POTATOES VERSUS WHEAT.-A LARGE EAR OF CORN. 
53 
Here I am in opposition to the fashion which most 
Short-Horn men follow and approve. They follow 
and approve because it is the fashion, and for no 
other reason. I have not the space here to assign 
the entire reasons for my position. If any one is 
disposed to combat my opinion, I shall be glad to 
sustain with full reasons my view, and may, per¬ 
haps, do so hereafter without having them ques¬ 
tioned. I will merely state that the larger the thigh 
the shorter the rump, and the narrower the hip 
bones. The pumpkin thighs have always accompa¬ 
nying them short rumps and narrow hip bones. The 
meat of the thigh at the lower end is always coarse. 
It will not make corned beef, and is only fit to be 
dried after corning. The larger it is, the coarser 
and poorer it is, being very dark and stringy. The 
larger it is at the lower part, the smaller it is at the 
point where it joins the rump. Now the best part 
of the meat at the thigh is the upper part next the 
rump. But when the thigh is very large it is at the 
expense of the rump and the upper part of the thigh. 
The rump is prime meat, and the upper part of the 
thigh is good meat, while the lower thigh is inferior. 
If the thigh be large, there will be less superior and 
more inferior meat. I ask that any one who doubts 
this position, shall view cattle in this respect 
and measure them alive, and view them dead, and 
eat them cooked. I never saw and never heard of 
a large thighed cow that was a good milker ; or a 
large thighed ox that was a good worker. The 
larger the thigh the straighter the leg in the perpen¬ 
dicular, and a straight leg never went with a good 
bag, nor with working power. A straight leg is a 
bad lever, and the muscles of the thigh below are not 
the muscles of draught, but are a weight to prevent 
draught; the muscles of draught are along the back, 
loin, and upper part of the thigh. Thus big thighs 
make increase of bad beef and decrease of good; 
diminish the power of working, ruin the milking 
quality, and never are connected with fineness, but 
always with coarseness. 
Such are the more prominent excellent qualities 
which cattle as individuals should possess, and 
which should mark, on the average, a herd. What 
single herd of large numbers can be pointed to, 
which embraces in every member an average of all 
these qualities ? At least no Short-Horn herd of any 
numbers, which has been bred and not collected, 
and even if collected, if numerous, can be. If it can 
be I should be glad to know it, and would go a 
long way to see it. 
To all these requisitions the Herefords of Messrs. 
Corning and Sotham answer fully. In head, horns, 
necks, tails, legs and paunches, they are fine; their 
offal indicates the high order of the consumable 
excellence of their carcasses. In their briskets, 
chines, crops, backs, ribs, hips, rumps and thighs, 
they are superior and uniform.. In their milking 
qualities they are excellent in quantity and quality. 
Are they not then valuable ? They are indeed, and 
should be widely disseminated. 
In my next I shall consider them in detail. If I 
do not show that as individuals they all are equal 
on the average to the standard I myself 1 ave made 
by which to measure them, then shall I fail to sustain 
my position and my judgment. Of that I have no 
fear. I am confident that my position is well taken 
and will be sustained. A. S. 
POTATOES VERSUS WHEAT. 
A notice worthy the consideration of farmers .—On 
page 46 of Ellsworth’s last report from the Patent 
Office, in speaking of potatoes, he says (quoting 
from Jacob’s Corn Law Tracts), that an acre of 
land with the same labor and manure will yield 300 
bushels of potatoes or 24 bushels of wheat; and 
adds, that 7 lbs. of potatoes will give as much nu¬ 
triment as 2 lbs. of wheat. Let us see the result. 
The nutriment of 300 bushels of potatoes at 60 lbs. 
per bushel, is 18,000 lbs., divided by 7 is 2,571; 24 
bushels of wheat at 64 lbs. per bushel, is 1,536 lbs., 
divided by 2 is 768. It follows of course, that it 
would take 3 i acres of wheat to yield as much 
food as one acre of potatoes. Let us examine the 
value at market: 
300 bushels of potatoes, at 37 \ cts., is* • • -$112.50 
24 “ wheat, at $1, is. 24.00 
Again, at page 78, he gives the comparative value 
of 100 lbs. of potatoes as food, and says they are 
Equal to..25 lbs. of Meat without bone. 
28 “ 
Beans. 
35 “ 
Wheat Bread. 
190 “ 
Parsnips or Carrots. 
300 “ 
Turnips. 
400 “ 
Cabbage. 
Can one raise 34,200 lbs. of carrots, or 54,000 
lbs. of turnips, or 72,000 cabbage to the acre ? If 
34,200 lbs. of carrots can be raised to the acre, 
then the farmer should turn his attention to this 
root. 300 bushels of potatoes sold in New York 
at 37£ cents per bushel, would buy in Indian 
corn at 83 cents, 135 bushels of Indian corn; this 
would be the cheapest food he could give his cattle. 
Von Thaer, in his Principles of Agriculture, 
makes 100 lbs. of good hay 
Equal to.200 lbs. of Potatoes. 
“ 460 “ Beet-root. 
M 350 “ Rutabaga. 
“ 267 “ Carrots. 
“ 660 “ White Cabbage. 
One acre of good grass land will give 3 tons of 
hay, say, 6,000 lbs. Do. do. 18,000 bushels of 
potatoes, equal to 9,000 lbs. of hay. 
If this be true, let us see what a clever farmer, 
near a market, ought to do. Suppose he has 
200 bushels potatoes to the acre, at 37£ pr.bu.- .$75 00 
2 tons of hay, 
60 bushels of shelled corn, 
18 
u 
wheat, 
22 
“ 
rye, 
30 
“ 
oats, 
U 
SI 5 
621 pr. bu. 
1.00 “ 
75 “ 
40 “ 
30 00 
37 50 
18 00 
16 50 
12 00 
Surely, he ought to raise potatoes; for an acre 
of potatoes will buy for him, the 
Produce of.2 1-2 acres of Hav. 
“ 2 “ Indian Corn. 
“ 4 1-6 “ Wheat. 
“ 4 1-2 “ Rye. 
u 6 1-4 “ Oats. 
Let farmers think of this next year. Sell your 
potatoes this year and buy hay, straw and corn, 
even at the present high price for corn. R. L. Colt. 
A large Ear of Corn. —A friend in Butler coun¬ 
ty, Ohio, writes us that one of his neighbors raised 
an ear of corn, the past season, 14 inches long and 
8§ inches in circumference, which had 840 grains. It 
was raised on land which had been in cultivation 
thirty years without manure. 
