not "talked about" as they should be. I know 
 that on a good many Eastern farms grass-sod and chemicals 
 make a better and cheaper "dressing" than stable-manure. 
 On many other farms smaller quantities of fertilizers added to 
 the present stable-manure will pay a double profit because 
 they might be used to supply what the soil needs and what 
 the manure lacks. I also know that some farmers are making 
 
4 Introduction. 
 
 stable-manure at a loss — that is, the hay and grain fed to 
 stock and the labor spent in feeding tbem, cost more, after the 
 resulting meat, milk or wool is sold, than the same amount 
 of "fertility" would cost if bought in the form of fertilizers. 
 There are thousands of farmers who spend all the way from 
 $500 to $1,200 in cash for fertilizers each year. They are, 
 almost without exception, highly successful— making money 
 at farming while their farms are of good heart and constantly 
 growing heartier. How did they learn to farm in this way ? 
 By "talking fertilizers " and thinking fertilizers. They made- 
 mistakes and failures and might have stopped several times 
 and said, "Fertilizers don't pay." They stuck to the use of 
 them long enough to learn that the way to use fertilizers with 
 profit is to have them in a rotation in which grass-sod plays 
 a prominent part. I know farmers who talk politics by the 
 hour without adding the weight of a straw to the safety of 
 the country, or changing in any way the political situation. 
 If they would spend that time talking the truth out of fertilizers 
 they would do something. The meat of this fertilizer question 
 has a tough shell around it. The shell of that nut can be 
 cracked only by the hammer of thought, but the meat inside 
 is well worth the cracking. While there may not be much 
 that is new about this farming with Chemicals and Clover, 
 there is, however, much that is true, and if there ever was a 
 time when American farmer^ needed to work out the truth of 
 this question of farm fertility, it is now/ 
 
RURAL LIBRARY SERIES. 
 
 Chemicals and Clover. 
 
 I HAVE a plain story to tell and shall try and waste no words in telling it. 
 I ask the reader in advance to remember ttiat the statements that 
 follow are all founded on facts which can be readily verified. I make 
 this assertion thus early because I know how hard it is for many 
 farmers to realize that such a thing as "artificial dung," or I may say 
 concentrated manure, is possible, or that the crops of an ordinary farm rotation 
 can be successfully grown without feeding all or most of the grain and hay to 
 live stock. Countless reasons have been given for the failure of American 
 agriculture to pay a reasonable profit for the farmer's toil and care. One 
 great reason for the decline of farming in the older parts of the country is 
 rarely mentioned by the agricultural surgeons. It is the simplest and most 
 evident to the scientific man, and the most obscure to the "practical" man who 
 has lived long enough to wear a comfortable rut for himself in everyday 
 affairs. This reason is a well-established belief, handed down from father 
 to son, that there is no real substitute for stable-manure, and that land 
 which can not support live stock of some sort at a profit must be "abandoned" 
 or farmed at a loss. It is evident that the recent rapid development of the 
 West, and the wonderful increase in transportation facilities, have tended 
 to reduce the cost of meats and live stock products, until the Eastern 
 farmer can not compete on even terms with his Western competitor. He 
 must secure a special price by selling a special product in a special market, 
 or conduct a losing business because he must pay cash for plant food while 
 his competitor has ioo years the start of him in a soil that is a century 
 younger in exhaustive cultivation. No man but an expert — one specially 
 gifted by nature for handling live stock — can develop a special market. Are 
 the others to quit farming when the pricesof their products fall so low that 
 stable-manure costs more than it is worth? 
 
 Several years ago a Western farmer who left New England because 
 Western farm-products ' ' swamped him out " said to me : 
 
6 The Rural Library. 
 
 "Within 40 years the farming-lands of New England, New Jersey and 
 Eastern New York will be reduced to the condition of a desert ! The land 
 west of the Alleghanies can produce more food than the people of the entire 
 country can consume, and railroad transportation is being so perfected that 
 the Western farmer can undersell the world in any market. Whenever a 
 section of country begins to use large quantities of chemical fertilizers its 
 agriculture is doomed — just as the man who begins the continued use of 
 stimulents must bid farewell to health. The only natural way to maintain 
 the fertility of the soil is through live stock husbandry. A change in that 
 system is unnatural and means death ! The future of Eastern agriculture 
 is easy to predict. The majority of the manufacturing enterprises must, 
 sooner or later, go to the places where their raw materials are produced. 
 The great seaports will, of course, remain. The country for a few miles 
 back around them will support thousands of foreign gardeners and fruit- 
 men but, back of this narrow strip, lightning trains from the West will run 
 through deserted farming regions given up to wilderness and desolation — 
 with grass-grown roads, ruined churches and school-houses, and deserted 
 villages; with sheep or cattle-ranching — the lowest form of agriculture — as 
 the only farming." 
 
 This man believed what he said, and had some reason for his belief. I 
 was born in New England. I go back now and find the little farm on which 
 we made a happy if scanty living, grown up to bushes and briars — deserted 
 because " manure costs too much." There are dozens of farms like it in the 
 township. A few farmers prosper still at raising vegetables and fruits, 
 selling milk or keeping poultry, but the majority of the old homesteads that 
 are not " nailed up " are rented to workers in the shoe-factory or filled with 
 sad and bitter old people rusting in melancholy loneliness through the years 
 that ought to be the best of their lives. No soil cost more in toil and priva- 
 tion than that of these New England farms. It is sad that all this labor 
 should now yield nothing but disappointment. What is the cause? "Western 
 competition!" What does that mean? Cheaper fertility! It means 100 
 per cent, less in the cost of stable-manure for the Western farmer, and a 
 consequent doubling of the cost of maintaining the fertility of the New 
 England farm. 
 
 That is one story ; now here is another told me by a farmer in New Jersey 
 — a section just about as old as the one in New England already alluded to. 
 
 " In 40 years from this time, the richest lands of the country will be at 
 the East while the poor lands will be at the West. Every principle that is 
 supplied to the soil in stable-manure can be supplied by a system of rotation 
 in which chemical fertilizers form the basis of fertility. The crops will 
 grow larger and larger, the soil richer and richer, and the labor less and less 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 7 
 
 exacting. The Western farmer of the future will have to perform all the 
 drudgery of dairying and stock-keeping. The Eastern farmer need do but 
 little of this work, but may substitute for stable-manure the easily-applied 
 chemicals. Stable-manure is nothing, after all, but the residue of the hay 
 and grain eaten by the animal. The same elements that make the grain 
 valuable are found in chemicals; and the hay is practically the same, whether 
 it is eaten or turned directly into the soil with a plow." 
 
 These statements induced me to visit Cranbury, N. J., where this system 
 of farming with chemicals and clover has been carried on some 15 years — 
 long enough to test all its possible weak points. I found a community of 
 farmers growing rich at producing hay, potatoes, corn and wheat — keeping 
 just as little live stock as possible. Yes, growing rich in direct competition 
 with the West, and on this "unnatural " system of chemical manuring. I 
 found happy and contented farmers, boys that want to stay on the farm, 
 and a farm-life robbed of the disagreeable features that have driven many 
 a bright boy and girl into the prison of a factory or store. A soil fattening 
 while it yields fat crops — agriculture that " pays"! 
 
 First let us consider the crops grown and the rotation followed; for the 
 rotation is acknowledged to be one of the most important elements of the 
 system. 
 
 Four crops are grown — potatoes, wheat, grass two years, and corn. The 
 potatoes are planted in drills with over 1,500 pounds of high-grade fertilizer 
 to the acre, or 1,000 pounds broadcast before planting and 500 or more in 
 the drills. The potato-ground is plowed and seeded to wheat in the fall 
 with Timothy, with clover added in the spring. After two years of grass 
 what stable-manure is made is hauled out in summer and spread on the sod — 
 the aftermath being permitted to grow and decay on the ground. This is 
 all plowed in the spring and the ground is planted to corn, to be followed 
 the next spring by potatoes, and so on through the rotation. The theory of 
 this system of fertilizing is that the heavy dressing of potato-fertilizer will 
 not only produce a profitable crop of potatoes, but will leave enough fer- 
 tility in the soil to maintain the wheat and grass. The stable-manure and 
 clover sod are used for the corn, because corn is the great scavenger of the 
 farm— better able to appropriate the coarser manures than any of the other 
 crops. It has a longer life, a better digestion, and a stouter heart than any 
 other crop in the rotation. As little stock as possible, outside of the work- 
 teams, is kept, and no particular pains are taken to increase the amount of 
 stable-manure. 
 
 Trusting Their Money to Potatoes. 
 
 Mr. D. C. Lewis is the pioneer (at Cranbury) of this unique system of 
 farming, and his farm is about the best illustration of the possibilities of 
 
8 The Rural Library. 
 
 chemical manuring. He has ioo acres, including woodland, pasture and 
 house-lot. Last year's (1891) potato-field contained 17 acres. On this one 
 field there were applied 107 bags or 21,400 pounds of high-grade fertilizer, 
 costing a little over $450 in cash. In former years the fertilizer was 
 all applied at planting, but this year a portion was reserved for the first 
 cultivating. It was put on with the drill and immediately cultivated in. 
 Mr. Lewis believes that this second dressing not only gives the potato-roots 
 a better chance to grow and stretch out for their food, but that it gives a 
 better distribution of the fertilizer for the wheat which is to follow. The 
 potato is the best crop on which to use the fertilizer, for several reasons. It 
 is a heavy feeder and needs its food in a soluble form, as the growth of the 
 tubers is made in a comparatively short time. When well cultivated 
 through the growing-season this crop leaves the soil in fine condition for 
 wheat-seeding. The fertilizers give smoother and better-flavored potatoes 
 than those grown with stable-manure, and no other crop would pay back the 
 original cost of the fertilizers and leave a profit besides. 
 
 This is due to the fact that the potatoes are largely water. Every 
 combination of chemical and clever farming must have at least one water 
 crop — something that can combine the high-priced chemicals with a large 
 amount of cheap water, and thus make a salable product. 
 
 For these reasons Mr. Lewis is not at all afraid to shovel the fertilizer on 
 to the potato-ground. His land grows stronger and stronger with each 
 round of the rotation, but he has not yet reached the limit of his fertilizing. 
 He expects to work up to 2,000 pounds per acre and make a profit on the 
 increase. He is convinced that most failures with fertilizers are due to the 
 fact that not enough was used. He is willing to trust his soil with $50 
 worth of soluble fertilizers per acre, confident that he will get every penny 
 of it back with higher interest than he can obtain from any other invest- 
 ment. 
 
 There was hardly a weed to be found in this 17-acre field, so thoroughly 
 and carefully had the crop been cultivated. Most of it was planted with 
 the Aspinwall planter, a few rows only of choice seed being planted by 
 hand. Last year for the first time, Mr. Lewis used Breed's weeder and the 
 Buckeye riding-cultivator. He gives these tools full credit for the splendid 
 condition in which his farm was found. The weeder was kept continually 
 at work until the vines were so high that leaves were torn off in running the 
 tool through the rows. The whole 17 acres was "weeded" in 1^ day, 
 with a fast-walking mule. The Buckeye cultivator is kept at work in the 
 field when the vines become too large for the weeder, lightly stirring the 
 entire surface and slightly ridging up the rows till the ground is as mellow 
 and fine as an ash-heap — all ready to absorb the moisture sent by the lightest 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 9 
 
 shower. With this Buckeye cultivator a man can ride over the entire field 
 in 2.Y2. days, doing more and better work than four men could with one- 
 horse cultivators. Every tooth of the cultivator is under immediate control 
 of the rider — no jerking, twisting or striking is possible. Mr. Lewis in- 
 dorses the well-tested plan of making a mulch by lightly stirring the surface 
 soil, which he is sure tends to conserve moisture. In farming with chemicals, 
 good culture and the conservation of all possible moisture are of the utmost 
 importance. Where the ground is fine and open, the soluble fertilizers will 
 make use of the smallest quantities of water. The potato-beetles are fought 
 with Paris green and water — a two-wheeled sprinkler drawn by one horse 
 will run over the entire field in two days. 
 
