Part 37

Observe that the largest yields have been secured, as an average for the three years from July and August plowing seven inches deep. The July listing has ranked next to early plowing, but yielding on the average nearly five bushels less wheat per acre than early plowing, or a decrease in yield of 14 per cent. The decrease in yield from listing was less in the dry year of 1910-11.

All of the higher yielding plots were cultivated at intervals after plowing or listing with the harrow, disk or Acme. Thus the weeds were destroyed, the soil was well pulverized and well settled and put into excellent seed-bed condition by the first of October, when the wheat was planted.

One or two cultivations after August plowing, at an extra cost of thirty-five cents to fifty cents per acre, has given an average increase in the yield of wheat of three and a half bushels per acre. Land disked before plowing, July 15, and plowed August 15, 1910, gave an increase in yield of five bushels per acre in 1911.

Deep plowing in July, 1910, gave nearly five bushels more wheat per acre in 1911 than shallow plowing. As an average for the several seasons, the September shallow plowing has given a little larger yield than the deeper plowing.

The beneficial effect of early plowing and of frequent cultivation after plowing in preparing the seed-bed for fall wheat was most marked in the dry season of 1910-11, when plowing a month later each time decreased the yield at the rate of ten and one-half to twelve bushels per acre.

The preparation with the lister has proved to be a little less effective than early plowing, but has given better results than early disking followed by plowing a month later. Filling the furrows by harrowing, versus splitting the lister ridges and leveling with the harrow have given about equal results. The second listing is not necessary and makes the preparation somewhat more expensive. Preparing the seed-bed by listing and harrowing is cheaper than early plowing and frequent cultivation. The largest yield and largest net income, however, has been secured from early plowing followed by sufficient cultivation to kill weeds and maintain a mellow soil mulch.

Preparing the seed-bed by disking has given the lowest yields and least income. The disked land has produced on the average each year eighteen bushels less wheat per acre than early plowing. That is, the well prepared seed-bed has given 114 per cent the greater yield, or more than double the yield of the poorly prepared seed-bed, and at very little greater cost of preparation.

The next lowest yield was produced by late plowing, a week or two before the wheat was planted. The average decrease in yield from September plowing compared with July plowing was over twelve bushels per acre per annum, or early plowing increased the yield fifty-four per cent. In the drier seasons of 1910-11 the difference was greater, the early plowing producing more than double the yield received from the late plowing.

“Disking in” wheat in the dry season resulted in an almost complete crop failure, giving a small yield of only four bushels per acre; compared with thirty-eight bushels per acre produced by deep early plowing. This is certainly a marked example of the value of “proper” cultivation in preparing the seed-bed for wheat.

The seed-bed for corn should be deeper and more mellow than the seed-bed for wheat, and the early cultivation of the corn land previous to planting may cause a marked increase in yield, as shown by experiments which have been recently completed at the Kansas Station. These experiments relate to different methods of tillage which may be practiced during the winter or early spring in preparing the seed-bed for corn, and include deep and shallow plowing, double disking, and listing, namely, plowing land into ridges with a double mold-board plow or lister.

In these experiments corn has usually been planted in listed furrows, except that the surface and lister methods of planting have been compared each year on the plowed plots. Table II gives the yield of shelled corn per acre secured by the continued practice of the methods described, for a period of six years. The average yield for three years (1906-08) and for six years (1903-08) is also given.

TABLE II.—PREPARATION OF SEED-BED FOR CORN.

+----------+-----------------------------------+-----+----- | | Yield Per Acre in Bushels. | Average | Method +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 3 | 6 Early | of | | | | | | |Years|Years Treatment. | Planting.|1903 |1904 |1905 |1906 |1907 |1908 |1906-|1903- | | | | | | | |1908 |1908 -------------+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Disked twice |Listed |68.61|55.12|34.74|70.29|41.30|73.60|61.73|57.28 Disked twice,| | | | | | | | | harrowed |Listed |65.18|50.27|41.48|75.34|44.38|78.80|66.17|59.24 Listed |Listed | | | | | | | | | in old | | | | | | | | | furrows | — | — |44.00|80.10|49.81|70.40|66.77| — Listed |Listed | | | | | | | | | breaking| | | | | | | | | ridges |74.28|52.37|40.40|82.29|45.31|74.00|67.20|61.44 Untreated |Listed |64.14|58.35|38.17|68.61|40.87|72.40|60.63|57.09 Plowed | | | | | | | | | shallow |Listed |64.26|54.96|40.82|84.23|55.48|76.90|72.20|62.28 -------------+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Average of | |66.69|54.21|39.94|76.81|46.19|74.35|65.78|59.47 listed | | | | | | | | | -------------+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Plowed |Surface | | | | | | | | shallow | planted | — | — |42.40|71.90|46.87|68.40|62.39| — Plowed | | | | | | | | | deep | |73.74|70.95|41.66|81.89|51.28|75.40|69.46|65.79 -------------+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Av. of | | | | | | | | | surface | | | | | | | | | planted | |73.74|70.95|42.03|76.80|49.08|71.90|65.93|65.79 -------------+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

