208 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 



Now, while all this operation is going on, I have 

 two hills of sun-flowers growing in every fence 

 corner; two stocks (or say three or four) in a hill, 

 plantcil early in the spring. About the time that 

 my long forage gives out, these begin to bloona. 

 As the^bloss'oms begin to appear, Tcut them off 

 about a foot from the ground, and give to my 

 horses, which eat them very readily,— leaves, 

 buds, stocks, and all. This I consider a very 

 wholesome, as well as nutritious food. Thus the 

 ground that has to be kept clean, to prevent un- 

 welcome visiters, is made in the mean time to 

 yield profi!abl3^ 



If, in your judgment, you think proper to intro- 

 duce this scrap to the company of your more use- 

 ful communications, it is at your service. 



A Small Goshen Farmer. 



REMARKS ON, AND SOME OBJECTIONS TO, 

 THE ESSAY ON "AGRICULTURAL HOBBIES 

 AND HUMBUGS." 



To tlie Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



May I5th, 1S38. 



I have been so much amused with your article 

 on agricultural hobbies and humbugs, (p. 47, vol. 

 VI.)'^and think most of your remarks so perfectly 

 just, that I could hardly prevail on myself to ex- 

 press my dissent from such as I cannot concur in: 

 nor would I do it, but for your oli en- avowed de- 

 sire to have all your opinions freely canvassed, 

 where any good to our cause might possibly result 

 from it, in the opinion of those -who may differ 

 from you. I have very rarely been among that 

 number ; and where I have, it has been, in each 

 case, with much distrust of my own opinion, and 

 not a little fear, that my readers might so far mis- 

 take the motives of my communications, as to as- 

 cribe them, rather to the silly vanity of seeing my- 

 self in print, than to their real cause — which has 

 ever been, the hope of promoting, in some degree, 

 the great object of your paper. With this anchor 

 thrown out to windward. I shall commence my 

 objections. 



The first is — for your apparent preference to 

 corn with the largest cobs, of which you say, it 

 " is evidently and mathematically true, if the 

 grains are of equal size, there will be more encir- 

 cling a large than a small cob." Now to me it 

 appears " evidently and mathematically true," 

 that this depends upon the grains being of equal 

 loidth, and not on their equality of size ; for a 

 broad grain may be of equal size with a long one, 

 although the latter will certainly out-number the 

 former, although the length and diameter of their 

 respective cobs be precisely the same. Ajrain, it 

 "is evidently and mathematically true," tliat al- 

 though one, large single ear with a large cob, will 

 liave more grain than any single ear with a small 

 cob ; yet, if the small cob variety produces seve- 

 ral more ears, under similar circumstances, on a 

 single stalk, of which there are many unquestiona- 

 ble proofs, in regard to the twin-corn, than the 

 large-cob varieties, the former will, with mathe- 

 matical certainty, produce the most grain. In the 

 case of the twin-corn, fairly and accurately com- 

 pared with two other very popular varieties, both 



having very large cobs, I have ascertained by ac- 

 tual measurement, the difference in favor of the 

 twin-corn was as nine to seven. 



Your second opinion from which I dissent, is 

 that wherein you say, that "you have no fiiith 

 either in the reasonings or the supposed results of 

 choosing seed-wheat," either for the large size of 

 the grain, the large number of grains in the head, 

 or the large number of stalks and quantity of grain 

 from a single seed. This seems tantamount to a 

 belief, that the only circumstance worthy of atten- 

 tion in the choice of seed-wheat, or indeed of any 

 other seed, is, to be sure it will vegetate. In 

 other words, that none are susceptible of any im- 

 provement worth regarding, merely by selecting 

 that which appears to possess most of those quali- 

 ties almost universally believed to be essential to 

 the perfection of all seed. 1 say almost universal, 

 for I do not recollect ever to have met with but 

 one person who entertained the opinion I under- 

 stand you to express on this highly interesting 

 subject. Possibly, however, I may misunderstand 

 you ; and since nothing is fiirther from my wishes, 

 let me repeat what you seem to me to have said. 

 First, in regard to seed-wheat, that you disbelieve 

 the common notion, that more product can be se- 

 cured from the land by choosing seed, either for its 

 size, the large number of grains in the head, or 

 the large number of stalks and quantity of grain 

 from a single seed. Secondly, in regard to seed- 

 corn, or any other seed, I understand you to say, 

 that you have not the slightest faith, " that larger 

 crops can be obtained by choosing seed on account 

 o[' the form, size, or number of grains, or the size 

 or number of ears, Sfc^ Now this " e< ccetera,^^ 

 I must presume, comprehends all the other quali- 

 ties usually attributed to, and sought after in seed ; 

 in all which, you say, that "you fmve not the 

 slightest faith.'' But if none of them are worth 

 regarding, does it not follow, undeniably, that the 

 sole ground of preference left is, that one sample 

 will vegetate better than another? It is true that 

 you qualify, in some degree, your sweeping anathe- 

 ma against the common creed and practice, by 

 saying — you do not deny — that particular varie- 

 ties of plants may be somewhat more productive 

 than others which are equally suitable to the same 

 soil and climate ; yet this is but cold encourage- 

 ment, and is a very different thing from admitting 

 the fact. Indeed, it seems nearly the same as de- 

 claring that j^ou do not fully believe it ; although 

 you give us the result of no experiments made by 

 yourself or others to confirm this strongly-implied 

 scepticism. You have classed both the creed and 

 the practice ivhich you condemn, among "hobbies 

 and humbugs ;" and there is nothing of which 

 your "good-enough" farmers, (by far the most 

 numerous class among us,) have such a mortal 

 dread, as the ridicule attached to hobby-riding. 



In another place, speaking of varieties of corn, 

 your infidelity as to their relative productiveness, 

 is not left to implication, for you positively avow 

 that "your views are utterly opposed to the be- 

 lief, that either the Maryland twin-corn, the Ba- 

 den-corn, or the Dutton-corn, are more productive 

 in a very great degree, than other varieties in any 

 situaiion ;" although it does not appear that you 

 j-ourself have ever made, even a single compara- 

 tive trial, to ascertain whether the opinion be true 

 or false. Now, if you admit a difference of some- 

 what more than 15 per cent., to constitute a very 