 Wheat and Grass at a Second Table. 
 
 After the potatoes have eaten all of the fertilizers they need, the wheat 
 and grass come to the table. There is food enough left to provide a full 
 meal and they are not at all bashful about appropriating it. Sometimes a 
 light dressing of fertilizers is put on the grass in the spring, or, when the 
 season promises to be dry, a little nitrate of soda is put on the wheat to 
 induce a rapid growth early in the season; but in the great majority of cases 
 the fertilizers left in the ground by the potatoes provide ample food for one 
 crop of wheat and two of grass. And such wheat and grass as these ferti- 
 lizer fields showed ! The wheat promised an average of over 30 bushels per 
 acre, and the grass will certainly cut i]/ z tons. And this without an ounce 
 of stable-manure and with no other fertilizers than the residue left by 
 potatoes, which crop had already paid three times the cost of the original 
 outlay for the fertilizers ! When the fertilizers are used, such a thing as a 
 failure to obtain a "catch" of clover-seed or grass is unknown. Mr. Lewis 
 regards the wheat-crop as clear profit in his rotation. The straw used on 
 the corn will pay for all the work of producing and marketing the crop, 
 and the potatoes have already more" than paid for the fertilizer. When 
 asked why he did not raise rye instead of wheat, and sell the straw at a good 
 price, Mr. Lewis gave several reasons. If he raised any rye he would have 
 to put all of his grain-land in rye, as his fields are such that otherwise the 
 grains would be mixed. Rye is not so good a seeding-crop as wheat, and he 
 would run the risk of getting a poorer stand of grass. Sod being his sub- 
 stitute for stable-manure and the chief source of his humus, he cannot afford 
 to weaken it. Again, rye is naturally a poor-soil crop. If sown after the 
 potatoes with all this available fertilizer in the soil, it would lodge because 
 of too rank a growth. 
 
 One great mistake that many farmers make is in assuming that grass 
 needs no manure, but that it can take care of itself — something like a goat 
 
io The Rural Library. 
 
 or a Mexican burro. No more fatal mistake was ever made. Grass must 
 have a supply of plant-food in some form, or it will perish. It may die a 
 lingering death, and take more time over it than some other plants, but in 
 the end it will fail to pay unless it is fed. It is the most appreciative crop 
 on the farm, and grows larger, stronger and sweeter the more it is fed 
 Weeds thrive on hunger, but plenty prospers the valuable plants. That is 
 to say, as soils become poorer tbe weeds and useless plants occupy the soil 
 more and more. Fertilize the soil, and the grasses take fresh courage and 
 crowd out the weeds. Nature has made this a fixed law. The wise farmer 
 takes advantage of it by coaxing grass rather than by abusing it. 
 
 The Scavenger Crop of the Farm. 
 
 What the pig or the goose is on many farms, the corn-crop is in this 
 chemical farming — a waste-saver, a manufacturer of the crudest materials. 
 Every other crop on the farm is nourished by manufactured products with 
 a view of eliminating all wastes or useless bulk. All the wastes that do 
 accumulate are dumped upon the corn crop to be utilized, made over and 
 fitted for the potatoes. These farmers recall with wonder their own days 
 of manure-farming, or read the reports of other farmers who spread tons 
 of stable-manure directly on the potato-fields. The work of hauling all the 
 water in that stable-manure through the mud and hurry of spring, and the 
 thought of putting that mass of hot and fermenting material directly upon 
 the crop that is more susceptible than any other to rots and "skin-diseases,' 1 
 is to them incomprehensible. They can ride on a comfortable seat and put 
 the fertilizer on io acres, while a big man with the stoutest team of horses 
 in the country is hauling out stable-manure enough to give one acre a fair 
 dressing. These farmers would not put stable-manure directly upon pota- 
 toes. It must first be " strained through a crop of corn" before they want 
 it for making tubers. After cutting the grass for the second year, all the 
 stable-manure made on the farm is hauled out and spread on the sod. This 
 work is done before potato-digging, when there is nothing else to be done. 
 In the spring, the accumulations from hog-pen, stables, etc., are scattered 
 over the sod with straw, stalks, etc., and the whole mass is plowed and well 
 harrowed. Corn is planted in hills ; last year for the first time a little fertil- 
 izer was used in the hill. The crop is seldom or never hoed — the weeder, 
 harrow and cultivator, used in time, strangling all the weeds in infancy. The 
 corn-crop brings in less cash than any other, and yet it is one of the most 
 valuable in the rotation, because it draws its fertility from substances which, 
 in this farm system, may be counted as wastes, and because it puts the 
 ground, the stable-manure and grass-sod in the best possible condition for 
 the money-crop of the rotation — potatoes. 
 
Chemicals and Clover. n 
 
 It is because potatoes are the money-crop of the farm, that they are 
 petted and pampered and fed on the choicest food. The corn-plant is the 
 key-keeper of the rotation. Clover supplies the crude material and corn 
 "manufactures it into suitable humus" for the potato-plant — yielding its 
 grain as almost clear gain. On a rotation of this sort, where first-class 
 potatoes are to be grown, the corn-crop is almost as important as the clover 
 because of its ability as a weed-cleaner, and its skill as a manufacturer of 
 potato-humus or suitable vegetable matter to go with the chemicals to make 
 the best "artificial dung." 
 
 The Stock— the Wastes— the Work. 
 
 Mr. Lewis keeps on his ioo-acre farm two horses, two mules, four cows 
 and two sows with their pigs. He says he has too much stock now and does 
 not want any more ! The genuine fertilizer-farmer seems to look upon stock- 
 keeping and dairying as the worst sort of drudgery, which he is willing to 
 leave to the farmers of the West, or to those farmers who have a love for 
 animals and a peculiar ability for handling them. He prides himself on 
 the fact that he is in a location where stock-growing is not necessary to farm- 
 ing; where strong sod with the addition of clean chemicals make a stronger 
 and more enduring manure than can ever be made by "waiting on cattle " 
 and passing high-priced grain and bulky hay through farm animals. The 
 four cows are kept for butter and milk, a little of which is sold. They are 
 winter-fed on stalks and corn-meal. The pigs (half Cheshire and half Duroc- 
 Jersey) are sold in the fall. They eat up a portion of the corn and work 
 great quantities of straw and stalks into manure. The mules have nothing 
 to eat but ear-corn and stalks. The horses are fed hay and ear-corn or meal. 
 No oats or other grain are ever fed ; when they go off on a journey, ear- 
 corn is always taken for feeding as they have always eaten that food. Im- 
 mense quantities of straw are used for bedding, and every effort is made to 
 rot it down quickly for use on the corn. Mr. Lewis says : 
 
 " I think it likely our system of handling these products is wasteful, and 
 we may in time adopt some different plan if we can do so without interfer- 
 ing with our rotation." 
 
 It might pay him to chop all his corn into ensilage, but he does not like 
 stock-keeping, though he believes that steer-feeding will pay better than in 
 former years. He believes it would pay him to run all his surplus straw 
 and stalks through a cutter merely to put them in the barnyard as they 
 would decay more easily, absorb the liquid manure, and be more easily ap- 
 plied to the land. Only one hired man is kept except in haying and harvest, 
 when extra help is needed. Potato-digging formerly demanded increased 
 help, but they now make use of diggers, and thus save the greater part of 
 
12 The Rural Library. 
 
 hand-labor. The potato-ground is cultivated so frequently and so well that 
 at the end of the season it is in just the right shape for a digger to do its 
 best work — a point that all farmers do not appreciate. In this system there 
 are barely four months of hard work. After potato-digging and wheat- 
 seeding there is little or nothing to be done until spring work opens. I have 
 never seen a system where less /land-work was needed. With riding-plows, 
 cultivators, mowers, loaders, binders and diggers, a man is in danger of for- 
 getting how to ' ' chase a horse over a field, "or " bend his back over a hoe." 
 "A good farmer can always find something to do," and these fertilizer- 
 farmers are free to hunt for the labor that will bring them most profit and 
 comfort. They are not crippled by cheap hand-labor — they give the horse 
 a full chance in the work partnership. 
 
 This fertilizer farming offers a better chance for cooperative or community 
 farming than any other system I know of. The farmers do not need to live 
 far off in lonely or isolated places in order to be near and care for their live 
 stock ; their farms will not suffer if they leave them through the winter and 
 live in villages, where society and friendly amusement may be had. A good 
 deal of the "black side of farming" is caused by the lonesomeness of the 
 long, dreary winters passed on some isolated farm, where, prisoned in by 
 bad weather and worse roads, many bright and promising lives are starved 
 by the dreary monotony of their surroundings into hopeless melancholy 
 and bitterness. More people are tied to the dreary life by the keeping of 
 unprofitable live stock, than from almost any other cause. Not only the fer- 
 tilizers but the products of fertilizer farming can all be bought and sold in 
 large quantities in wholesale rates without middlemen. Not only this, but as 
 Mr. Lewis says, the habit of studying out the truth of this problem has 
 led the farmers to investigate the merits of new machines and varieties that 
 have largely contributed to their success. 
 
 One great advantage of this system is, that all the farm manure is used on 
 the corn instead of on wheat or other crops. The hot summer after June 
 is particularly favorable for the action of the chemical processes of the 
 soil, including nitrification (changing of inert nitrogen into active nitrates 
 and ammonia) and in converting farm-manure and all coarse materials in 
 the soil into available plant-food. Corn, during its long summer growth, 
 can freely use these manurial supplies.- Not so with wheat, for its growth 
 stops soon after the corn-crop has fairly started growing. When 1,500 
 pounds of fertilizers are used on an acre of potatoes, with wheat and grass 
 to follow, it means only annual applications of less than 500 pounds. It is 
 concentration everywhere. The potatoes pay for it all. While the sales of 
 hay from this farm are heavy, this item is, as we have said, almost clear 
 gain, because the potatoes have paid for all the fertilizer needed for three or 
 
Chemicals and Clove?. 
 
 13 
 
 four years. Not only that, but they paid for it in the same year it was 
 bought. This fact can not be too often repeated — it is the key-note of the 
 success with fertilizers. If instead of using 1,500 pounds on the potatoes, 
 these farmers should use 500 on potatoes, 500 on wheat and 500 on grass, 
 their bills would be as high as now, the labor three times as great, and the 
 crops of potatoes cut down nearly one-half, with but a small increase in 
 grain and hay. It will thus be seen that the rotation is one particularly 
 well suited to the use of chemicals. It is only fair for me to say that this 
 system of complete manuring with rotation was devised and developed by 
 Mr. Charles V. Mapes.* 
 
 The Record of a Chemical Farm. 
 
