AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
99 
applied. The after culture was in every re-1 
spect precisely the same. On harvesting 
the crop it was ascertained that the boned 
rows had produced double the quantity yield¬ 
ed by the four undressed rows. The rows 
dressed with poudrette yielded somewhat 
less than the four treated with dust, but ow¬ 
ing to a slight oversight, the exact quantity 
was not ascertained. 
From these and similar data, I am per¬ 
suaded not only of the value of bone-dust as 
a manure, but of its economy as a stimulant 
to be applied on field crops. Several exper¬ 
iments on turnips, all of which were con¬ 
ducted with the most scrupulous accuracy, 
corroborate the correctness of this opinion. 
I think that a little more liberality on the 
part of our agriculturists would be far more 
creditable, especially asthe present depressed 
condition of the art demands the vigorous 
cooperation of all its friends in order to in¬ 
sure its advancement, and without this co¬ 
operation it can never progress, or be pro¬ 
ductive of the results of which it ought to be, 
and of which it unquestionably is capable. 
On a piece of light land, on the farm of 
one of my neighbors, one bushel of bone- 
dust was sowed on grass land, rather light 
and thin. The surface was somewhat, un¬ 
dulating, but not sufficiently so to be con¬ 
sidered broken ; the extent somewhat less 
than one-fourth of an acre. On an adjoining 
piece, in everyrespec^similar in texture and 
constitution, one bushel of poudrette was 
applied, and on a third piece three bushels of 
ashes—all three of the articles being broad¬ 
casted, the time being the 21st of May. The 
land had been five years in grass with¬ 
out any dressing, and was rather poor. The 
first section, or that which had been dusted, 
produced seven hundred and eight pounds ; 
the second, or that on which poudrette was 
used, yielded seven hundred and thirty-six 
pounds, and the third, manured with the three 
bushels of ashes five hundred, eighteen and 
one-half pounds. The grass on the three 
pieces was cut on the same day, all cured 
alike, and weighed on the same scales. The 
increase of yield, in consequence of the ap¬ 
plication of these substances, was consider¬ 
ably over thirty-five per cent. 
Such facts are of importance and should 
be so regarded by all. A Farmer. 
Grain for France. —The Rochester Union 
states that the agents of the French Empe¬ 
ror have been largely engaged this fall in 
purchasing wheat in the west, on his ac¬ 
count. They have purchased 900,000 bush¬ 
els, of which 650,000 came to Buffalo and 
250,000 bushels to Oswego. All but 40,000 
went down the Erie Canal. The same agents 
are still buying in Illinois and other western 
States, to go down the Mississippi and out 
by New-Orleans. 
Some wag sent an editor the first chapter 
of Matthew, as an original communication 
for his paper. The editor thought it was 
all right, and inserted it under the head of 
“ communications.” 
It is less pain to learn in youth than to be 
ignorant in age. 
0UE MUTTON MAEKETS. 
Why is it that we see so little really good % 
mutton in our public markets? It is about 
the best fresh meat that we can obtain, when 
good. The common mutton is—and no se¬ 
cret either—bad ; in most cases, scarcely 
eatable ; and it is impossible to make good 
mutton out of such sheep as our farmers 
breed for such purposes. In the first place, 
the proper anatomy or frame of the animal 
is wanting. Neither our old-fashioned “com¬ 
mon” sheep—of which millions are yet prop¬ 
agated in the country, particularly in the 
western States—nor the Merino, are proper¬ 
ly built for the purposes of good mutton. 
They are thin, gaunt, and scraggy, and their 
meat, as a consequence, lean, tough, and 
stringy. Even when “ well fatted ”—if such 
a thing can be—they are inferior, and, on 
good tables, little or nothing is used but the 
hind quarters—and poor at that. The im¬ 
proved English breeds, Cotswold or South- 
downs, are the true mutton sheep, and why, 
when they are so easily obtained at very 
moderate prices, as they can be in this coun¬ 
try, it is passing strange, that our farmers 
are so neglectful of them. 