While the relative yields vary somewhat from year to year, it is very clear that the early plowing and early listing have given increased yields of corn, ranging from six to twelve bushels per acre for the three years, and four to five bushels per acre as an average for six years.

As an average for three years the double disking and harrowing early in the spring has given an increased yield of five and one-half bushels of corn per acre. It will be observed that in the above comparison all of the corn was planted in listed furrows.

Comparing the two methods of planting it appears that the highest yield for three years was produced by listing in the early shallow plowed land: The average yield for six years, however, was 3.3 bushels per acre in favor of the surface method of planting.

The results may be explained by the fact that the seasons of 1904 and 1905 were very wet, hence there was less necessity of conserving soil moisture, and the early cultivation gave little benefit, while the lister method of planting was placed at a disadvantage. The method of planting corn in listed furrows is adapted to dry climate and warm soil. Corn planted in the bottom of a furrow four to six inches deep develops a deeper root system than surface planted corn; hence listed corn is not readily injured by drouth. The effect on the root system is shown by the study of corn roots made at the Station.[9]

[9] See Bulletins 127 and 147.

It is quite evident that the best method of preparing the seed-bed for corn and the best method of planting corn will vary for different climatic and soil conditions. Yet it is very important that the farmer test these methods and determine which is the better for his particular conditions, since the method of seed-bed preparation and the method of planting may be very important factors in securing large yields.

In the cultivation experiments carried on at the Station during the past six years the practice has been to “lay the corn by” with a final cultivation about the first of July. In these experiments the plan has been to cultivate duplicate plots by four different methods, as follows: shallow; deep; deep early and shallow late; shallow early and deep late. The shallow cultivation has been performed with the knife or gopher type of cultivator, while for the deep cultivation, the six-shovel cultivator has been used.

The plan has been not to cultivate excessively deep but only medium deep, three to four inches. The depth of the surface cultivation has averaged one and one-half to two inches. The corn has usually been cultivated four times each season, and the practice has been to cultivate by the same method twice in succession those plots in which the method of cultivation was changed during the season, that is, certain plots were cultivated shallow at the first two cultivations and deep at the last two cultivations, and vice versa. The yield of shelled corn each year and the average yield for seven years, by the different methods of cultivation, are given in Table III.

TABLE III.—CULTIVATION EXPERIMENTS WITH CORN, 1903-1909.

+-----------------------------------------+------------- | Yield of Corn Per Acre, Bushels. | Average +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 3 | 7 Method of | | | | | | | |years,|years, Cultivating. |1903 |1904 |1905 |1906 |1907 |1908 |1909 |1907- |1903- | | | | | | | |1909 |1909 ----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------ Shallow, |51.65|57.51|45.64|56.19|41.21|75.72|35.1 |50.69 |51.86 1 to 2 inches | | | | | | | | | Shallow, early; |52.96|57.25|49.68|51.67|42.17|87.12|34.7 |54.66 |53.56 deep, late | | | | | | | | | Deep, |50.87|53.98|50.86|50.55|38.73|78.81|33.7 |56.41 |51.07 3 to 4 inches | | | | | | | | | Deep, early; |53.66|49.62|49.39|50.09|43.11|76.93|31.3 |50.45 |50.30 shallow, late | | | | | | | | | Wrong time | — | — | — | — | — |79.7 |44.1 |61.9 | Right time | — | — | — | — | — |82.9 |51.2 |67.0 | ----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------

The average yield for the seven years favors the shallow-early-deep-late cultivation by a little over three bushels per acre per year, when compared with the deep-early-shallow-late cultivation, which gave the lowest average yield.