 Mr. Lewis's farm is old enough to be exhausted, if it is true that soil- 
 exhaustion must follow long-continued cultivation. But his "unnatural'' 
 chemical treatment seems to give an unnatural result, for the farm persists 
 in growing strong and more productive with each round of the rotation. It 
 has been cultivated more or less extensively for over 100 years. During 
 the war of the Revolution this part of New Jersey was one big battlefield. 
 It is a part of history how Washington called upon the farmers of this 
 community to supply his starving troops with food. This farm was then 
 about as much a part of the "virgin soil" of the country as the newer 
 settled parts of Iowa or Missouri are to-day. It was after the Revolution 
 that this farm "ran down," and it ran about as far as it could. 
 
 Mr. Lewis has owned it 21 years. His immediate predecessor owned it 
 for about the same length of time. Before that it was held for 10 years by 
 the owner of a button-factory, who used the farm for spreading the wastes 
 of his factory — horn, bone, etc. For 20 years before Mr. Lewis bought it 
 the farm ran down because more fertility was taken from it in the form of 
 crops than was put back in the form of manure. While the owner paid 
 for the farm and made money, he did so at the expense of the soil, and 
 left it poorer and less able to produce crops than when he took it. The 
 practice at that time was to use marl and lime, with light applications 
 of Peruvian guano on wheat. In those days 20 bushels of wheat per acre 
 was considered a great yield. All the yard-manure that was made was 
 applied to the wheat-crop, and the cost of producing a bushel of wheat or 
 a ton of hay was greater. than at present, because the yield was less and the 
 work harder. In spite of the "war prices" of these days, yearly sales 
 from the farm averaged only from $1,200 to $1,500, and crops were gradually 
 decreasing in size. 
 
 *Mr. Lewis and his neighbors use the Mapes Complete Fertilizer. 
 
14 The Rural Library. 
 
 This condition of affairs was characteristic of many other farms in that 
 part of New Jersey ; in fact, as prices for farm products dropped, and the 
 great rush of immigration to the West opened, Eastern farmers could see 
 little hope for the future. Mr. Lewis became convinced that, as staple 
 farm products were lessened in price because of our immense increase in 
 production, he must lessen the cost of producing a bushel of wheat, potatoes 
 and corn by increasing the yield per acre without adding to the bill for 
 labor ; which on too many farms is the chief item of expense. He was not 
 a "fancy" farmer, but looked to his farm for an income, and was thus 
 obliged to be sure of what he was doing before investing largely in fertil- 
 izers. He learned something of the value of fertilizers by using them in a 
 small way ; but the hardest, and yet the most profitable lesson of all, was 
 the knowledge that it paid to concentrate all the fertilizer needed for the 
 crops of four years on the potatoes, and let them have all they needed of 
 it. No plant or annual ever made a big record for work that was not known 
 as a hearty eater, and the hearty feeders are always the men who win prizes 
 for great crops, speed or growth. To lessen the cost of his farm products, 
 Mr. Lewis became a heavy feeder, and the farm now shows its gratitude by 
 yielding heavy crops. 
 
 In the year ending April i, 1889, the following sales were made from this 
 
 100-acre farm : 
 
 Cattle and pork, $362 16 
 
 Corn, 130 00 
 
 Potatoes, 1,304 10 
 
 Hay, 925 00 
 
 Wheat 33i 22 
 
 Miscellaneous , 64 19 
 
 $3,n6 73 
 In 1890, the worst season for potatoes and wheat known since the fertilizer 
 rotation was begun, the sales footed up to $2,435.20. The present season's 
 sales are not completed, but will run over $3, 000, as there were 4,000 bushels 
 of potatoes alone. The average income from the farm is now $1,500 more 
 than it was 20 years ago, in spite of the fact that the old "war prices" for 
 farm-products were from 50 to 75 per cent, higher than are those of to-day. 
 Not only that, but the farm is more productive to-day than it ever was before 
 in all its known history. Mr. Lewis now grows more hay on his farm than 
 was grown in the whole township 50 years ago! Nor is this all, for these 
 farms have gained a reputation that is of great business value. Potatoes 
 "grown without stable-manure" find ready sale and command a little extra 
 price, especially in seasons when the crop is heavy. The hay from these 
 fertilizer farms is all sold to special customers. And it is possible to 
 develop special markets for all products grown with fertilizers — just as 
 dairymen who call attention to the fact that they feed their cows nothing 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 15 
 
 but the purest and sweetest hay and grain, are able to command extra 
 prices for their milk or butter. Over 250 years ago, Jethro Tull wrote in 
 his quaint way : 
 
 This Dung rs a Htter Food for venomous Creatures 
 (a) than for edible Plants •, and 'tis (no doubt) upon 
 account of this, that dung'd Gardens are fb much 
 frequented by Toads, which are feldom or never 
 feen in the open undung'd Fields, 
 
 What can we fay then to the Salubrity of thofe 
 Roots themfelves, bred up and fatten'd among. thefe 
 Toads and Corruption ? The Leaves indeed are only 
 difcharging fome of the Filth, when we eat them ; 
 but the Roots have that unfavoury infected Food in 
 their very Mouths, when we take them for our Nou* 
 rifhment 
 
 But tho' Dung be, upon thefe and other accounts, 
 injurious to the Gat den, yet a confiderable Quantity 
 of it is'fo necefTary to molt Corn-fields, that without 
 it little Good can be done by the old Hufbandry. 
 
 Dung is nor injurious to the Fields (b), being there 
 in lefs Proportion : And the Produce of Corn is the 
 Grain. When the Leaves have done their utmoft to 
 purify the Sap, the moil refin'd Part is fecern'd to be 
 yet further elaborated by peculiar Organs •, then, by 
 the Veflels of the BlofToms, tis become double-refin'd, 
 for the Nourifhment of the Grain j which is therefore 
 more pure from Dung, and more wholrbme, than 
 any other Part of the Plant that bears it. 
 
 Scientists and practical farmers to-day do not believe this at all, but 
 it must be admitted that thousands of city people — those who are able and 
 willing to pay high prices for special farm products— do believe it and are 
 ready to back up their belief in the most practical manner. Some little 
 experience in selling potatoes grown with fertilizers has convinced me that 
 it is possible to command a special price and trade, particularly with 
 potatoes, by advertising the fact that ' ' no stable manures are used. " After 
 all, Tull's idea of the value of dung for grain is not far out. 
 
 Two Cents a Pound for Manure 
 
 seems like a tremendous price to the man who uses stable-manure and 
 never buys fertilizer. "Two cents a pound " is a bigger price than is ob- 
 
1 6 The Rural Library. 
 
 tained for any product sold off this farm! Think of using 25,800 pounds 
 in one year! That is what Mr. Lewis used last season, and if he has any 
 regret at all, it is that he did not use more. I say that two cents a pound 
 seems like a tremendous price, but when you come to figure up the cost of 
 manufacturing a ton of stable-manure, you will not feel so sure about it. 
 The payment for the chemical fertilizer is like a direct tax — you pay it all 
 at once, in a lump, and it seems big. The cost of making your stable-manure 
 is more like an indirect tax; you pay more, but you do not realize it because 
 theitems are all mixed up in labor, time and other things which ought to have 
 a cash value, but which you can hardly estimate fairly. The direct tax may 
 seem harder, but it costs less in the end, because you escape interest, dues, 
 commissions and numberless other small items that represent the cost of 
 making it seem easier. At Cornell University, it was found that a ton of fresh, 
 sheltered horse-manure — far better than the average found on farms — was 
 worth $2. 45, estimated just as the values of chemical fertilizers are estimated. 
 In this ton there were just 25^ pounds of nitrogen, potash and phosphoric 
 acid — the three substances that you have to pay money for in fertilizers. In 
 your ton of stable-manure you had 100 pounds of ash, about 450 pounds of 
 organic matter, and 1,450 pounds of water. In order to obtain the equiva- 
 lent of these 25,800 pounds of fertilizer used by Mr. Lewis, you must haul 
 on your soil at least 300,000 pounds of stable-manure, including 210,000 
 pounds of useless water, and then have less potash and phosphoric acid than 
 you have in the fertilizer. What would you charge the city for hauling 150 
 tons of stone? The chemical farmer trusts to the heavens iox his water and 
 lets the " organic matter" stand where it is organized. The question is — 
 will the 100 pounds of ash in the ton of stable-manure cost more than two 
 cents per pound, with a fair estimate on the cost of hauling? The average 
 stable-manure found in the farmer's barn-yard, is not by any means equal 
 in value to that at Cornell University, because the best part of it is leeched 
 and washed out by the rains. That at Cornell was exposed to the weather 
 just about as average farm-manure is exposed, and then analyzed again. The 
 ton then contained only 13 pounds of fertilizing matter worth only $1.42. 
 This is much nearer the value of average farm-manure. It would require 
 over 450,000 pounds of such manure to add to the land the plant-food given 
 in the 25,800 pounds of fertilizer. What does it cost to handle and haul 
 the 300,000 or more pounds of water in this manure? There are thousands 
 of men keeping live stock, who admit that the sales of their animal pro- 
 ducts will not yield them 50 cents a day for their labor unless they count 
 the manure in at its highest value, without a word said about the cost of 
 handling it. When the price of animal products falls so low that the farmer 
 can not figure out fair wages for himself without estimating the dry matter 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 17 
 
 in his stable-manure as worth more than two cents a pound, he had better 
 change his plan and go to "chemicals and clover" for relief. There are 
 farms where stable-manure will pay better than chemicals. How is one to 
 know which these farms are? Nothing but careful figuring and experiment 
 will show — when, including a fair price for labor, the dry matter hi your stable- 
 manure must be valued at two cents a pound in order to give you a fair profit — 
 plant-food in chemicals will be cheaper. I do not wish to have it thought 
 that I have arguments to make against any forr of live-stock farming that 
 is conducted on a profitable and scientific bas.j. Personally I prefer the 
 dairy business to any other form of agriculture. What I argue against is 
 unprofitable stock-keeping. There are plenty of farmers who do not love 
 animals, or take the interest in their stock that will induce them to breed and 
 feed it on scientific principles, because they are not stock-men by nature. 
 Their animals are chiefly manure-makers, and are unprofitable unless an 
 extra-high price is figured for the manure. No place on the average farm 
 permits the loss of more actual money than the manure-pile ! Such farmers 
 not only make stable-manure at a loss, but they injure the business of the 
 men who love live stock and are specially fitted to breed and improve it and 
 sell its products. More Chemicals and Clover would help both classes of 
 farmers — one because they will provide cheaper fertility, and the other 
 because their use will diminish competition in stock products. 
 
 How many farmers have ever tried to estimate the cost of their stable- 
 manure in this way ? It ought to make a very interesting ' 'sum " for some 
 winter evening. Here, for example, is a statement of the crops fed on a 
 southern Ohio farm, and the sales of animal products therefrom. 
 
