The Prairie Farmer, Vol. 56, No. 2, January 12, 1884 - A Weekly Journal for the Farm, Orchard and Fireside

Various

Informations

• Publié par: phoog
• Publié le: 08 décembre 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 44
• Langue: English

Extrait

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Prairie Farmer, Vol. 56, No. 2, January
12, 1884, by Various
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Prairie Farmer, Vol. 56, No. 2, January 12, 1884
A Weekly Journal for the Farm, Orchard and Fireside
Author: Various
Release Date: February 5, 2006 [EBook #17683]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRAIRIE FARMER, VOL. 56 ***
Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Susan Skinner and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
[Pg 17]
ESTABLISHED IN
1841. CHICAGO, SATURDAY, PRICE, $2.00 PER YEAR,
ENTIRE SERIES: VOL. IN ADVANCE.JANUARY 12, 1884.
56—No. 2.
[Transcriber's Note: The Table of Contents was originally located on page 24 of
the periodical. It has been moved here for ease of use.]
THE CONTENTS OF THIS NUMBER.Agriculture—Dew and Soil Moisture, Page 17; Specialty in Farming, 17; Public
Squares in Small Cities, 17-18; Farm Names, 18; Diogenes In His Tub, 18;
Field and Furrow, 18-19; Agricultural Organizations, 19; Didn't No. 38 Die Hard,
19; A Grange Temple, 19.
Live Stock—Items, Page 20; Swine Statistics, 20; Iowa Stock Breeders, 20; The
Horse and His Treatment, 20; Items, 20-21.
The Dairy—Winter Feed for Cows, Page 21; Churning Temperature, 21; Seas
of Milk, 21.
Veterinary—About Soundness, Page 21; Questions Answered, 21.
Horticulture—The Hedge Question, Page 22; Young Men Wanted, 22;
Possibilities of Iowa Cherry Growing, 22-23; Prunings, 23.
Floriculture—Gleanings by an Old Florist, Page 23.
Editorial—Items, Page 24; Illinois State Board, 24-25; Sorghum at Washington,
25; The Cold Spell, 25; American Ash, 25; Wayside Notes, 25; Letter from
Champaign, 25.
Poultry Notes—A Duck Farm, Page 26.
The Apiary—Apiary Appliances, Page 26; What Should be Worked For, 26.
Scientific—The Star of Bethlehem, Page 27.
Household—How the Robin Came, Poem, Page 28; After Twenty Years, 28;
Will Readers Try It, 28; The Secret of Longevity, 28; How the Inventor Plagues
His Wife, 28; Recipes, 28; Pamphlets, etc., Received, 28.
Young Folks—The City Cat, Poem, Page 29; Amusing Tricks, 29; Bright
Sayings, 29; Compiled Correspondence, 29.
Literature—The Wrong Pew, Poem, Page 30; Yik Kee, 30-31.
Humorous—"A Leedle Mistakes," Page 31; Sharper Than a Razor, 31; A
Coming Dividend, 31.
News of the Week—Page 31.
Markets—Page 32.
Dew and Soil Moisture.
Bulletin No. 6 of Missouri Agricultural College Farm is devoted to an account of
experiments intended to demonstrate the relation of dew to soil moisture. Prof.
Sanborn has prosecuted his work with that patience and faithfulness
characteristic of him, and the result is of a most interesting and useful nature.
The Professor begins by saying that many works on physics, directly or by
implication, assert that the soil, by a well-known physical law, gains moisture
from the air by night. One author says "Cultivated soils, on the contrary (being
loose and porous), very freely radiate by night the heat which they absorb by
day; in consequence of which they are much cooled down and plentifully
condense the vapor of air into dew." Not all scientific works, however, make this
incautious application of the fact that dew results from the condensation ofmoisture of the air in contact with cooler bodies. Farmers have quite universally
accepted the view quoted, and believe that soils gain moisture by night from the
air. This gain is considered of very great importance in periods of droughts, and
is used in arguments favoring certain methods of tillage.
Professor Stockbridge, in 1879, at the Massachusetts Agricultural College,
carried on very valuable and full experiments in test of this general belief, and
arrived at results contradictory of this belief. He found, in a multitude of tests,
that in every instance, save one, for the months from May to November, that the
surface soil from one to five inches deep, was warmer than the air instead of
cooler, as the law requires for condensation of moisture from the air. That
exception was in the center of a dense forest, under peculiar atmospheric
conditions. After noting these facts, ingenious methods were employed to test
more directly the proposition that soil gains moisture from the air by night, with
the result that he announced that soils lose moisture by night. Professor
