166 



Agricultural Periodicals. 



Vol. V. 



For the Farmers" Cabinet. 



Agricultural Periodicals. 



Mr. Editor, — I coincide in the opinion, 

 that the main use of agricultural journals is, 

 to form a line of intercommunication between 

 persons engaged in that profession in other 

 quarters, by which the experience of indivi- 

 duals might be conveyed abroad, for the in- 

 formation and guidance, the instruction — and 

 peradventure, the warning of thousands in 

 distant parts of the country ; all, however, 

 subserving the cause of truth in the end. 

 But, with this view before us, it is curious to 

 observe with how little regard the monthly 

 issues of these publications make their ap- 

 pearance, and how very seldom it is that the 

 opportunity of communicating by their means 

 with their fellow-labourers is embraced by 

 our farmers, in the use of their pages, to re- 

 cord results, or to inquire concerning events, 

 which might prove of the greatest importance 

 to themselves and others in their future ope- 

 rations! Now this listless, careless feeling 

 ought not to be indulged ; and, to prove my 

 sincerity, and that I mean to practise what I 

 preach, I have taken up my pen to make a 

 first essay in this, the path of what I con- 

 sider a duty, although I fear it might be but 

 ill performed. 



In the first place, then, there is no subject 

 which seems to demand more consideration 

 and inquiry than the use of sugar-beet as 

 food for cattle, for it must be admitted that 

 the accounts which are published relating 

 thereto are, in many cases, widely different; 

 and it would appear almost a hopeless task 

 to account for such discrepancy; and yet the 

 article on this subject, at page 52 of the 

 number of the Cabinet for Sept., and that on 

 "damp stables," in the last number, have, in 

 my mind, done somewhat to reconcile con- 

 flicting testimony; while the advocate for its 

 culture may point to the writer in the Culti- 

 vator, who admitted that he had fed them 

 profusely, until he had almost destroyed his 

 cattle, with triumph. After all, however, 

 there still remains sufficient difference of 

 opinion, even amongst careful and enlight- 

 ened men, to alarm those who are unac- 

 quainted with the management and expendi- 

 ture of the crop, and they may thus be de- 

 prived of the advantages to be derived from 

 the systematic culture of a crop which — 

 with me there has never been a question 

 about it — is destined to become the sheet- 

 anchor of the stock farmer. 



I am led to the subject at this time, from 

 having just had an opportunity of tasting 

 some sugar-beet butter, at the house of a 

 friend in Philadelphia, whom I visit whenever 

 my business calls me to the city, that I must 

 confess is very superior, nay, splendid; it 



was made by one of our best dairymen, who, 

 I understand, had once publicly borne his 

 testimony to the very great value of this 

 crop for the use of the dairy, but who, strange 

 to say, had since changed his opinion and 

 gone over to the ranks of its opponents, but, 

 stranger still, was now found pointing to the 

 sugar-beet as the cause of the superiority of 

 his butter for the last two weeks — the time 

 which his cows had been feeding upon them ! 

 I should be glad to be told, therefore, how 

 this is to be accounted for. 



I admit that my neighbour, William Jakes, 

 has discontinued the culture, in consequence 

 of finding their use injurious, rather than 

 otherwise, to his stock, but he is consistent, 

 and would as soon grow hemlock as sugar- 

 beet again ; and, although I have shown him 

 that with me they have proved all that I 

 could wish, and far more than I had a right 

 to expect, yet he is thoroughly determined 

 never to plant another seed, for love or mo- 

 ney. Now, if all were Jakes, the discrepancy 

 above-noticed could be reconciled, but they 

 are not so, and therefore the question ought 

 to be settled. But it is remarkable, that 

 they who have proved the uselessness, or ra- 

 ther, the injurious nature of this crop, are 

 generally amongst those who have grown 

 only a very small patch — a quarter of an acre 

 or so — while others, with their thousands of 

 bushels, and full, regular system of feeding, 

 have demonstrated their value, both for feed- 

 ing and fitting ! and I have before me at the 

 moment, the well-filled cellars of a very ex- 

 tensive grower, amounting to many thousand 

 bushels, and the testimony of one of the most 

 intelligent and respectable members of so- 

 ciety, and an ornament to the Bench as well 

 as to the science of agriculture — who de- 

 clares he shall not be satisfied until he can 

 cultivate forty acres a year — to place against 

 those; reminding one of the man who re- 

 fused to lie on a feather-bed, because, hav- 

 ing experimented on a single feather, it could 

 be nothing short of grim-death to lie on a 

 bag-full ! 



Now, I believe that the disappointment 

 complained of, has arisen from the idea, that 

 the sugar-beet could be made to supply the 

 place of nearly every other kind of food — an 

 error that will easily rectify itself, when it is 

 found that to feed them to the greatest profit, 

 they should be given in addition to all other 

 food: I say, then, feed as much dry food to 

 your stock as customary, and then there will 

 be no fear of injury arising from a plentiful 

 supply of sugar-beet ; but this is a lesson, 

 which those who think that "root crops pay 

 no rent," will be slow to learn. It is to those, 

 then, who cultivate largely and feed liberally, 

 but vv'ith judgment, that we are to look, in 

 the use of root crops for winter food, as a 