 " We fed during the year to 12 cows and two horses : 
 
 25 tons of hay at $15 $375 00 
 
 Stalks from 15 acres of corn 50 00 
 
 600 bushels of corn at 40 cents 240 00 
 
 200 bushels of turnips at 20 cents 4000 
 
 6^4 tons of bran (bought) .... 100 00 
 
 One ton of linseed meal (bought) 18 00 
 
 Total value of feed $823 00 
 
 Value received from the above feed as follows : 
 
 3,280 pounds of butter at 25 cents $82000 
 
 Four veal calves 20 00 
 
 Six heifers at $15 apiece 90 00 
 
 Hogs 100 00 
 
 From chickens 50 00 
 
 Total value {1,080 00 
 
 Total value of feed 823 00 
 
 Profit , {257 00 
 
 Eight tons of straw were also used as bedding, and entered into the 
 
 manure." 
 
1 8 The Rural Library. 
 
 Now what I want to know is, What value must be placed on the manure 
 from these animals in order to pay the "going wages " to the farmer and 
 his family, and leave a fair profit on the investment ? What is it worth to 
 "wait on" 12 cows, 2 horses, 10 head of young stock and 10 hogs? The 
 same amount of labor ought to bring you in at least $500 when applied to 
 other lines of business, oughtn't it ? You have no business to charge your- 
 self less for horse or hand-work than you would charge the township for 
 work on the road, or any " monopoly " or corporation for hauling or hand- 
 ling goods. I don't believe you could raise and feed those crops, and care 
 for the stock, and make the butter, for a cent less than $600 — that is, if you 
 had the privilege of charging somebody else what you really thought the 
 labor was worth. If you do charge that and allow a fair profit on your 
 investment, taking the above figures as a basis for figuring, those animals 
 will be obliged to make over 350 tons or 700,000 pounds of such manure as 
 Prof. Roberts had after exposing his manure-pile to the weather. Manure 
 from these animals will cost a good deal more than " two cents a pound," 
 if you pay yourself fair wages. I speak of these figures just as though 
 they were your own. You should make a similar statement regarding your 
 own business before you decide that the cost of chemical fertilizers is so 
 much greater than that of stable-manure. 
 
 Mr. Lewis learned his lesson among the farmers on Long Island. There 
 he met men naturally ' ' close" and stingy, who would ' ' look on both sides of 
 a cent" before letting it go, using a ton of fertilizer to the acre! These 
 men never would spend a cent uselessly, and he concluded there must be 
 something in this heavy dressing of fertilizer. These Long Island farmers 
 formerly used stable-manure. They were induced to use chemical fertil- 
 izers in this way. Somebody proposed that they take the same amount of 
 money that was paid for the stable-manure used on an acre and buy fertil- 
 izers with it. They were using so much stable-manure at $2.50 and $3.00 
 per ton, that that amount bought over a ton of fertilizer. This was used 
 on potatoes and the result with that crop was not fully satisfactory. It was 
 not until the grass followed the wheat that the " staying qualities" of the 
 fertilizers were developed. Then they saw the fertilizers were safe when 
 put in the soil ; that was the only thing they had been doubtful about. Mr. 
 Lewis went home and tried this heavy fertilizing himself. On the first 
 potato-crop the extra fertilizer did not seem to pay ; on the wheat-crop there 
 still seemed a loss; but when the grass-crop came, there could be no doubt 
 about it! It paid. The secret of making that farm successful had been 
 learned ; and it has not been unlearned, for Mr. Lewis plans to increase 
 rather than diminish his doses of fertilizers. To cut the supply would be 
 to cut the crop. 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 19 
 
 High-grade Fertilizers like High-grade Stock. 
 
 After trying all sorts of fertilizers, the Cranbury farmers have decided 
 that there is about the same difference between high-grade and low-grade 
 goods that there is between well-bred and scrub stock. Starve a hired man 
 and you weaken his back ; cut off a horse's feed and he will quit in the 
 middle of a race. A potato-plant is as exacting as a horse or a hired man, 
 and it is just as liable to suffer from a starvation diet as either, while one 
 advantage it has over them is that it will never eat too much. It knows 
 when it has enough and will take up only what it can assimilate. The rest 
 it leaves in the soil, where it is as safe as money in the bank. 
 
 A man is stronger, handsomer and makes a better citizen generally when 
 fed on nutritious, digestible and well-cooked food. Sirloin-steak and green 
 peas, bread and butter, will keep him fat, while gristle, pea-pods, bran and 
 skim-milk cheese will barely support him. Yet these substances all come 
 from the same materials that supply the health-giving food. The high- 
 grade soluble fertilizer represents the steak, peas and bread ; plants live 
 and thrive on it because they can utilize it at once. The low grade, insolu- 
 ble goods are like tough, indigestible food — the plant may live on it, but it 
 can not thrive and grow to its full capacity. Sawdust and grain both come 
 from plants, grow from the same soil and contain the same elements of 
 food. Yet a horse will starve to death on sawdust, but keep fat and do 
 faithful work on grain. Why is this ? The food in the sawdust is not diges- 
 tible and the horse cannot possibly change it into fat, muscle or force. It is 
 inert and useless for feed. It is expensive at $1 per ton, while grain 
 may be cheap at $25 per ton because it is digestible and the horse can 
 utilize it at once and thrive upon it. It is just the same with plant-food as 
 with animal-food. The high-grade, soluble fertilizers cost more per pound, 
 but they are worth more because, like the grain fed to the horse, the plant 
 can use them at once. There is no place in the world where lime is of more 
 importance than in the life of a quick-growing plant like the potato. To 
 feed a potato-plant on a low-grade, tough, insoluble fertilizer, is like turning 
 a cow into a rocky hill-side pasture, where the grass has been dried into 
 wood, and expecting her to pick up food enough to pay a profit. She simply 
 can not do it, because her whole energy and time will be spent in hunting for 
 her food. Such a pasture given as a gift is more costly than a good clover 
 and blue-grass pasture rented for $2.00 per acre. The potato-plant is just 
 likethecow. Put the soluble, high-grade fertilizer close to it and all around 
 it and it will prosper and grow. Feed it hard stuff that it cannot digest, and 
 you will wait long and impatiently for the profit that never will come. 
 
 " Our taxes are the same whether we use 300 or 1,500 pounds of fertilizer," 
 
20 The Rural Library. 
 
 said one fertilizer farmer. So they are. The tax on a horse is the same 
 whether he stands still in the stable or earns his living every day. The tax 
 on a cultivator is the same whether it reposes under a tree or is kept steadily 
 at work in the potato-field. " If a bag of high-grade fertilizer contains 25 
 per cent, more soluble plant-food than a bag of low-grade, I save 25 per 
 cent, in time and work by using the former," said another farmer. You do; 
 and this is just the argument of the breeder of high-grade cattle, hogs or 
 sheep — he finds a value in concentrated excellence. These comparisons 
 may be somewhat overdrawn, but they serve well as an illustration. One 
 man gets 300 pounds of butter per year from one cow ; another has to feed 
 two cows to get the same amount. One man may grow 300 bushels of 
 potatoes on one acre, while his neighbor may work hard to grow the same 
 number of bushels on three acres. The same thing has been observed with 
 horses, sheep or any other animals or crops. It is easy to see which man 
 makes a dollar with least work* Concentration of good qualities means 
 crowding out waste, and in these times no business-man, be he farmer or 
 factory-man, can afford to pay freight, cartage and labor interest on waste. 
 
 Feeding a Hungry Soil. 
 
 Mr. Lewis is fond of saying : " I will take any farm in the country that is 
 reasonably level and has anything in the way of ' foundation,' no matter 
 how poor it may be, and dotible its produci?ig capacity at a profit." 
 
 There are plenty of farmers who will agree to improve any naturally 
 strong soil that is "worn out." They will use sheep or dairy cows, and 
 gradually improve the soil, but there will be no money profit while they are 
 doing it. They must look to the improved condition of the soil for the 
 returns from their labor. Mr. Lewis proposes to improve the farm and ' 'make 
 money " at the same time. He will do it by using great doses of high-grade 
 fertilizers on potatoes, and following with wheat, grass and corn. Right in 
 his neighborhood is a farm that he takes pleasure in showing as an illustra- 
 tion of his method of "doctoring land." It is a "hungry" farm, if 
 there ever was one, though it has eaten many a hard day's work, many 
 a hard-earned dollar, many a night's rest and tons of peace of mind 
 and health. Its capacity for eating seemed unlimited because it was 
 never more than half fed. There are about 60 acres of naturally good 
 land. The former owner received it as a gift — " fell heir to it." For 
 years he tried to make a living at the old-time methods of farming, keep- 
 ing poor stock, manuring the wheat, and using a little fertilizer. He 
 could not make a living, and finally sold the place to' its present owner, a 
 young man who gave a mortgage for the whole value. That was some four 
 years ago. When I visited the farm last year good judges said the crops 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 
 
 21 
 
 were double what they were when the farm was bought. The young man 
 is paying off his mortgage, has painted and improved his buildings, and is 
 gaining on his debt all the time. Last year he had u acres of corn, seven 
 of potatoes, 14 of wheat, 16 of grass, and four in orchard and pasture. He 
 keeps five cows and half a dozen sows, and "has all the stock he wants 
 to carry." This year he used eight tons of fertilizer, and in addition seven 
 bags of muriate of potash as, in common with many farmers in that section, 
 he thinks his soil needs extra potash. He has not yet been through one 
 round of the rotation, and yet his farm is paying a profit besides growing 
 stronger all the time. .This young man is "aworker." But so are thousands 
 of others who are struggling in the jaws of a hungry farm that seems bent 
 on devouring them. How was this hungry mouth closed? By giving it a 
 full meal — of food that went "right to the spot" — so soluble that the 
 potato-roots could find it at once. This young man was brought up on a 
 fertilizer farm, and taught to believe that the soil about him was able to 
 take good care of all the fertilizer that could be put in it. The first thing 
 he did, therefore, when he came to his own poor farm was to try to fatten 
 it. Men who can not force themselves to use more than " two bags to the 
 acre," will almost shudder at the faith that impelled this young farmer to 
 pay over $300 cash for fertilizers and pour them into this hungry farm. 
 $300! That is more than the value of the entire crop grown by the former 
 owner. It was done, however, and the effect was the same as that of a full 
 meal on a hungry man. An empty stomach means empty courage, nerveless 
 hands, faltering purpose — poor work. A lunch is but an exasperation. A 
 full meal supports and stiffens every energy of mind and body, and great 
 results are possible. 
 
 I once saw two men start work in a lumber-camp in Michigan. One had a 
 home, of his own and had been well fed and nourished. The other had no 
 home, but had knocked about the stables and cheap hotels in Saginaw. One 
 was prepared to exert his full strength at once, because, having been well 
 nourished, he was in "good condition," with no feeling of "goneness" 
 about him. The other was hungry and chilled, poorly nourished and with 
 no provision of food stored in his body to supply the waste of muscular 
 energy or to insure heat for the body. Without plenty of food he could 
 not do profitable work. The first man ate a fair meal and was ready for 
 business. The other man was "empty." He simply devoured beans, pork, 
 potatoes and bread till the cook looked tired. Then he got up from the table, 
 stretched himself, and went at his work like a giant. The "full meal" did it. 
 Had he eaten no more than the other man, he would have grown hungry 
 and weary before the day was half done. The way to get profit out of his 
 work, was to feed him all he wanted. It is just the same with an " empty " 
 
22 The Rural Library. 
 
 soil. When this hungry farm received, for the first time in years, a ' ' square 
 meal," it shut its mouth and went to work. It became a friend instead of a 
 tyrant — a slave instead of a master. This young farmer says he could not 
 have gained on his mortgage without the use of fertilizers, and the only 
 change he would make in starting again would be to use "more fertilizers." 
 
