140 
CHESS FROM WHEAT. 
The above applications may be extended to 
nearly all crops, grass, shrubbery, and fruit-trees, 
with the same benefit as to potatoes. 
In cultivating potatoes, those varieties should be 
selected which give the greatest value; some of 
these will produce 20, 50, or in some instances even 
100 per cent, more than others; but it must be re¬ 
membered that quantity is not always the test of 
value, a rule that holds to a very great extent with 
roots, hay, and some of the coarser products. To 
such a degree does this difference reach, that Profes¬ 
sor Johnstone asserts, that one kind of potatoes will 
lose 80 per cent., while another may not lose over 
10 per cent, of water, a difference owing to the 
different soils on which they are planted, and the 
variety used for seed. He says, that of the three 
varieties used in England, known as the cups, red- 
dons, and white-dons, the first gave three tons of 
starch (which is the principal test of the value of 
potatoes,) per acre; the white-dons gave tons; 
and the red-dons gave only tons. Thus the cups, 
although the lightest in quantity of the three va¬ 
rieties by three tons per acre, gave double the 
quantity of nutriment that the red-dons yielded. 
To this difference in the relative amount of starch 
afforded by each, is to be added the other nu¬ 
tritious ingredients of potatoes, gluten and oil, 
which vary according to the soil, manuring, and 
variety, to an extent even much greater than that 
of starch. 
Now these are considerations that every intel¬ 
ligent farmer will not fail to consider of great 
weight, in determining the mode of cultivation. 
Potatoes, and every crop, may be made of as much 
more intrinsic value for any given quantity, as 
stall-fed beef and mutton is than light grass-fed ; 
or corn-fattened pork is superior to the rambling, 
shack or slop-fed swine. These are important 
hints for farmers, which men of sound judgment 
and intelligence will not fail to appreciate and 
apply. R. L. Allen. 
Buffalo , March 26, 1844. 
CHESS FROM WHEAT. 
I find, by accidentally recurring to the late 
numbers of the Agriculturist, that it is quite time 
some of the advocates of the non-convertibility of 
wheat into chess, who have publicly noticed my 
“ heresy” on this subject, should be answered. It 
occurred to me when I first noticed the replies to 
my last article, that it would be best “ to defer 
clearing off the side-walks till it was done snow¬ 
ing ,” as something of a storm was an ticipated. My 
range of agricultural reading is for the present 
very limited, which is, perhaps, the reason that I 
have seen but three articles on the subject. But 
let us first see what is my position. 
It is simply the suggestion that chess is the 
original of wheat; a suggestion founded on our 
ignorance of the true original of wheat, and the 
strong circumstantial evidence of its convertibility 
into chess under a variety of enumerated circum¬ 
stances. I do not assert it as a settled question, 
I content myself with arraying some facts in sup¬ 
port of the convertibility, which I say “ if produced 
against a criminal on a trial for a capital offence, and 
not satisfactorily explained , would inevitably re¬ 
sult in hanging him.” Now, although I willing¬ 
ly concede to each of my opponents in this mat¬ 
ter (what I have no evidence to doubt,) extended 
observation, candor, and intelligence; yet I must 
say, they have adduced neither fact nor argument to 
disprove my suggestion, which is at all satisfactory 
to me, and I may add, probably, to nine tenths of 
the wheat-growers of the. west. The apparent 
facts are all on one side; science, they allege, is 
on the other. By what authority is this assertion 
made ? and what is science ? 
Science is but an extended collection of facts, 
comprehensively and methodically arranged, il¬ 
lustrative of any given subject, which are the re¬ 
sult of direct observation, or incontrovertible de¬ 
ductions from such observations. Anything short 
of this definition in its fullest import and extent, 
may be theory, plausible and convincing perhaps, 
but is not well established, scientific truth. We 
have had-various alleged sciences, in successive 
ages of the world; necromancy, astrology, al¬ 
chemy, and the science of mesmerism of the pres¬ 
ent day. Each of these, in their turn, have had 
large numbers of sincere and intelligent believers; 
yet they are not ranked by the highest and sound¬ 
est intelligence of the present time, as embodying 
scientific truth. And who that has witnessed the 
slow and imperfect progress of the sciences, and 
the frequent unsettling of long-established, gen¬ 
erally-acknowledged principles ; and the re-forma¬ 
tion of the whole subject—of astronomy as taught 
successively by the Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, 
and the men of genius of the middle ages; med¬ 
icine, as taught by Hippocrates, Galen, and Aris¬ 
totle; chemistry, as taught by its early, yet in¬ 
genious and gifted, but frequently mistaken found¬ 
ers, in the last century—will pretend to say, that 
botanical science is yet advanced so far as to place 
the non-convertibility of wheat into chess, in the 
class of absolutely incontrovertible truths ? 
And here let me say, is the precise point of dif¬ 
ference between myself and opponents. The 
strong array of facts in my favor, induces the be¬ 
lief of the probability of my position. This-is con¬ 
fidently, absolutely denied, under the shield of “a 
scientific principle;” which, after all, subsequent 
discoveries and further developments in botany, 
may prove to be no principle in the science.* It 
is a little singular then, that gentlemen of reflec¬ 
tion should, under all the circumstances of the 
case, put forth their opinions with quite the con¬ 
fidence expressed. I was perfectly aware of the 
difficulty under which they labored of proving a 
negative, before I started. If they have rashly 
encountered the undertaking, the difficulty is with 
them, not me. 
It is not to be denied, that a large portion of the 
* Chateaubriand, in noticing some vagaries of vegetable 
nature in our western hemisphere, conflicting with the 
current observations in Europe, there enrolled as un¬ 
impeachable science , says, “ The naturalist will perhaps 
contest the accuracy of this observation, for in Europe, 
evei'ything which deranges our systems, is treated as ig¬ 
norance or wanderings of the imagination.’ 7 Montaigne 
says, u If nature should be pleased to reveal her secrets 
to us one day, what errors, what mistakes shall we find in 
our paltry sciences.” 