Stockbridge's efforts met with some criticism, and his conclusions did not
receive the wide acceptance that his view of the question justifies. In reasoning
from observation, Professor Stockbridge noted that the bottom of a heap of hay,
during harvesting, would be wet in the morning, the under side of a board wet in
the morning, and so of the other objects named. In the progress of tillage
experiments related in his Bulletins Nos. 3 and 5, Prof. Sanborn's attention was
again called to this question, resulting in the prosecution of direct tests of the
soil moisture itself. When completed it is thought that there will then no longer
be occasion to reason from assumed premises regarding the matter. The trials
were begun late, and under disadvantages; and are to be understood as
preliminary to more complete tests during 1884. The experiments were all
conducted upon a soil bare of vegetation.
Prof. Sanborn concludes from his experiments thus far that the surface gains
moisture from soil beneath it by capillary action, but gathers nothing from the
air. This is made strongly probable, if not shown; first, because the soil is
warmer by night than the air. (He relies upon other facts than his own for this
assertion.) 2nd. Because he found more moisture in the soil when covered over
night than when left bare. 3d. Because when hoed, thereby disturbing capillary
action, he found less moisture than when unhoed, in surface soil. Finally, he
concludes the position proven, for, when he shut off the upward flow of water to
the surface of the soil, he found not only less moisture above the cut off or in the
surface soil than where no disturbance of capillary action had been made, but
actually less moisture in the surface soil than the night before. Strongly
corroborating this conclusion is the fact that all of the tests conspire to show that
the gain of moisture in the surface of the soil by night is traceable to one source,
and only one source.AMERICAN ASH.—See Page 25.
The facts of this bulletin accord with the previous ones in showing that
mulching and frequent shallow tillage economize the moisture of the soil and
add new proof of this to those already given.
Specialty in Farming.
This subject in my estimation should begin to attract attention, especially
among the large land owners and farmers of the West. If we study the whole
catalogue of money-making enterprises and money-making men, we find that
the greatest success has been attained where there has been the greatest
concentration on a special line of work. True, it is, that specialists are subject to
unexpected changes of the times, and if thrown out of their employment are not
well prepared for other work, and yet their chances for success as compared
with the "general idea" man are as ten to one.
For an example look at science. How has it advanced? Is it not by the
invaluable aid of men who have given their whole lives to the solution of some
special problem? It could not be otherwise. If every scientist had attempted to
master the majority of scientific truths before he was contented to concentrate
his time on some special branch of science, science would have progressed
little or none at all. Linnæus opened the way in botany, and the world profited
by his blunders. But to be brief—it seems to me that the most successful farmer
in the future is to be the man who can so arrange his work that he is led into the
deepest research on some one branch of farming. He must be a specialist. Hemust thoroughly master the raising of fine stock for breeding purposes, for
practical profit and the shambles. Attend stock associations, and hear
witnesses testify on every hand to the difficulties connected with properly
rearing calves for breeding purposes.
The honest breeder, though full of ideas, acknowledges he knows but very little
on breeding. His time in farm life, for twenty years or more has been devoted to
too many things. Is not the expert swine-grower the successful man? Books are
something, but practical experience is something more. It matters little however
practical the author of a work on agricultural science may be, unless the man
who reads has some practical experience, his application of the author's truths
will be a total failure.
We insist, therefore, that the successful farmer must be a specialist. He must
devote his time to special more than to general farm work. You ask me to
outline in detail the idea thus advanced. You somewhat question its
practicability. To attempt it might lead to endless discussion, but let us reduce
to example. Farmer A. raises cattle, hogs, and sheep for breeding purp