1848. 



GENESEE FARMER. 



295 



The Turkey. 



This bird was unknown to the civilized world 

 till the discovery of this Continent. It was found 

 here both in its wild and domesticated state ; and 

 still occupies the whole range of the western 

 hemisphere, though the wild turkey disappears 

 as the country becomes settled. The wild is 

 larger than the domesticated bird, sometimes 

 weighing over 30 lbs. dressed. Tlie color of 

 the male is generally a greenish brown, ap- 

 proaching to black, and of a rich, changeable, 

 metallic lustre. The hen is marked somewhat 

 like the cock, but with duller hues. Domestica- 

 tion through successive generations dims the 

 brilliancy of their plumage, and lessens their size 

 and hardiness. It also produces a variety of 

 colors, though they are mostly of a black, buft', 

 pure white, or speckled. 



They give evidence of the comparative recen- 

 cy of their domestication, in the instinct which 

 frequently impels the cock to brood and take 

 care of the young. Nothing is more common 

 than for the male bird to supply the place of the 

 hen, when any accident befalls her, and to bring 

 up a family of young chicks with an equally 

 instinctive regard for their helplessness and 

 safety. 



The flesh of this bird, both wild and tame, is exceedingly 

 delicate and palateable ; and though not possessing the 

 high game flavor of some of the smaller wild-fowl, and es- 

 pecially of the aquatic, as the canvass-back duck, &c., it 

 exceeds tliem in its digestibility and heaithfulness. The 

 turkey is useful principally for its flesh, as it seldom lays 

 over a nest-full of eggs in one season, when they brood on 

 these and bring up their young. If full-fed, and their first 

 eggs are withdrawn from them, they frequently lay a second 

 time. — AUeii^s Domestic Animals. 



The true Principles of Farming. 



If persons engaged in this pursuit would only 

 use that sense which God has provided them 

 with, and which is generally styled common, the 

 business would be divested of a great deal of its 

 mystery. Some people will say that it is much 

 easier to find out what is wrong than to say what 

 is right; and this is true to a certain degree ; 

 but regarding the cultivation of the land, there 

 are certain inviolable principles which should 

 always be kept in view ; and these I will en- 

 deavor to enumerate. The first that strikes me 

 is the clearing of the ground ; it is absurd to 

 think of trying to grow grain under trees in a 

 wood, nor is it sufficient to take away a part of 

 them — I mean, of course, with the idea of per- 

 fection. For instance, suppose you have 50 

 trees on an acre ; that is, about one to every 

 three square rods ; the soil capable of bearing 

 50 bushels of wheat, or 1 bushel to each tree ; 

 and suppose that you cut down 49 of them, you 

 will only be able to grow 49 bushels, instead of 

 50 — the annual waste or cost of that tree being 

 the value of one bushel of wheat, or whatever 

 crop might have been on the 3 rods of ground 

 which that tree monopolized. Therefore, if it 

 is necessary to clear the land before you can 

 grow grain, it is reasonable and self evident that 

 it should be entirely cleared, every fractional 

 part you leave doing injury in its degree. 



The next point to notice is the dryness or 

 wetness of the soil ; see if the stagnant water is 

 sufficiently near the surface to do injury to the 

 crops, even b}' capillary attraction, which, science 

 tells us, will raise water 4 feet — and practice has 

 shown that it must not be nearer ; therefore, if 

 the stagnant ,vater be nearer than 4 fcbt, drain 

 it to that depth. It is absurd to attempt to culti- 

 vate land against so powerful an enemy as water. 

 Thirdly, we consider " the pulverization of the 

 sou." Ought it to be pulverized at all ? To 

 this question I think our common sense will give 

 an answer in the affirmative, so that the plant 

 may more easily expand its roots to seek for 

 noiarishment in the soil, which soil and which 

 pulverization should extend as far as the roots of 

 the plant ; but is it common sense to think that 

 5 or 6 inches only is the distance ihat the roots 

 of plants extend. I will not take advantage of a 

 ^evf facts that have been noticed of the immense 

 depths that roots descend, but merely appeal to 

 common sense, and ask whether it is not reason- 

 able to suppose that the roots beneath extend as far 

 as the plants above the soil, and if so, ought not the 

 soil to be pulverized to that extent, about 4 feet ? 



The first expense of this, I am aware, renders 

 it almost impracticable ; but this I cannot help. 

 I cannot alter the true principles of nature. I 

 must assert with common sense that the deeper 

 you pulverize, the more you move in the right 

 direction. — W, G. Grossmith, in Gard. Chron. 



