The Prairie Farmer, Vol. 56, No. 2, January 12, 1884 | Page 2

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.
[Illustration: 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. He
must 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 purposes, devotes some attention to fine horses,
and keeps thirty-six cows for dairy purposes. Farmer B. devotes his
entire attention to dairying and has invested in dairy cows as much
money as A. has in all his stock. Is it not evident that though each
farmer began life the same year, the latter man will