 While at Cranbury I took particular pains to ask these farmers why they 
 used so much fertilizer. Here are some of their answers. 
 
 Farmer L. — "When we put fertilizers on our potatoes we look forward 
 two years to the grass-crop. That is why we use so much. For years 
 and years we thought, with other farmers, that fertilizers were so soluble 
 that it was only safe to put on just enough for one crop. That is all non- 
 sense. On ordinarily level ground we find fertilizers as safe in the soil as 
 out of it — safer too with wheat and grass coming along to make use of them. 
 The more fertilizers I use, the more money I make." 
 
 Farmer S. — "Under the fertilizer system, my crops, grain, grass and 
 potatoes, have fairly doubled in size. When I started the heavy use of 
 fertilizers my father, an old man, did not think it would pay. He thought 
 we were putting too much cash 'into the ground.' The old plan was to 
 apply just as much fertilizer as a single crop could use and no more, as it 
 was thought that what the crop left would be washed out and wasted. So 
 400 or 500 pounds per acre were all they dared to use. My father could 
 not see how all the money spent for 1,500 pounds could comeback. He 
 lived long enough, however, to see such an increase in the crops that he was 
 convinced that the heavy fertilizing pays. I am sure the only way to make 
 fertilizers pay is to use lots of them. I do not know of a single farmer who 
 has worked up to 1,500 pounds, who tvould ever go back to a smaller 
 quantity.'" 
 
 Farmer D. — " I have used fertilizers for five years. I use 1,500 pounds 
 per acre on potatoes. My wife sometimes complains about the amount of 
 cash I spend on fertilizers ; but my experience is that the more I spend in 
 this way, the more, proportionately, I get back. Last year I sold $1,100 
 worth of hay. I have 100 acres of land. Our farms are assessed for the 
 same amount whether we use 400 or 1,500 pounds per acre. If by using 
 1,500 pounds we can double our crops (and we have done so), it is good 
 business policy to use the larger amount." 
 
 It is evident that a hungry soil can not feed itself and have any strength 
 left for paying a profit. Simply put back in the form of manure the crops 
 that are grown on that soil, and the gain will not be rapid enough to pay 
 for labor and taxes. Buy grain to feed to live stock, and leave the manure 
 on the farm, and the farm will improve, but will it pay while improving ? 
 Is the grain cheaper than fertilizer would be ? That is the point to figure on. 
 
Chemicals ana Clover. 23 
 
 Many "authorities" tell us that poor land can be brought up to a pro- 
 ductive point — that is, to a condition that will insure a good crop of clover 
 at any time — by the use of green manures alone. This may be true in some 
 cases, but not in the majority, and in any event the process is slow and 
 tedious. One of the best experiments conducted in this line was that of 
 Mr. L. D. Davis, of Rhode Island. Mr. Davis took a run-down "aban- 
 doned " farm and attempted to improve its condition by means of green 
 crops alone. First rye was sown early in September. This made a fair 
 growth, which was plowed under in June and the field seeded to buck- 
 wheat. In September the buckwheat was plowed in and another seeding 
 of rye given. This rye grew better than the other, and in the following 
 June this growth was plowed in and a seeding of millet given. The millet 
 was plowed under in September and rye with Red-Top and Timothy sown 
 for a permanent crop. The yield of rye was only fair even after all the 
 labor of growing and plowing in four different crops, while the soil was not 
 in condition to make sure of a catch of clover. Mr. Davis wisely concludes : 
 
 " 1. That it is not wise to depend on this process alone for fertilization. 
 Though often told that plowing in green crops restores all the elements of 
 fertility in the proper proportions needed for future crops, I am satisfied 
 that they do not in all cases meet the demand even in that direction. All 
 poor soils are not sterile from the loss of precisely the same ingredients, 
 and all green crops do not hold the several elements of fertility in the same 
 proportions, whatever may be said to the contrary. And so, as a matter of 
 fact, it requires as much skill to adapt growing vegetation to particular 
 soils as it does to use special fertilizers profitably under similar conditions ; 
 and for this reason many of the claims that have been put forth for green 
 manuring from time to time are quite too broad and comprehensive. 
 
 "2. The time required to produce the desired results by green manuring 
 alone is altogether too extended. In this case two full years and four 
 crops turned under, together with much plowing, harrowing and seeding, 
 made but a beginning ; and at the same rate of progress it must have taken 
 several more summers to have produced very marked results. I doubt if 
 the land had yet reached a point where a fair growth of clover could have 
 been secured to be used to advantage in the same way, or otherwise. 
 
 ' ' 3. The application of other fertilizers should accompany green manuring 
 — first, because they will give a larger and richer crop to be turned under, 
 and secondly, because they will hasten the period when the desired results 
 will be attained. To the farmer as well as to the banker, time is money, 
 and if the enrichment of the soil requires three or five years by one process 
 and but one or two by the other, the difference in expense will be found 
 much greater than is at first supposed. 
 
24 The Rural Library. 
 
 " 4. And so I should not again attempt to reclaim barren land by green 
 manuring alone. My experiences with green manuring and chemical fer- 
 tilizers together were far more satisfactory." 
 
 This trying to farm poor land with green manures alone, is just like try- 
 ing to winter a dairy cow on hay or straw. It is folly to expect her to pay 
 a profit on such food. She simply can not .do it, because she can only give 
 back in the pail a part of what you put in her mouth. She must have 
 feed — grain ; hay alone will not answer ; and grass alone will not answer for 
 the hungry soil — it must have something stronger. 
 
 A Substitute for Stable- Manure Possible. 
 
 What is stable-manure ? Waste. Feed an animal hay or stalks and grain ; 
 a portion of the food is used to maintain life and make growth — the rest 
 passes through the system as waste. The same elements that make the 
 grain valuable as food are found in chemical fertilizers. It is true that an 
 animal could not live on chemical fertilizers — though travelers in Sweden 
 tell us how, in the colder parts of that country, the cows are trained to eat 
 the horse-manure, and sustain life on it, with the addition of a little grain. 
 Another curious instance where animals feed on " plant-food " is found in 
 Connecticut to-day, where some cows and sheep are fed regularly through 
 the winter on salted fish ! When the Pilgrims first came to Plymouth they 
 hired an Indian to show them how to plant corn. He caught great quantities 
 of alewives or herrings, and put one in each hill of corn to serve as a fertilizer. 
 Now this same kind of fish is fed to cows and sheep with apparently good 
 results. Animal-food differs from plant-food only in form. The feeding- 
 organs of the plant take the plant-food and combine it with water, fats, starch, 
 and other substances, and make animal-food out of it. Before this animal- 
 food can serve again as plant-food it must decay and be acted upon by heat, 
 water and acids. When hay is fed to animals a part is digested. The 
 waste of this digested portion passes away in the urine. The solids of the 
 manure are not digested. They are simply ground up finely and softened 
 by heat, water and the acids of the animal system. It is the same with 
 grain. The digested 'part of it is excreted only in the urine, which is soluble 
 plant-food. The plant-food in chemical fertilizers is also digested, because 
 it has been acted upon by strong acids and other powerful reducing agents. 
 It, therefore, supplies better and more soluble plant-food than is found in 
 the grain fed to animals. In what way is hay improved, as manure, by 
 passing it through cattle ? In Florida linseed-meal is put directly in the 
 soil, and makes a good fertilizer. In parts of the country bran is used to 
 grow potatoes. An Orange-county cream-man puts skim-milk directly upon 
 his grass. A good illustration of the difference between plant-food and 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 25 
 
 animal-food is given in the use of cotton-seed meal. This substance is used 
 both to feed animals and as a fertilizer. To the southern farmer it is the 
 cheapest and most easily obtainable form of nitrogen, because it is a waste 
 of a home-grown product, easily applied, good to mix with other manures, 
 and "more lasting" in the soil than some mineral forms of nitrogen when 
 drenched by the heavy southern rains. At the north this same product is 
 one of the greatest of boons to the dairyman. It is a "concentrated" 
 food, and thus makes a fine addition to ensilage, straw, roots or other foods 
 that are "bulky " from an excess of water or useless fiber. But let this 
 cotton-seed meal that is to be fed to stock become damaged by water, heat 
 or other causes so that it becomes discolored, and its value as a stock-food 
 is destroyed. It is no longer safe to feed it to cattle, even if they would eat 
 it. But while this slight change spoils it for stock-feeding, it is just as 
 good for use as a fertilizer as it ever was, giving probably as quick and sure 
 results as though it had been fed to animals and excreted as manure. All 
 farmers have seen damaged grain of various kinds that had been burned, 
 "heated" or wet. The stock will not eat such grain, and it would not be 
 considered safe to feed it to them anyway ; but any farmer knows it will 
 make good manure, and that if he puts it right on the manure-pile and 
 works it in well, the manure will be as strong as it would have been had he 
 fed that much more grain to his stock. And he would have received the 
 manurial benefit of the damaged grain if he had simply put it on the ground 
 to be cultivated without working it into the manure-pile at all. The benefit 
 might have been somewhat slower, because unquestionably the fermenting 
 processes that go on in the manure act to render the insoluble plant-food 
 more soluble, and consequently more active ; but what I say is that none of 
 the fertility in the grain will be lost because it has not been eaten by ani- 
 mals. Several years ago a Connecticut farmer had a chance to buy a car- 
 load of damaged corn-meal, weighing 56,000 pounds, for $50. A sample 
 submitted to the Connecticut station contained nitrogen, potash and phos- 
 phoric acid worth $5.16 per ton. Dr. S. W. Johnson said of it: "This 
 meal has about twice as much nitrogen as good stable or yard-manure, and 
 this nitrogen is doubtless at least twice as available or effective as that of 
 stable-manure ; it also contains nearly the same proportions of phosphoric 
 acid and potash as stable-manure. Heavy applications would, for a time, 
 greatly improve the texture and water-holding capacity of light, sandy 
 soils." Thus we see how easily animal food is changed to suitable plant- 
 food. My cows frequently pull clover-hay out of their racks and trample 
 it under their feet. They will not eat it then, or will they eat the hay which 
 the " next cow " has " mussed over " and breathed upon. This spoiled hay 
 goes into the manure. Why, aside from the fact that it is not chewed and 
 
26 The Rttral Library. 
 
 ground up into very fine particles, is it not as good manure as the rest of 
 the hay from the same rack, which was eaten and excreted ? In fact, is it not 
 better ? I have given these illustrations to try and make clear the fact that 
 it is not absolutely necessary to feed grain and hay to live stock in order to 
 " work them into plant-food." The most that animals do is to take out the 
 greater part of ~\he fats in our grain and hay and make them over into new 
 forms so that we can sell them. These fats are good for nothing as manure ; 
 when sold in the form of animal products, do they bring in enough to pay 
 for all labor and the interest on the investment ? 
 
