176 
SOUTHERN C^ULTIVATOR. 
—z — » ■ -■ ' ■ TT 
jS,atfstake in the' coLitS'Bitx) ije; pursued. We have had 
• 'the'^driest vvinteriafter a dry 'fiH\and dr.y Tho 
BOTS IN HOBSES-ONCE MORE. 
earth has^stored'-up blit little moisture,- ahd cannot afford 
■to have it wasted! If 'H^e 'could anticipaJt?e'ia'rain, no wiser 
course could be pur&iedirthan to break/the surface before- 
hand, that more of what falls may penetrate and less 
may evaporate. In the absence of .ailsign of rain it would 
be presumption to expect it soon. 
My own course is, notto allow a plow tp entermy fields. 
My neighbors are going on in their usual way. The ex- 
traordinary season does not suggest to them a departure 
from the ordinary mode of culture. Our corn is now of 
about equal size, (say 4 or 5 inches high,) so that we can 
compare results. And if there is any marked difference 
in favor of either, I will communicate with you. I ought 
to state, however, that after one of my fields was thorough- 
ly subsoiled I was so fortunate as to have one fine rain. 
This will give that field a decided advantage. The rest 
of my land was not subsoiled at all. J. 
Alabama, April, 1855. 
Note.-— It might be .supposed, by those not acquainted 
with vegetable philosophy, that the moisture contributed 
to the atmosphere, by promoting evaporation from the 
soil, compensates the loss sustained by the soil. The 
structure of plants is such, however, that it is manifestly 
not an indifferent matter whether the moisture is applied 
to the leaves or the roots. The stomata of leaves, which 
enable the plant to regulate the evaporation of its own 
moisture, are so contrived as to open with an increase ot 
moisture in the plant and to close with a diminution of it. 
And the effect is the same whether the moisture is within 
the plant, or externally applied to the leaves. 
Any one who has a good microscope may test this by 
actual experiment. And those who have not such an in- 
strument need but call to mind what they cannot but have 
observed (particularly in the case of the paper mulberry,) 
that in a great drouth, one light sprinkle of rain, enough 
to moisten the leaves without reaching the roots, will do 
more injury than service. The stomata open and moisture 
escapes more rapidly, while it is not supplied at the roots 
in the same proportion. Similar is the effect of bringing 
about this disproportion between the moisture of the air 
and that of the soil, by promoting evaporation from the 
latter. True a moist atmosphere opposes an impediment 
to evaporation. But it will be evident that this is not to 
be done at the expense of the very moisture that we aim at 
preserving. J. 
Remarks. — The theory of our respected correspondent 
is directly at variance with the practice and teachings 
of our most distinguished agriculturists; nearly all 
of whom contend that the oftener the earth is stirred, and 
the more finely its parts are pulverized, in dry weather, 
the greater the amount of moisture it will attract from the 
atmosphere, which always contains a quantity varying 
only in degree. That plants are generally much benefit 
ted by a judicious stirring and thorough pulverization of 
the earth around their roots, we know from long experi- 
ence ; but that they may be greatly injured by improper 
exposure and rupture, in plowing or hoeing, during a long 
drouth, we also know as well. The question for us to de- 
cide in reference to the theory of our correspondent is, 
whether the amount of moisture evaporated from finely- 
pulverized earth, during a drouth, is greater or less than 
that which the same earth absorbs from the night dews, 
vapors, &c., in a given time. We shall be glad to hear 
the further experience of “J.” and all our practical and 
observing readers on this highly important subject. — Eds, 
<So, Cult. 
Editors Southern Cultivator — I am apprehensive 
that the discussion of this subject which has already oc- 
cupied your columns maybe uninteresting to many, and 
hence lam somewhat reluctant again to address you. On 
reflection, however, I know Of no more useful theme for 
the farmers of our country than the Diseases and Treat- 
ment of Horses. Without these and the patient mule, 
Agriculture would be valueless, emasculated of all its vir- 
tue and worth. I shall here present but few of my own 
speculations on this subject, having given them already 
in extenso ; but think I can satisfy the most sceptical by 
the adduction of standard authorities, (acknowledged be- 
yond disputation as the best and most scientific in the 
world on Veterinary science,) 51s “high as Olympus;” or 
as “Ossa on Pelion” — if you choose — which establish 
every particular of any moment in my articles of the 
November, 1853, and September, 1854, numbers of your 
valuable paper, 
I am obliged to J. A. T, for the tone of his article. If 
there be any pleasure in a paper discussion of any kind, 
(which I have never felt, however,) it is only with fair 
and courteous opponents. Any other, even in the politi- 
cal arena, is not worthy of the lance of a true knight. It- 
is an honor sometimes to be vanquished, if the cause be 
just, and the motive be disinterested or benevolent. 
I think, between us, there is but a penumbra of differ- 
in our opinions on the subject; for Ae says: there is no 
remedy for this disease, known as a specific.''^ We coin- 
cide here precisely. He recommends the “greasing of the 
nit or fly once or twice a week during the fly season, to 
prevent their hatching, which is the only state (he con- 
ceives) in which the bot can be managed.” This, too, is 
unobjectionable, certes, because innocuous — may be bene- 
ficial, but cannot be injurious — and with many would 
serve to negative the idea of the “bot sickness,” if the 
horse should, perchance, at any time get sick, and con- 
sequently contravene any necessity for the use of the 
terrible drugs and compounds, so often and recklessly re- 
sorted to. To this suggestion, therefoi-e, and for the pur- 
pose above, I would not interpose a nay, but rather say, 
“so let it be.” My object as first stated in my first article, 
was to’ intercede for our most useful and faithful ally (the 
horse) in pursuading some of your numerous readers to 
“stay their medicines and drugs,” and thus have no par- 
ticipation in resorting to such drastic poisons, called “bot 
remedies,”' as unquestionably torture and destroy instead 
of relieving the patient. 
Another correspondent who has complacently clapped 
a “refutation” on yowr “reputation,” (or the little office- 
imps, called a “Printers Devil,” and you must decide 
which, between you) also coincides with me precisely. 
For he says: '•'•never indulge the sanguine hope that you 
can drench and kill the hols and not endanger the horse ; 
the idea is erroneous. And the reputed infallible remedies, 
such as sage tea, mullen, fish brine, molasses and persim- 
'mon, &c., &c., 1 endorse none of them, but reject the idea 
oidrenching at all, except in extreme cases. In lieu of 
which I bleed in the mouth freely,” &c., and adds: “al- 
alvvays keep salt in your troughs and you will never hear 
ofbots.” 
Here again you perceive it would be splitting hairs, 
“’twixt North and North-west side,” to make up an issue 
between us. The bleeding in the mouth, is harmless and 
beneficial in most ailments; and to the latter advice I sub- 
scribe in toto, as a remedy for many more ills than bots 
which “horse-flesh is heir to.” 1 attribute my good for- 
tune with horses in a great measure to this uniform prac- 
tice, adding a little fine sifted ashes to the salt. But when 
this correspondent indirectly subscribes to the “talking, 
rubbing and slapping” process, as remedies, I can only re- 
ply “Credat Judeeus appella”— i. e., tell it to the marines! 