The variation in yield by the different methods of cultivation from year to year and the nearly uniform average yields for the long period of seven years, indicate that the method of cultivation practiced, whether shallow or deep, may not make much difference in the yield of the crop, provided the cultivation is done well and at the right time.

The factors heretofore described, which have to do with seed germination and plant growth, are largely controlled by cultivation. There are, perhaps, no exact rules or methods for cultivating corn, but a farmer observing the crop and soil conditions, and understanding the principles of soil cultivation, may vary the manner and practice of cultivation somewhat to suit the conditions and accomplish the objects desired.

It is very important to cultivate corn at the “right” time. An experiment which has been carried on for two years in cultivating corn at the “right” time and the “wrong” time, has resulted as follows:

Average yield for “wrong” time cultivation, 61.9 bushels per acre. Average yield for “right” time cultivation, sixty-seven bushels per acre, or six and one-tenth bushels per acre in favor of cultivating the corn at the “right” time. The “right” time means soon after the rain, when the weeds have started and the soil is just dry enough to cultivate well; the wrong time is a week or ten days later, when the weeds have become larger and the soil is hard and dry and turns over in clods and lumps. It costs more to cultivate corn at the “wrong” time than at the “right” time, because of the slower and more difficult work and greater draft of the cultivator due to unfavorable soil conditions—and yet the “right” time cultivation increased the yield 10 per cent.

It is important also to use the best implements, but doing the work well and at the right time is even more important than the type of cultivator used. No one type of cultivator can be recommended as superior to others, but different kinds of cultivators are useful for different work and for different conditions. The corn grower should have more than one kind of corn cultivator. I prefer at least two types, one for shallow and one for deep cultivation. The knife and shovel cultivators serve their purpose well, but the disk cultivator may be used in place of shovels, and is especially recommended for use during the early cultivation of listed corn.

It is possible, as shown by the work at the Station, for the wheat farmer who will practice the best culture methods, to increase his yield of winter wheat 50 to 100 per cent by careful and proper preparation of the seed-bed, with practically no greater cost for cultivation (See Table I.).

The skillful corn grower may readily increase his corn yields five bushels per acre by a little extra cultivation of the corn land early in the spring before planting. He may add another five bushels to the crop by practicing the correct method of planting, which experience has proved to be the most suitable to his soil and climate. And finally, by the simple factor of sufficient cultivation of corn at the right time and in the right way he may still further increase the yield at the rate of ten bushels per acre.

Thus it is possible for the farmer who is not now doing these things to add 40 per cent to the average corn yield of his farm by practicing improved culture methods. The yield of other crops may be likewise increased, but the farmer should bear in mind this fact: that the increase in yield by better culture may be secured only by maintaining the fertility of the land and planting well-bred seed adapted to the soil and climate.

THE CHURCH IN THE OPEN COUNTRY.

BY WARREN H. WILSON, _Superintendent of the Department of Church and Country Life of the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church of the United States_.

It is my purpose to answer the question, “What is the use of the church in the open country?” We have some people who call themselves “spiritual,” who do not believe there is any permanent use of a church. Their religion consists of an insurance against fire; and as soon as they get a policy from an evangelist, they have no more use of a church, certainly not of a strong church. I want to speak to you of the church as an efficient institution, the builder of rural civilization.

We have other folk who are without land and without ownership of productive tools; they are under economic pressure; they are our American poor. They think they cannot afford anything that is not a necessity. I am here to argue that the church in the open country is a necessity, especially to the poor.

We have also some theorists, who believe that all rural institutions should be assembled in towns and villages, and that ultimately the farmers should reside there, going out every morning to their fields. I hope the time will never come when American farmers will so live. And I wish to speak to you of the church in the open country as the conserver of the soil, of the social life, the family and the school in the country.

The first reason for the existence of the church in the open country is the fact that “the soil is holy.” Already we are faced with a depleted soil in some of our richest agricultural states. But when the soil produces less, the poor will have to pay more for food and for wearing apparel. We have been warned that the time will come when the workingman cannot any longer wear wool or eat white bread. I have observed in the last two years that the clothes which I buy from a tailor who has supplied me for seventeen years do not any longer attract the moths. The moth turns up his nose at cotton, and cries for wool. The business of the farmer and of the sheep raiser is a religious business, because it is in the interest of the whole people. Whatever makes for the prosperity of the farmer will enrich and dignify all the people. The church is an institution essential to good farming, and it should be maintained where the farmer lives, out in the open fields.