 The ancient idea was, that animals added a value to the food they 
 took into their mouths ; in some mysterious way they were supposed 
 to grow and thrive on the food, and still make the hay worth more as manure 
 than it was before it was eaten. These same folks believed that plants 
 developed 'lime, potash and phosphoric acid, as a result of vital force. One 
 idea is as sensible as the other. We know better now. The simple ques- 
 tion is this : Does sun-cured grass fed to cattle, make more valuable manure 
 than the same grass permitted to decay in the field, and acted upon by rain, 
 sun and frost ? In other words, Are heat, sun and frost as valuable "re- 
 ducing agents " as the forces of living animals ? The fertilizer farmer 
 claims that there is substantially little difference in the manurial value of 
 grass acted upon by nature's forces and that fed to and excreted by animals. 
 He also claims that his chemicals supply more and better plant-food than 
 can be obtained for an equal value in grain. Chemicals and clover put to- 
 gether in the field, give as strong manure as can be hauled out of any barn- 
 yard, because they supply the same elements that are bought in hay and 
 grain. More than this, it has been abundantly proved that not one-half of 
 the fertility in stable-manure is available for a quick-growing plant, while 
 practically all of the high-grade fertilizers can be used at once. It is true 
 that many failures have been made with green manuring on poor soils. 
 That was because the farmers did not realize that green crops alone did no 
 more for the soil than good hay alone would do for a dairy cow in winter. 
 It might keep her in good health, but she could not give a profitable mess 
 of milk until she had feed. In the same way the land needed feed — more 
 fertility than there was in the green crop. Not chemicals alone, not clover 
 alone, but chemicals and clover, are the secret of Mr. Lewis's success. Rye 
 has been suggested as a substitute for the clover in the rotation. It has also 
 been claimed that potash and phosphoric acid alone will answer as well as 
 a "complete fertilizer." Mr. Lewis does not favor either change. The 
 chief value of the clover lies in its root-action. It "digs deep " while rye- 
 plants sleep. It catches and retains fertility far down in the soil, and is 
 the best "nitrogen trap" in the world. As to "complete fertilizers," a 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 27 
 
 farmer may feel sure of them — potash and phosphoric acid alone make at 
 best but an experiment. The crop may fall off in yield for want of the 
 missing nitrogen. All farmers recognize the great value of clover. Those 
 who advocate the use of rye or other green crops in the place of clover are 
 generally in sections where, for some reason, the latter plant is not sure of 
 a "catch." For example, a writer in The Rural Nezu-Yorker, living in 
 Delaware, said : 
 
 "Green rye adapts itself easily to poor circumstances, and will make a 
 good crop and is a cheap manure, costing only for seed and the time of 
 planting and plowing, and it is there on the land when needed to be turned 
 under early or late in the season, as the case may be. Hence my claim for 
 green manuring with rye instead of clover, the late maturing of which 
 causes the loss of the season, except for wheat or a late planting of potatoes, 
 Clover with us, while a moderately sure crop, is not always certain ; the 
 last two seasons it has failed to catch, except in places — another reason for 
 my advocacy of green rye. Clover is undoubtedly the richer in fertility, 
 but the drawbacks to it entitle green rye to the first place." 
 
 This man proposed to grow potatoes, wheat, timothy, corn and rye, and 
 to use bone and potash, plowing in the rye for the potatoes. This is a 
 partnership of "Chemicals and Rye " In this partnership "Chemicals" 
 has less capital because it lacks nitrogen, while "Rye" is weaker than 
 clover, both above and below ground. 
 
 Mr. Lewis, I believe, does not go so far as to say that clover is absolutely 
 necessary to the success of his rotation, but he does say that clover is better 
 than any other plant, and that it will pay one to go to any reasonable ex- 
 pense in the way of draining and tillage to insure a perfect "catch." Clover 
 never fails on these heavily-fertilized farms, while it frequently does fail on 
 lands less carefully cultivated. It is evident that land must be in " pretty 
 good order" before clover will grow upon it. Rye is probably more of a 
 ' ' rustler " than clover, but the latter does twice the work for the farmer who 
 will take pains to coax it. 
 
 Chemicals and Clover vs. Steers and Stover. 
 
 On another page I have given the figures, showing what Mr. Lewis sells 
 from his 100-acre farm. Here are some statements from farms where 
 stable-manure is the basis of fertility. The farmers who make them are 
 enterprising and energetic men — far in advance of the practice and profits 
 of their neighbors. 
 
 First is a statement of what was sold from a 200-acre farm in western 
 New York, within thirty-five miles of Buffalo. On this farm are kept forty 
 
28 The Rural Library. 
 
 sheep, twelve cows and several horses. This farmer bought $250 worth of 
 feed during the year : 
 
 Wheat $n° 00 
 
 Barley 160 00 
 
 Beans 590 00 
 
 Potatoes 70 00 
 
 Hay 60 00 
 
 Wool 40 00 
 
 Lambs and sheep 100 00 
 
 8 000 gallons milk to Buffalo 720 00 
 
 Calves 12 50 
 
 Pears 6 00 
 
 Total $1,928 co 
 
 Now comes the business record of an Indiana farm of 200 acres — 140 
 tillable — within twenty-five miles of Chicago. On this farm are kept eighteen 
 cows, the same number of hogs, and twelve horses and colts : 
 
 1,159 cans milk (8 gallons per can) $772 15 
 
 5 cows 115 00 
 
 13 veal calves 50 70 
 
 16 hogs 165 70 
 
 chickens and eggs 37 4° 
 
 41K tons of hay 243 96 
 
 34°K bushels wheat 293 79 
 
 388% " rye . . 174 30 
 
 566-7 " corn . . . ' ' . 29 91 
 
 183^ " potatoes 161 70 
 
 16 cords wood 48 co 
 
 Total $2,092 61 
 
 This is what was done on a 160-acre farm in Central Illinois — a farm that 
 rarries about thirty head of cattle, twenty hogs, ten horses and fifty sheep : 
 
 Winter wheat $185 78 
 
 Hay 37 70 
 
 Apples 58 50 
 
 Hogs 457 75 
 
 Sheep and wool 3f6 10 
 
 Cattle 200 00 
 
 Horse 95 00 
 
 Butter 85 00 
 
 Total * ■ $1,425 83 
 
 The sales from this farm were smaller than the average, as a large stock 
 of annuals were left to be carried over. It is not likely that Chemicals 
 and Clover would pay better than stock here, but the sales are useful for 
 comparison. 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 29 
 
 Or take this record of an Iowa farm of 160 acres, on which are kept fifty- 
 six cattle, sixty hogs and nine horses. 
 
 3,019 pounds of butter, which brought, after deducting freight, tubs 
 
 and commission $497 02 
 
 Eight steers 453 37 
 
 Four cows and heifers 99 38 
 
 44 hogs 453 22 
 
 Hay 46 07 
 
 Poultry and eggs 43 68 
 
 Honey 16 34 
 
 Total $1,609 ° 8 
 
 From this should be deducted : 
 
 For corn bought and fed $22967 
 
 For oats 28 35 
 
 Total $258 02 
 
 Now, in what way 'is this farm in "exhausted" New Jersey inferior as a 
 profit-payer to these excellent stable-manure farms ? There is less work, 
 less worry, and less waiting, in the firm of Chemicals and Clover than in the 
 partnership of Steers and Stover. 
 
 Water is a Good Thing to Sell, 
 but a poor thing to buy. A "chemicals and clover" rotation can not pay 
 unless there is one crop in it that is largely water. The potato-crop is ad- 
 mirably suited to this rotation, because it is seventy-five percent, water. The 
 plants take the high-priced fertilizer and mix it with cheap water, so that 
 the farmer is able to sell tons of the cheapest substance in the world. Just 
 consider this a moment. In the 4000 bushels of potatoes that Mr. Lewis 
 sold this year were 180,000 pounds of water, for which he obtained over 
 one-half cent per pound. The water was given to him. His part of the 
 business was to have on hand strong thrifty plants, capable of combining 
 his soluble fertilizers with this free water. That man in New York state, 
 with his 8,000 gallons of milk, only sold about 75,000 pounds of water, 
 while the Indiana dairyman sold but little over 80,000 pounds. The water 
 in the potatoes was handled perhaps six times, and almost entirely by ma- 
 chinery. The water in the milk was squeezed out of the cows at 730 differ- 
 ent times during the year. Other water-plants that can be used are tomatoes, 
 cabbage, beets, melons or berries. I know of men who are growing all 
 these crops in this same rotation of grass, corn and wheat. Water, heat, 
 air and sunshine are the great gifts of nature to the farmer. We can not 
 sell air because it does not weigh enough to bring a price. We sell heat in 
 the form of fats and starch in our hay, grain and potatoes, but we do not 
 get full price for it because it must be manufactured and made into new 
 
30 The Rural Library. 
 
 forms before it can warm the body. Sunshine we can not sell, as we can 
 not measure, weigh or estimate its value. Water, the freeest and most 
 abundant gift of all, we can sell all made up — ready for use. 
 
 What a Hill Farmer Thinks of It. 
 
 Mr. J. W. Newton is a Vermont dairyman. His is a natural-pasturage 
 farm, too hilly and rocky for chemicals and clover. Yet this does not preju- 
 dice him. He sees the advantages of this system, as he has said in The Rural 
 New-Yorker : " Just think what a saving it would be to have no manure 
 to handle, no pasture-fences to keep up, no milking to tie one down at 
 home, no milk and cream and butter to handle ! What a vast amount of 
 labor the new system saves ! I hope a great many of the farmers in the 
 thickly settled regions will adopt this new departure. We poor farmers 
 who live back among the mountains and hills must keep on milking and 
 hauling manure; and the fewer cattle kept, the better will cattle-raising 
 and dairying pay those who keep stock. Our fields are better suited to cat- 
 tle and sheep than to grain-growing, and we can not well get along without 
 stock. 
 
 "If a man makes more than the average farmer, he must get out of the rut 
 in which the average farmer moves. He must make a better article, or put 
 it up in better shape, or produce it at a season when prices are higher, or 
 make it at a less cost than his neighbors in order to get a better price. All 
 this requires skill, and on top of this he needs business ability to keep his 
 profits from the clutches of the middlemen. Now, butter-making requires 
 as much skill as the other branches of farming, or more, in order to make 
 it a success, but it is confining work. 
 
 "Is farming with chemicals and clover going to solve the labor problem ? 
 It ought to where it can be adopted. It takes lots of time to milk on a 
 farm, lots of hard work to care for the manure, lots of expense to keep up 
 fences. A man who has to milk ten or a dozen cows twice a day can't do 
 much farm work before breakfast or after supper. If I could only get rid 
 of every animal on my farm except the team and the family cow, wouldn't 
 it be nice ? I could get at some of the jobs that are waiting to be done, and 
 which, as things are, will have to wait a good while longer. 
 
 "Perhaps not every farmer can grow potatoes and wheat, but most can 
 grow clover, and they can find other money-crops to grow instead of these. 
 But the outlook for wheat is very good, and potatoes are high once in two 
 or three years, as a rule. If a man tries, he can grow crops which he 
 thinks are not fitted to his soil. A few years ago I was almost discouraged 
 about growing potatoes ; but I have been learning more about it every year ; 
 last year I had the best crop I have ever grown. " 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 31 
 
 Chemicals, Clover and Sheep. 
 