According to our late market reports, 
“ common” sheep and lambs are worth $3 
75 each, while “extra” are worth $10 to 
$12. By “common,” are meant the old- 
fashioned American sheep, andMerinoes and 
their crosses upon the American, while 
“extra” are the Long-wooled and South- 
down varieties. The “common ” are three 
to four years old, and the “ extras” two to 
three years. It costs just as much to breed 
and raise one as the other, but the fattening, 
mainly done on grass, is all on the side of 
the improved breeds. The common breed, 
i. e. the old-fashioned, and the Merino and 
their crosses, will, with ever-so-much grass 
and grain, take on flesh and fat only in cer¬ 
tain parts of the body and on the kidneys, 
while the improved ones will fat all over, 
like a pig. Consequently, while the com¬ 
mon thing has a fore-quarter scarcely fit to 
eat, the other has a full carcass, rich, fleshy 
and juicy, from the “ scrag ” to the “ hocks” 
—all good and edible, for the very best 
tables. 
Why do not our western farmers go into 
good mutton, instead of running, as they do, 
into beef and pork, exclusively? It seems 
to us they will find their account in if. No 
animal treats land so lightly as a sheep. 
None grazes on coarser—if dry—herbage. 
They will summer well in a bush pasture 
where a bullock would starve. They will 
winter out, on bare ground, where a “ neat ” 
animal can not get enough for a cud. They 
are every way an economical creature. 
Their fleece will usually pay for the annual 
keeping. Do, we beseech you, both our 
eastern and western friends, go into the 
breeding of good sheep, and supply our mar¬ 
kets with good mutton. 
A wag, on seeing a pet poodle which had 
been shorn of its fleecy coat, remarked that 
he deemed the act which had divested the 
animal of its covering shear cruelty. 
MISSISSIPPI COEN AHEAD—“SOME PUMP¬ 
KINS.” 
To the Editor of the American Agriculturist : 
I do not design to brag over an Everett or 
a Rives, over Massachusetts or Virginia, but 
I can not help it. Mississippi has some 
showing where corn is the question. On 
page 53 you allude to “ some corn.” I have 
an ear now on my desk, raised here, eleven 
inches long, nine inches in circumference, 
twenty-two rows, fifty-two grains in each 
row—1,144 grains now on the cob, and one 
inch of the small end with grains accident¬ 
ally off by handling and the result of the 
weevil. I count, by distinct depressions 
where grains were, 132 grains off, which, 
added to the above, gives 1,276 grains origin¬ 
ally, at least. This ear I picked out of a 
wagon when hauling in corn, without select¬ 
ing. I have another ear, accidentally picked 
up as the above, with twenty-six rows and 
over 1,000 grains. I know not that I could 
do better, but if beaten will try again. 
I had, of our common pumpkins, 771 and 
78i lbs. each; and some 80 loads of box- 
body’s containing 162 and 177 cubic feet— 
holding by my count 54 and 59 bushels of 
corn in the shuck [husk]. 
The corn is as pure “gourd seed” as I 
can get—preferred because less depredated 
upon by weevil. Is the quantity and coarse¬ 
ness of husk the preventative—being too 
much for weevil to deposit eggs through? 
I think I have seen more grains on other 
ears than mine contains, and this one is pre¬ 
served not for the quantity, nor the size of 
the ear, but for the regularity of grains. 
M. W. Philips. 
Edwards, Miss. 
We submit the above to Mr. F. R. Rives, 
of Virginia, and Hon. Edward Everett, of 
Massachusetts. They will both have to try 
their hands again at raising corn, or own 
beat. 
However, Mr.'Rives’s ear of corn was two 
inches longer than that of Mr. Philips, tho’ 
one inch less in circumference—so that the 
superficial area of each is about the same. 
We propose that both gentlemen shell the 
ears, and send us ths exact avordupois weight 
of corn. 
Will Uncle Sam please call in and give an 
account of himself? We want to know why 
the above letter was 21 days in coming to 
New-York. 
Poets say, “follow nature.” Painters say, 
“ follow nature.” Actors say “follow na¬ 
ture.” It strikes us that this following na¬ 
ture is about being played out. Mr. C., the 
farmer, followed nature one year, and what 
did he get—a crop of mullen instead of “ yal- 
ler corn ” Nature is rather a wayward 
young lady. She runs as strongly to weeds 
as the Gulf Stream or a young widow con¬ 
templating marriage. Nature has but a 
small idea of utility. Let her alone for a 
year, and the whole country would be cov¬ 
ered with thistles and stramonium. Na¬ 
ture should not be followed, but improved. 
The bread of life is love ; the salt of life is 
work. 
