1860. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



171 



educated as agriculturists, but whether agricul- 

 ture shall bo taught in our school. He agreed ful- 

 ly with Rev. Mr. Stebblns, that the man or wo- 

 man should be educated to the business of life. A 

 man is not to be a corn-feeder or stock-raiser alone, 

 but his education should have a wider and broad- 

 er range than agriculture. The State opens her 

 munificent hand to give all a general education, 

 and the only science that should bo taught, ought 

 to be the science of manhood and womanhood. 

 He believed no man could be an agriculturist, un- 

 less he was educated, and he thought the better 

 educated a man was, the better farmer he would 

 make ; indeed, he thought a collegiate education 

 would make better farmers. 



Mr. Asa Sheldon, of Wilmington, being called 

 on, said he could best judge of the importance of 

 education from the want of it. He thought moth- 

 ers should take more interest in this matter, and 

 should teach their children their first lessons in 

 agriculture. If mothers would only teach their 

 boys and girls how honorable agriculture is, there 

 would more of them stay at home, and there 

 would be fewer boys running round hunting up 

 clerks' situations in cities. He spoke of the rare 

 occurrence of a farmer getting committed to our 

 prisons, and closed by complimenting the ladies 

 on their presence at the meetings of the Society. 



Mr. Gardner, of Swansey, said he M-as not 

 inclined favorably to the introduction of agricul- 

 tural books in our common schools, as he thought 

 there was enough taught there now, the children 

 not having time to devote to it. 



The time for adjournment having arrived, Mr. 

 Gai'dner was cut short in his remarks. It was an- 

 nounced that the subject for discussion at the next 

 meeting, would be "Stock Feeding" and that Dr. 

 George B. Loring, of Salem, would preside, on 

 which occasion ladies were particularly invited to 

 attend. The meeting then adjourned. 



Unfavor.\ble Results. — People geuei-ally are 

 disposed to say as little as possible of unprofitable 

 bargains and of unfavorable experiments. ]\Ir. J. 

 H. Stanwood, of Colebi'ook, Ct., publishes in the 

 Homestead the results of two experiments of this 

 kind which he has recently tried in feeding roots 

 and cotton-seed meal to a milch cow. Up to Dec. 

 25, the cow had been fed solely on good upland 

 hay, and gave 141 pounds of milk, on the hay-feed, 

 dm-ing the week preceding the trial of roots. For 

 one week, in addition to hay, she ate half a bushel 

 of turnips and mangolds each day, and yielded 140 

 lbs. of milk, being a falling off of one pound. The 

 next week he fed two quarts per day of cotton- 

 seed meal, at a cost of forty-three cents, and the 

 cow gave 149^ lbs. of milk, being a gain of about 

 four quarts, worth about nine cents, at the prices 



obtained by the experimenter at his door ; "leav- 

 ing a balance," he says, "of thirty-four cents in fa- 

 vor of letting the meal alone." 



On these experiments of a single week, Mr. 

 Stanwood rejects both roots and cotton-seed meal. 

 Such brief trials are of but little value to the ex- 

 perienced feeder, and we notice them rather by 

 way of caution than commendation. 



For the New England Farmer. 

 "SICK CATTLE." 



When, Messrs. Editors, in a most laudable de- 

 sire to impart benefit to the many, a contributor 

 to your columns offers knowledge that he deems 

 beneficial, there is seemingly a lack of courtesy 

 and decorum in venturing to attempt to prove 

 his adopted views as unprofitable. Yet sure, no 

 one ought bo offended, if others' opinions vary 

 from those another has preconceived, provided 

 the variation be kindly expressed. I make these 

 remarks, because I so largely differ from your cor- 

 respondent at Brimfield, in his suggested cure for 

 "Sick Cattle," as given in your recent issue. 

 The communication advanced seems to have been 

 ofi'ered from reading the loss sustained by Win- 

 throp W. Chenery, Esq., through a disease devel- 

 oping amid his cows, said to be "Pneumonia," or 

 "Inflammation of the Lungs." Of this I know 

 nothing. Neither pretend I to suggest a cure, in 

 any case similar. What I would deal with, is the 

 remedy your correspondent proposes, "in all kinds 

 of stoppage or bloat from any cause," in cattle. 

 And as the subject of chemistry, by a sort of ne- 

 cessity, has been the peculiar study of my life, I 

 will endeavor to state chemically why I deem his 

 remedy most hazardous. 



Your correspondent recommends vinegar and 

 chalk administered quickly, for, as he says, "a 

 bottle is not strong enough to hold it." Now, 

 M'hat are the chemical properties of the agents 

 named ? "Vinegar," or "acetous acid," it is Avell 

 known, possesses strong antiseptic powers, and 

 its action on the living body is gently stimulant, 

 but astringent. "Chalk, or carbonate of lime," 

 is an anti-acid. In pharmacy it is employed for 

 the preparation of "carbonic acid gas." Mixed 

 with vinegar, this "gas is largely evolved, leaving 

 as a residuum, a most nauseating salt, offensive in 

 the extreme, and according to the best chemical 

 writers, (unlike most salts) holding no purgative 

 quality, whatever." Both articles being throAvn in- 

 to a living stomach, all that can be obtained from 

 them will be an immediate, rapidly effervescent 

 mixture, disgusting beyond expression, forming 

 an after salt, wholly absent' from all purgative 

 qualities, and at once distending the stomach and 

 all the vessels approximate, with a suffusion of 

 "carbonic acid gas," injurious in the extreme. If 

 pressing for a passage through the intestines be 

 the sought object, the proposed remedy is wholly 

 worthless, for the distension attendant on the 

 pressure of such a volume of gas must of conse- 

 quence bar all doors, rather than soothingly open 

 them. Escape must be had at once for the intro- 

 duction of this violent agent, else death will en- 

 sue. For, if "no bottle be strong enough to hold 

 the mixture," what can be expected from a stom- 

 ach ? And if the case were "pneumonia," (ai» 