Religion is a valuation of life. It values some things high, and some low, but it is, in the opinion of a recent scholar of repute, a system of values. Its highest word is “holy.” The land in which the Hebrews were settled was called “the Holy Land,” and nowadays the teachers of modern farming are declaring to the young, “The land is holy.” At a recent summer school for country ministers a professor lectured upon “the Holy Land,” meaning Palestine; and a great agriculturist came also to lecture upon the soil of the state in which the school was held, announcing his theme as “The Holy Earth.” We are entering a new era in religion, in which the values of life will be estimated by their services to the poor. In this consecration of the soil to the interest of the whole people the church of the open country will have a great place.

I know a minister in Maryland, where the soil has been exhausted by generations of peach-culture, and the farmers are turning to other crops in order to make a living. There the minister has found that his business is to preach scientific agriculture, and his most impressive service has been to raise a great crop of potatoes, with a dust mulch, the greatest ever raised at that time in that region. He became the leader of those farmers in the actual struggle for a livelihood. He helped them set their business on a firm footing. He preached as he worked, and his people responded accordingly.

The second reason for the maintaining of the church in the open country is the fact that it is the best school by which to teach the farmers to give of their prosperity to the community and to the common good. Farming is an austere occupation. The best farmers are always economically austere, which is defined by an economist as “the condition in which men produce much and consume little.” The very definition shows that of all occupations farming must be the most austere. But the practice of this austerity makes the farmer close and often mean. He stints himself and he stints everybody else. He refuses to support good roads, and he declines to pay for better schools because he is not a spender but a producer.

The church, of all institutions, makes the closest and most intimate appeal to the farmer. It is his school of giving. It has an agent living in the community, needing to be supported. The salary of the minister, and the supplying of his needs, are a constant education in the building of community utilities. The schools will be better maintained, the roads will be sooner reconstructed, even at greater cost, and the poor will be better cared for, where the church exists in the open country; to fertilize, with its appeals, the sour soil of the farmers’ austerity, with the needed ingredients for benevolence.

The third reason for the church in the open country is the fact that the church is a family builder. The rural household, which for three generations was the spring of American idealism, has been dissolved, in the past twenty years, by speculation. The exploitation of farm lands has made so many families nomads, and has retired so many farmers to the towns, that there is need of a new era of home building in the country.

The best fitted of all institutions for this service is the church. Her work, as she well knows, is with the young. Her membership is always made up largely of women, and with them lies the future of the American home in the country. The moving force in the exodus from the farm is too often the woman. The church will do more to make life worth while for her on the farm than all other institutions.

The fourth use of the church in the open country is as a center of the concern for the farmer’s income. The church in the country which does not sanctify the livelihood of the farmer will not survive. “The most successful farmers in America,” says an economist, “are the Mormons, the Scotch Presbyterians and the Pennsylvania Dutch.” All these are religious farmers, and their churches are their coöperative associations for farming. They all idealize country life. They are organized for agriculture. But, mark this, in all these country churches—and their churches are out in the open—the church has concern for the prosperity of its farmers as farmers. The income is the man’s job, and when the church would get the men it will care for the income. The Lord Almighty cares more for the feeding of the whole people than for any other thing. First of all God is the Father of men, and He cares most for their satisfaction in material things than for their having books, or for their having any of the higher refinements. If the people have not abundance of food and warm clothing, all moral and religious values will suffer. Therefore the farmer is the Lord’s hired man; and the church’s first business in the open country is “to produce the spirit in which the knowledge will be used, which will enable the farmer to succeed.”

The transition in economic affairs, through which we are passing, is working its effects upon the country churches. For the church is the best of all thermometers of the social economy. Many churches in the country are being closed. In the South alone, according to the Southern Baptist organ, sixteen hundred Baptist and Methodist country churches are closed every Sunday of the year. In the state of Illinois, our sociological surveys have shown that about seventeen hundred country churches have been closed and abandoned. It is the elimination of the unfit. It is the realignment of the religious people for greater efficiency, at new centers. There is no sign that country people are less religious than they were. But there is every indication that the churches are being sifted on the principle of efficiency.

The churches are suffering at the farmers’ hands another process, which I would like to describe as dehorning. It is like the removal of the horns from the heads of dairy cows; and it has the same purpose. Doctrinal subjects which divide are being tabooed, and the churches are no longer to hook and horn one another, but to live together in peace and produce the most of the milk of human kindness, with the greatest economy in the fodder of doctrine.