546 



THE FAHMERS' REGISTER. 



ment of the foetus, and both the mother and the 

 calf must inevitably sutfer. 



" From two io two and a half years old, accord- 

 ing to the quality of the pasture, will be the mosi 

 advantageous time for putting the heifer to the 

 bull. In fair pasture the heiler will probably have 

 attained sufficient size in two years. If the period 

 is prolonged after three years, and especially with 

 good keep, the animal will often be in too high 

 condition, and there will be much uncertainty as 

 to her becoming pregnant; though, in general, 

 putting on more scanty subsistence for a short 

 lime will set all right. At an early age there will 

 often be danger in calving, from the heifer not hav- 

 ing attained her proper size. 



" It is evident from this that the bull should not 

 be suffered to run with ihe young stock ; and it is 

 becoming more the practice, and often advan- 

 tageously, to separate him irom the cows altoge- 

 ther, except when in season. That which has 

 been said of the best age for breeding the cow, 

 will equally apply to "the bull. It is absurd and 

 dangerous to begin to use him as some have done 

 when a yearling. He will come into season at 

 two years old — he will be better at three; and 

 although the farmer may not deem it prudent to 

 keep him more than three years, he may then be 

 sold advantageously, in his full prime, to another 

 breeder." 



The above extract is taken, verbatim, -from the 

 invaluable treatise on British Cattle ; the princi- 

 ples stated, are no doubt drawn from the exten- 

 sive experience of English breeders. They are 

 so totally at variance with the practice of most 

 Kentucky breeders and farmers, that it may not 

 be amiss to confirm them by the following ex- 

 tracts Irora Lawrence's Farmers &. Graziers' 

 Guide. 



" These remarks apply with the greatest force 

 to those inconsiderate persons who, anxious to 

 anticipate their most sanguine hopes, injure their 

 stock by putting their heifers prematurely to 

 breed ; and who, did they but endure another sea- 

 eon ol necessary delay, would give time lor na- 

 ture to perfect the work of maturity, and ensure 

 a healthy offspring; but those persons by an in- 

 judicious haste destroy the stamina of the animal's 

 constitution, entail a feeble and unhealthy issue, 

 exhaust the powers of the devoted animals, and 

 and not only shorten her life, but occasion many 

 and serious disorders. 



"Heifers should not on any account be put to 

 bull before they have passed the second year of 

 their existence ; indeed if three years be allowed, 

 the much better condition of the calves will amply 

 repay the one year's delay." R. W. S. 



PRESERVATION OF TIMBER. 



From the Pliiladelpliia Ledger. 



We perceive that a committee of the House of 

 Representatives have suggested the employment 

 of mineralized timber, in the construction of the 

 proposed bridge over the Potomac, between 

 Georgetown and Washington. The process of 

 mineralizing mentioned is that of Dr. Edward 

 Earle, of this city. We can scarcely say whe- 

 ther this suggestion on the part of the congres- 

 sional committee has occasioned us the more 

 pleasure; jot the more surprise. 



We eay surprise, for we have come to this 

 pass, that it is really a matter of astonishment to 

 see Congress enter upon the considei^tion of even 

 the most obvious improvements in science. Not- 

 withstanding all that has been said of the nation- 

 al enterprise in such matters, we are one of the 

 most dilatory people upon the (ace of the globe, 

 in availing ourselves of authenticated and esta- 

 blished inventions. In such things as morus 

 muUicaulis, we are prompt to a fault; but where 

 the new scheme is a point of certainty, and not 

 of speculative attempt, we are the most intolerable 

 laggards in Christendom. 



Here, lor example, is this proposal of Dr. 

 Earle (or the preservation of timber by the pro- 

 cess of mineralization. It is spoken ol by the 

 press, generally, as something new under the 

 sun ; and Congress, looking wise, takes it up 

 with its thumb and forefinger, very much as a 

 naturalist would take up a nondescript insect 

 which had escaped the scrutiny ofSwammer- 

 dam, or a quartz not to be found in Henwood or 

 Carne — mentioned neither by Lyell, Philips, 

 Murchison or Featherstonhaugh. 



We are not prepared to say, just now, what is 

 the precise nature of the claims of Dr. Earle; 

 but if these claims are to supersede those of 

 Sir Humphry Davy, or of the French chemist, 

 M. Boucherie, they must be of an importance 

 truly wonderful. These eminent gentlemen have 

 demonstrated (the former long ago, and the lat- 

 ter of late days) a mode of so preparing timber 

 by mineralization, that it shall be impossible to 

 destroij it by rot. They have shown that the 

 process is exceedingly simple and cheap, and 

 that, by its means, qualities of the highest value 

 (besides that of durability) are imparted to the 

 wood. The plan of Sir Humphry Davy has 

 been long in operation in Europe, and that of 

 M. Boucherie has engaged the attention of the 

 French government lor some time past. In the 

 face of these fiicts, (and we will show them to 

 be fiacts) does it not appear unaccountable that 

 we should continue, day after day, in the absurd 

 practice of building houses and fences of unpre- 

 pared timber, and of laying with it railway struc- 

 tures, requiring a continuous repair that absorbs 

 a great portion of profit 1 Does it not appear 

 especially remarkable that our government will 

 persist in building ships of unprepared wood, 

 which fall to pieces belore a launch can be effect- 

 ed, (as in the case of the vessel now on the 

 stocks at our navy-yard,) when, at an equal cost 

 or at a less, we might have men-of-war, to whose 

 duration it would be impossible to assign a limit? 

 Of course it does appear ve7-y strange, and rather 

 than suppose ourselves or our government guilty 

 of such supineness, or of such imbecility as is 

 here imputed, the reader of this article will be 

 inclined to fiiU back upon the belief that there 

 is some error in our statement — in short, that 

 some good reason exists for continuing the old 

 fashioned practices. 



Now this is a subject of manifest importance. 

 It is important, whether we regard the supposed 

 improvement itself — an improvement which comes 

 immediately home to the bosoms and business 

 of every man in the community — or whether 

 we look to the conduct of that government which 

 is bound to encourage the true and the useful, 

 without reference io party or Io fijvoritism. 



