32 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



Jax. 



very slow, and some of it never attained a 

 greater height than one and a half or two feet, 

 and the consequence was, it did not average 

 more than 35 bushels per acre, whereas, my 

 opinion is, that if I had not ploughed more 

 than five, or five and a half inches, I should 

 have had at least 00 bushels per acre. The oat 

 crop the following season (1866) was very 

 light indeed ; not more than one-half what I 

 usually got, when manured so thoroughly. 

 The following year (1867) it was mowed, but 

 the crop was very light. The years 1868 and 

 1869 it was pastured, but the feed was not 

 very abundant, having usually pastured one 

 full grown creature to the acre on such land. 

 This year it was mowed again, and gave a 

 tolerable crop of hay. I think the land will 

 recover its former fertility in time, but the 

 loss has been too great. 



I had much rather plough five to six inches, 

 and run the subsoil plough four or five inches 

 deeper. This I have done on 19 acres of 

 these clay lands with great success, improving 

 both grass and grain. I think manure cover- 

 ed not over five to six inches deep will give 

 the greatest benefit to the corn crop, as corn 

 roots grow near the surface. 



My corn this year was planted on a yellow 

 loam soil, ploughed five to six inches, and 

 during the most severe drought I have not 

 observed that the leaves have curled in t^p 

 least, and it is a most excellent crop, with the 

 larger part of it good seed corn^ Gravelly 

 and sandy soils may be benefited by deep 

 ploughing, as they are more easily affected by 

 drought. 



I am aware that I am running counter to 

 the opinion of many men upon this subject of 

 deep ploughing — some of them theorists, per- 

 haps, and some of them good, sound, practical 

 farmers. I do not wish to mislead any one 

 in the matter, but let every farmer test the 

 matter by experience, and judge for himself. 

 James Childs. 



Deerfield, Mass., Oct. 17, 1870. 



DEVONB FOR ALL PUBPOBES. 



It is fashionable, on our Illinois prairies, to 

 praise the biggest cattle as the best, and the 

 thoughts of most of our stock-improving far- 

 mers are turned to Durhams and their grades 

 as the most desirable cattle. Possibly where 

 beef is the only object, and corn and grass 

 are far away from towns and railroads, and 

 cheap, so that an extra ten bushels of corn or 

 half an acre of grass are hardly worth the 

 reckoning, these may be the best cattle. 



But if one wants to get the animal combin- 

 ing the best milking, beef and working quali- 

 ties for the smallest expense, he should get 

 fthe Devon. Ten or twelve years ago, desir- 

 ing to improve my herd of caftle. I was in- 

 duced to look into the question of the most 

 profitable cattle for the region and latitude of 

 fc>t. Louis. Here is a market near at hand in 



which all kinds of cattle feed bear a fair price, 

 making economy in feeding a point to be 

 looked into more carefully than it has been on 

 our wasteful grain farms. During the later 

 summer, we have often severe droughts and 

 short pastures, so that heavy feeders require 

 a large acreage for their sustenance. Look- 

 ing at these points, even if we concede that, 

 with high feeding, the Short- horn is the best, 

 we mu.st prefer the Devon for the common 

 ways of common farmers. But experience 

 goes to show that the smaller animal on the 

 thinner lands will glean a better sustenance 

 and get in better condition, other things being 

 equal, just as in spring, sheep and young cat- 

 tle will fill themselves from the young grass 

 before the larger animals are able to do so. 

 Over and above this, we may believe, from 

 the experience of those who have bred the 

 Devon and Durham side by side, that there is 

 more assimilation of food and less offal in the 

 Devon, so that a pound of beef represents a 

 smaller amount of feed in the Devon. This, 

 I think, is the observation of Col. Horace Ca- 

 pron, our present Commissioner of Agricul- 

 ture, who has fed the two breeds together. I 

 have not enough experience to pronounce a 

 definite opinion, but I am told by a leeder that 

 some half grade Devon steers which I sold 

 him fed more satisfactorily than the common 

 cattle of the country or grade Short-horns. 

 Fat steers, I find, agreeably disappoint the 

 purchaser whose eye judgment has been formed 

 in the examination of the more leggy and less 

 compact bullocks of other breeds. The beef 

 is better and worth more in the markets than 

 that of the Short-horn, or for that matter, of 

 most other breeds. Several years' experience 

 in the use of the beef of grade animals satis- 

 fies me that it is more generally good, animal 

 after animal, than that of other cattle, and 

 most desirable for the farmer who slaughters 

 his own beef. The smoothness and uniformity 

 of the steers impress the purchaser favorably, 

 and make them fancy lots in the markets. 

 Their weak point, if they have one, is a less 

 early maturity, whereby they may not attain a 

 sufficient size at as early an age as the Short- 

 horn. 



As milking animals, I find them very satis- 

 factory. The quantity of milk is not the 

 largest, but is nearly as rich as that of the 

 Alderney, and makes butter of equal excel- 

 lence, though not so high colored. Taking 

 quantity and quality both under consideration, 

 1 do not find them inferior to any breed that 

 I have seen or heard of. They are kind, lov- 

 ing animals, like to be petted, but impatient 

 of abuse, and make reliable and gentle milk- 

 ers. I noticed that Mr. Allen, in his late book 

 on cattle, commends the capabilities of the 

 breed in this respect, as well as others, as 

 among the best. 



For a working animal — and I still have faith 

 in the economical value of work-oxen on our 

 large farms at least — the Devon steer's merits 