 An Ohio farmer, Mr. O. G. Williams, writes that he has been carefully 
 feeling his way towards chemicals and clover. He then says: "The 
 question has occurred to me, What is the most profitable use that can be 
 made of the clover hay grown in this rotation ? To friend Lewis and 
 others who are following this system of farming I should like to suggest the 
 keeping of sheep. Some live stock must or ought to be kept. The great 
 objection to keeping cows in connection with grain and vegetable-farming 
 is the extra work required. Dairying is a business of itself. The fattening 
 of steers has long since proved unremunerative. I know of no live stock 
 better calculated to fit into this rotation than sheep. By keeping the mut- 
 ton breeds and raising early lambs the extra work involved will come at a 
 season of the year when there is most leisure. February or March is a 
 good time to have the lambs dropped. Without any extra help one can 
 add materially to his income in this way. The surplus coarse feed grown 
 can be profitably consumed by the sheep — more profitably, I think, than 
 any other kind of live stock, considering the work required. But what 
 about pasturing them ? If one has no permanent pasture, it is possible in 
 most localities to hire pasture-lots at quite low rates. Perhaps pasturing 
 the clover one year may be desirable. In case of inability to get sufficient 
 pasture, February lambs can be sold in May and the sheep can follow 
 them soon if fed liberally on grain, and another flock can be purchased the 
 following winter. Formerly I kept a few cows and sent the milk to a 
 cheese-factory — the system of dairying in vogue here — but am convinced 
 that more money is to be made from mutton sheep with much less labor. 
 They make a desirable stock and insure an income twice a year — from wool 
 and lambs. Some localities are not favorable to sheep, but where they do 
 well I think they will make a valuable addition to the firm of " Chemicals 
 and Clover." 
 
 Mr. Lewis has a farm on which there is practically no waste land ; it is all 
 capable of high culture except a small wood-lot. If he had any waste land 
 or any land so situated that it would make better pasture than a clover-sod 
 he would keep sheep. As it is, more live stock would simply interfere with 
 his rotation. He has not the buildings, pastures or fences needed for 
 keeping stock. He can now sell his prime clover-hay to dairymen for 
 enough to make it pay. He estimates that the profit of stock-keeping less 
 the price he now obtains for the hay, would not pay him for his work. At 
 the same time he believes that Mr. Williams is correct, and that it will pay 
 him to sell his clover-hay to sheep rather than to a commission-man 
 The result will be stronger, and better corn and consequently better pota- 
 toes, grass and wheat. In no case would he use a lighter dressing of fertil- 
 
32 The Rural Library. 
 
 izers. There can be no doubt that nine out of ten failures with chemicals 
 are due to the fact that the farmer did not use enough of them. There are 
 also places on many stock-farms where chemicals and clover would pay. On 
 my own farm in New Jersey, some of the best land was at the top of a steep 
 hill over half a mile from the barn. It would be folly to try and haul 
 stable-manure up that steep hill. I can take, in one load of fertilizers, all 
 the fertility there is in fifteen loads of stable manure, and I can grow clov- 
 sod on the ground that is fully equal to any hay that can be fed to stock. 
 The crop on this high land may all be hauled down hill, while the manure 
 must go up hill. Water in stable-manure or in anything else will never 
 run uphill, but it will slide dotvn with ease. Short hauls for stable-man- 
 ure. Plenty of outlying fields are neglected and deserted because it does 
 not pay to haul stable-manure to them. These are the fields for chemicals 
 and clover., even when the farm is crowded with live stock. 
 
 There are many stock and dairy farms whose owners, past middle age, 
 have no need to work and worry over the care of animals. At the same 
 time they feel that the stock must be kept, or the farm will run down. 
 Such farms may be given up to the production of hay, and maintained for 
 years by the application of fertilizers alone. If the grass crop did fail for 
 any reason, it could be seeded anew with grain and clover, using fertilizers 
 with the grain. Annual dressings of fertilizers would render stable-manure 
 entirely unnecessary. 
 
 The Substance of the Matter. 
 
 I look upon this chemicals and clover farming as the best illustra- 
 tion I have seen of the possibilities that lie within the reach of the Ameri- 
 can farmer. I do not believe that any stable-manure farm in the country, 
 of ioo acres, can show larger sales of the four staples, wheat, corn, potatoes 
 and grass, or show one-half the profit in time and money that chemicals and 
 clover make for Mr. Lewis. These are strong statements; but they are 
 made with confidence. Farmers may well ponder them. Science is rapid- 
 ly freezing the "old rut" over. The man who sticks inside it until the 
 crust hardens over him is beyond the help of love or legislation. 
 
 The chemical farmer has the following creed: " Supply a full meal of the 
 cheapest manure to the best plants of the crops that suit your market and farm. " 
 Chemical fertilizers for these Cranbury farmers, are cheaper than stable- 
 manures, for several reasons : 
 
 i. Meat-making does not pay, and the cost of hauling and spreading 
 city manure is too great. 
 
 2. The plant-food in chemical fertilizers is more available and better 
 suited to the wants of the potato-plant than that in stable-manure. It costs 
 
Chemicals and Clover. 33 
 
 less than the grain that must be fed to stock to give stable manure any val- 
 ue. Strong clover-sod, with chemicals fed directly to the soil, gives better, 
 cleaner and cheaper manure than clover-hay and grain fed to farm animals. 
 
 3. On compact, level soils fertilizers are as permanent as stable-manure. 
 No rain can wash them so far into the soil that the roots of a clover-plant 
 cannot follow and capture them. Without clover they might be lost ; with 
 clover, never. The one thing that has done more than anything else to 
 keep farmers from using chemicals is the belief that they will "wash out" 
 of the soil and be lost. That this is nonsense has been proved by scientific 
 experiments time and again; but the most eloquent refutation of the charge 
 is offered by the wheat, the Timothy and the clover that follow the potatoes 
 without an ounce of additional fertilizer. The man who is afraid to trust 
 his soil with a " full meal " should get out of farming as quickly as possible, 
 because his farm will repudiate him — and serve him right. 
 
 I have said that farming with chemicals and clover is special farm- 
 ing. I repeat it. A farm must possess certain natural characteristics in 
 order to make this system profitable. It must be level, or nearly so, well 
 drained, easily tilled, capable of growing clover, near a good market, and 
 with a fair proportion of naturally good potato-ground. 
 
 The best way to start such a system would be with the corn-crop, using 
 all the stable-manure possible, and following with potatoes, using 1,200 or 
 1,500 pounds of fertilizer per acre, with wheat and grass to follow. The 
 more fertilizer used, the cleaner and more careful the needed cultivation. 
 Where the soil is kept constantly stirred and loosened, a very light shower 
 will show an effect on the plants at once — quicker than if stable-manure is 
 used. 
 
 A system of chemical-farming must include some crop that is largely 
 water which makes quick growth, sells at a good price, and can give a 
 large crop per acre and utilize most of the nitrogen in the fertilizer. With 
 the majority of farmers, potatoes will fill this place better than any other 
 crop. 
 
 Chemical farming will pay in any locality where the cost of chemicals 
 and clover-sod is less than that of the manure made from clover or other 
 hay and grain. The common objection to chemical farming grows out of 
 the fact that this comparison of manure-cost has never been fairly made. 
 What the farmer wants to study out is the comparative cost of the nitro- 
 gen, potash and phosphoric acid in stable-manure as compared with their 
 cost in the fertilizer. Hundreds of farmers now realize that it pays them 
 to sell their whole grain and buy waste or by-products like bran, shorts or 
 oil-meal. The chemical farmer has gone even further and found that it 
 
34 
 
 The Rural Library. 
 
 pays him to sell his nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid — combined with 
 tvaler — in the finished state, and buy them dry in the crude state. 
 
 We are on the eve of a wonderful development in scientific farming. 
 Driven by ambition, by scientific investigation, or by poverty, farmers are 
 coming nearer and nearer to the truths that underlie a rational and profit- 
 able treatment of the soil. The faith that one inch added to the tillable 
 depth of one acre of land is worth more than the whole surface of five new 
 acres, is the rock upon which American agriculture must fasten itself. 
 There is hope and prosperity in the future for the farmer who will be true 
 to his farm. No naturally good land within reasonable distance of a mar- 
 ket need ever be turned out as a pauper or helpless cripple. 
 
 
Chemicals and Qlover 
 
 Farming with Concentrated Dung 
 
 A RECORD OF 
 
 Successful Farm Operations in New Jersey, where High-Grade 
 
 Complete Manures and Sod supply a Cheaper Manure 
 
 than that obtained from keeping Live Stock 
 
 HERBERT IV. COLUNGIVOOD 
 
 Managing Editor of The Rural New-Yorker. 
 
 New York 
 
 The Rural Publishing Company 
 
 Times Building 
 
Other Numbers of 
 THE RURAL LIBRARY SERIES. 
 
 Issued (Monthly. $? a Year. 
 
 THE TUBEROUS BEGONIA. Illustrated. 20 cts. 
 
 RATS, How to Rid Buildings of. 20 cts. 
 
 HOW TO PLANT A PLACE. 60 illustrations. A 
 
 concise guide for popular us e. 20 cts. 
 THE BUSINESS HEN. Breeding and Feeding 
 
 Poultry for Profit. By H. W. Collingwood. 
 
 Double number. 40 cts. 
 
 CROSS BREEDING AND HYBRIDIZING. The 
 
 Philosophy of theCrossingof Plants,Considered 
 with Reference to their Cultivation. 40 cts. 
 
 Other Announcements to Follow. 
 
 copyrighted, 1892, by 
 
 The Rural Publishing Company. 
 
 electrotyped and printed 8y 
 
 The Rural Publishino Company. 
 
SECRETS of SUCCESS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 many Years of Experienced Farming. 
 
 Farmers of but scanty means, 
 On whom the arm of Progress leans, 
 Your effort should be, to advance — 
 Your time improve; your crops enhance; 
 Your rights enforce; your wrongs redress - 
 Here read the Secrets of Success. 
 
 SECRETS OF SUCCESS 
 Contains Much 
 Practical and Available 
 Information. 
 
 THfc MOST COMMON-SENSE, PRACTICAL 
 
 FARMER'S BOOK EVER PUT IN PRINT. 
 
 Many copies have been sold without one single complaint. It 
 meets the approval of the best farmers of the country, as our 
 methods the past season produced 
 
 6,500 bushels of farm cereals, consisting 1 of Potatoes, 
 600 bushels per acre ; wheat, 48 to 52 bushels per 
 acre; Oats, 108 bushels (weighing- 49 pounds per 
 bushel) ; Corn, 100 bushels per acre ; Beans, 104 
 bushels ; Rye 78 bushels — all from 40 acres. 
 The methods treated upon in SECRETS OF SUCCESS are Inten- 
 sive or Diversified Farming, which means small farms -well tilled. 
 We could produce a book of testimonials to the grand success ob- 
 tained by purchasers of SECRETS OF SUCCESS. Bound in cloth. 
 Contains 368 pages. Mailed, post paid, on receipt of price, $1.25- 
 All the proceeds from the Gilt-Edge Farm find ready sale for seed 
 purposes, for which we issue an Annual Seed Catalogue — mailed 
 free to all who -wish first-class seed. We offer none except of our 
 own growing. Address 
 
 Lock-Box ij6y. 
 
 H. H. DEYEERE, 
 
 The Gilt-Edge Farm, Piqua, Ohio. 
 
KffiD! READ! RfflD! 
 
 T 
 
 HE INFORMATION on this page is worth a $10 bill to every practical 
 farmer. Read it through carefully. It won't take you over five min- 
 utes. Pretty good pay, you say ($2 a minute), but it's a fact. Every 
 farmer has read of, and many farmers throughout: the entire country 
 have used with great success, the 
 
 Breed U/eeder, 
 
 The subject of level and shallow cultivation having been well written up dur- 
 ing the last twelve months. In nearly every article you will read : "The 
 Breed Weeder is conspicuously mentioned as the implement for this work." 
 
 The Rural New-Yorker, October 3, 1891, in answer to a correspondent, 
 says : " We think Breed's Weeder would prove as effective as any other one 
 tool in killing small weeds. 
 
 It is the only tool necessary for the complete cultivation of all farm crops 
 during the first month of their growth. Read what noted farmers say re- 
 garding it : 
 
 " While-one row of potatoes was being hoed by hand, it being too near the edge to use 
 the weeder, my son hoed, with the Weeder and one horse, and more thoroughly, thirty- 
 six rows. I must have two next year." — T. B. Terry. 
 
 " I regard Breed's Weeder as one of the most valuable implements a farmer can afford 
 to employ." — J. J. Thomas, Inventor of the Smoothing- Harrow. 
 
 ' ' We are using the Weeder to-day on a field of potatoes a foot high, and it does the 
 best work it has done yet, for we have hit just the right condition of the soil.'." — Waldo 
 F. Brown. 
 
 " Your Weeder is about all that can be asked for as a weed-killer and surface-pulver- 
 jzer." — John Gould. 
 
 " Its advantage is that it can comb out all the fine weeds from the hills of corn and 
 potatoes better than the harrow, and later in the season, and so fully supersede the hoe, 
 doing better work than the hoe can, and doing it ten times as fast. I predict that it will 
 come into very wide general use among progressive farmers everywhere on decent soil." 
 — W. I. Chamberlain, formerly of the Iowa Agricultural College. 
 
 "I have only words of commendation for your Weeder.''— Chas. W. Blew, Manager 
 of the Northwestern Agriculturist. 
 
 ' ' I have just finished digging 2,600 bushels of potatoes from eight acres which were 
 cultivated with the Weeder. The weeds from the entire piece you could carry off in your 
 coat pocket. So much for the Weeder."— J. H. Warn , Potato- Grower, Richards, Ohio. 
 
 Now, what do you think of it ? Don't you believe that you need one ? Is 
 it not better to let your horse do your hoeing, if it can be done equally well 
 and ten times as rapidly ? It is in the line of progressive farming. It is in 
 the line of scientific farming. If the farmer of to-day is to keep up with the 
 procession of progress, he must look carefully into the merits of all imple- 
 ments which are intended and adapted to further his interests. In order to 
 get more full information, send postal card with your address upon it. Don't 
 delay. Write plainly to 
 
 THE UMVraL WEEDER COnnMT. 
 
 North Weare, N. H. 
 
 Or, THE GEO. L. SQUIER MFG. CO., General Agents, New York City. 
 
SECRETS of SUCCESS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 many Years or Experienced Farming. 
 
 Farmers of but scanty means, 
 On whom the arm of Progress leans, 
 Your effort should be, to advance — 
 Your time improve; your crops enhance; 
 Your rights enforce; your wrongs redress — 
 Here read the Secrets of Success. 
 
 SECRETS OF SUCCESS 
 Contains Much 
 Practical and Available 
 Information. 
 
 THfc MOST COMMON-SENSE, PRACTICAL 
 
 FARMER'S BOOK EVER PUT IN PRINT. . . • 
 
 Many copies have been sold -without one single complaint. It 
 meets the approval of the best farmers of the country, as our 
 methods the past season produced 
 
 6,500 bushels of farm cereals, consisting of Potatoes, 
 600 bushels per acre ; wheat, 48 to 52 bushels per 
 acre; Oats, 108 bushels (weighing- 49 pounds per 
 bushel) ; Corn, lOO bushels per acre ; Beans, 104 
 bushels ; Rye 78 bushels— all from 40 acres. 
 The methods treated upon in SECRETS OF SUCCESS are Inten- 
 sive or Diversified Farming-, which means small farms well tilled. 
 We could produce a book of testimonials to the grand success ob- 
 tained by purchasers of SECRETS OF SUCCESS. Bound in cloth. 
 Contains 368 pages. Mailed, post- paid, on receipt of price, $1.25. 
 All the proceeds from the Gilt-Edge Farm find ready sale for seed 
 purposes, for which we issue an Annual Seed Catalogue — mailed 
 free to all who wish first-class seed. We offer none except of our 
 own growing. Address 
 
 Lock-Box fj6y. 
 
 M. H. DEYEERE, 
 
 The Gilt-Edge Farm, Piqua, Ohio. 
 
KERD! READ! RfflD! 
 
 T 
 
 HE INFORMATION on this page is worth a $10 bill to every practical 
 farmer. Read it through carefully. It won't take you over five min- 
 utes. Pretty good pay, you say ($2 a minute), but it's a fact. Every 
 farmer has read of, and many farmers throughout j the entire country 
 have used with great success, the 
 
 Breed U/eeder, 
 
 The subject of level and shallow cultivation having been well written up dur- 
 ing the last twelve months. In nearly every article you will read : "The 
 Breed Weeder is conspicuously mentioned as the implement for this work." 
 
 The Rural New-Yorker, October 3, 1891, in answer to a correspondent, 
 says : " We think Breed's Weeder would prove as effective as any other one 
 tool in killing small weeds. 
 
 It is the only tool necessary for the complete cultivation of all farm crops 
 during the first month of their growth. Read what noted farmers say re- 
 garding it : 
 
 " While-one row of potatoes was being hoed by hand, it being too near the edge to use 
 the weeder, my son hoed, with the Weeder and one horse, and more thoroughly, thirty- 
 six rows. I must have two next year." — T. B. Terry. 
 
 " I regard Breed's Weeder as one of the most v.aluable implements a farmer can afford 
 to employ." — J. J. Thomas, Inventor of the Smoothing- harrow. 
 
 "We are using the Weeder to-day on a field of potatoes a foot high, and it does the 
 best work it has done yet, for we have hit just the right condition of the soil.'." — Waldo 
 F. Brown. 
 
 " Your Weeder is about all that can be asked for as a weed-killer and surface-pulver- 
 izer."— John Gould. 
 
 " Its advantage is that it can comb out all the fine weeds from the hills of corn and 
 potatoes better than the harrow, and later in the season, and so fully supersede the hoe, 
 doing better work than the hoe can, and doing it ten times as fast. I predict that it will 
 come into very wide general use among progressive farmers everywhere on decent soil." 
 — W. I. Chamberlain, formerly of the Iowa Agricultural College. 
 
 "I have only words of commendation for your Weeder." — Chas. W. Blew, Manager 
 of the Northwestern Agriculturist. 
 
 ''I have just finished digging 2,600 bushels of potatoes from eight acres which were 
 cultivated with the Weeder. The weeds from the entire piece you could carry off in your 
 coat pocket. So much for the Weeder." — J. H. W arn , Potato-Grower , Richards, Ohio. 
 
 Now, what do you think of it ? Don't you believe that you need one ? Is 
 it not better to let your horse do your hoeing, if it can be done equally well 
 and ten times as rapidly ? It is in the line of progressive farming. It is in 
 the line of scientific farming. If the farmer of to-day is to keep up with the 
 procession of pi*ogress, he must look carefully into the merits of all imple- 
 ments which are intended and adapted to further his interests. In order to 
 get more full information, send postal card with your address upon it. Don't 
 delay. Write plainly to 
 
 Tffl UniVOTL WEEDER COIfiM, 
 
 North Weare, N. H. 
 
 Or, THE GEO. L. SQUIER MFG. CO., General Agents, New York City. 
 
> 
 
 CO 
 
 2 
 
 > 
 
 r 
 r 
 
 S 
 
 > 
 
 2 
 C 
 
 ■n 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 H 
 C 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CD 
 CD 
 
 < 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
Pallets Sent Free fig tie mapes Oompai 
 
 /. POTATO-GROWING. 
 
 American Agriculturist Great Prize Crop Contest. Potatoes, Corn, Wheat, 
 Oats. How the two largest crops of Potatoes ever grown with fertilizers or 
 manure (847 and 745 bushels per acre) were raised with the MAPES POTATO 
 MANURE exclusively. Over 6, 100 bushels of Potatoes on a 20-acre field at Free- 
 hold, New Jersey, Season 1890. This field " was formerly the poorest on the farm ; 
 rarely, in former years, did this farm, with farm manure, bone and marl, and under 
 favorable conditions, produce 20 bushels of wheat or 40 to 50 barrels of potatoes 
 per acre." Since the commencement of the use of the MAPES MANURES, some 
 15 years ago, the land has become so much improved that the crops for six years 
 and over have averaged Nearly Double those of former years. Other farms 
 brought up from poor to good condition, and with profit from thestart, by the MAPES 
 SYSTEM of manuring on a five-year rotation : One ton per acre of the MAPES 
 POTATO MANURE on potatoes; succeeding crops, wheat, grass (two years or 
 more), corn with little or no additional fertilizer. Full details given. 
 
 2. TOBACCO-GROWING. 
 
 Suggestions for more successful competition against Sumatra wrapper leaf. 
 Remarkable results with the MAPES TOBACCO MANURE in Massachusetts, 
 Connecticut and Pennsylvania in producing Yield, Quality, Good Burn, High 
 Finish, etc. 2,400 pounds Havana-leaf per acre on an average for five years in 
 Connecticut by an old user of the MAPES MANURE. 
 
 Colored photographs of Havana-leaf (crop 1891), grown exclusively with the 
 MAPES TOBACCO MANURE, showing Fine Texture, Finish and High Value for 
 wrappers, as compared with crops grown with stable manure, cotton-seed meal, 
 etc. Highest market prices obtained. 
 
 Front Hural New-Yorker, December 23, 1891. 
 
 PRIME AMERICAN TOBACCO.— One of the handsomest and most unique 
 circulars ever issued is the special Tobacco circular sent out by the Mapes Formula 
 and Peruvian Guano Company, of this city. It shows three tobacco leaves, photo- 
 graphed and printed in natural colors, so that each vein and tint is faithfullyrepro- 
 duced. The difference in appearance between tobacco grown with the Mapes 
 manures and farm manures with cotton-seed meal is thus seen at a glance. It is an 
 original and striking device. Mr. Mapes is confident that American tobacco, equal 
 in all respects to the imported article, can be grown on American soil. "Mapes 
 and McKinley " seem a popular combination in the Connecticut valley. 
 
 4. DESCRIPTIVE PAMPHLET. 
 
 The MAPES MANURES and How to Use Them on Truck, Cabbage, Cauli- 
 flower, Sugar-Beets, Tomatoes (for canning), Onions, Celery, Rhubarb, Top-dress- 
 ing Grass or Lawns, Seedinar to Grass, Orchards, Tobacco, Small Fruits, Grapes 
 find General Farm Crops. This is our General Pamphlet covering all crops 
 
 This Descriptive Pamphlet is arranged for easy reference to any crop. It should 
 he in the hands of every farmer, fruit-grower, trucker and special crop-grower. 
 Apply for pamphlets to us or to any of our agents. 
 
 The Mapes Formula and Peruvian Guano Co., 113 Liberty Street, New York. 
 
 The Mapes Man I 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS rs«y. 
 
 Hill III ill III I II' 'ery section of the country. 
 
 002 755 484 2