150 
IMPORTED SHORTHORNS—REPLY TO DR. MARTIN. 
farmer have a full supply of manure, he would j 
be under no particular necessity of studying | 
into the chemical composition of his farmyard j 
manures. 
But among farmers, especially on long-culti- j 
vated farms, there is a general complaint of not 
having a sufficiency of manure to grow either 
large crops, or to increase the fertility of their 
exhausted fields. Then it becomes important, 
in a pecuniary point of view, to the farmer, to 
learn the nature and properties of the individual 
constituents—the raw material, as it were, that 
make up in the aggregate, the growth of his 
cultivated crops, and also, those elementary 
substances that compose his manure heap. 
Having ascertained these important and easily- 
acquired facts, he is then prepared to act un- 
derstandingly, and by this knowledge, he is 
frequently enabled to obtain a great variety of 
materials within his reach, that will serve as 
substitutes for his barn manures, and at a much 
less cost than he could purchase stable ma¬ 
nure. 
To attempt to explain, in a familiar way, some 
of the principles alluded to, is my object in 
writing this. The hay, corn fodder, straw, roots, 
and grain, fed to farm stock, derived their growth 
from the constituents of the soil, the atmosphere, 
and water. The food given to an animal, in its 
passage through him, parts with some portions 
of the several substances drawn by the plants 
from the soil, &c. For they are taken up by 
the assimilating vessels, purposely prepared in 
the animal, for supplying its daily physical 
wants, and adding to its growth, if a young ani¬ 
mal, and for the purpose of laying on fat and 
increasing its weight of muscle, &c., if intended 
for the shambles. Another portion is consumed 
for the purpose of respiration, and passes off 
from the lungs as carbonic acid gas. The bal¬ 
ance of the food is voided in the excrements— 
liquid and solid. The great bulk of the solid 
part consists of masticated vegetable matter, 
dead plants and their seeds, in a partial state of 
decomposition, but all, substances of vegetable 
origin, which, as they formerly constituted liv¬ 
ing plants, must necessarily contain those mat¬ 
ters required for a new growth of similar plants; 
for it is one of the immutable laws of creation, 
that the death and decay of one generation of 
plants and animals, shall contribute to the sus¬ 
tenance and growth of succeeding ones. Then, 
in general terms, the above explanation gives 
us the reasons why farmyard manure acts so 
favorably in increasing the amount of farm pro¬ 
duce. 
But I remarked, that it was important that the 
farmer should know the nature and properties 
of the individual substances that enter into the 
composition of the plants he cultivates; for, by 
knowing these substances, he is prepared to 
make use of many materials within his reach, 
that answer as substitutes for his farm manure. 
For this knowledge, we are indebted to the re¬ 
searches of the chemist. From him, we learn 
what portions of the plant are drawn from the 
soil, and what from other sources. From the 
soil, are derived the following-named constitu- 
| ents of plants, namely, potash, soda, lime, mag- 
| nesia, silex, iron, manganese, alumina, sulphur, 
| phosphorus, and chlorine. These are termed 
| the inorganic constituents of plants, and are taken 
■ into the plant from the soil, (by the endosmose 
action of the extremities of the roots,) dissolved 
in the water of the soil; and in the plant, they 
are applied to the various parts, fulfilling, so 
far as these inorganic bodies are concerned, 
those special purposes, for which they were de¬ 
signed in the different vegetable products of the 
earth. These inorganic substances constitute 
that portion of plants and their seeds, that are 
left in the form of ash after they have been 
burned. The ash, in general, forms only a small 
proportion of the weight of the plant. 100 lbs. 
of wheat leave less than two pounds of ash 
when burned, the same weight of dry pine or 
fir wood often leaves less than half a pound of 
ash, while hay and straw leave from five to ten 
pounds, from every hundred weight of the dried 
plant. But small as is the amount of ash that 
is found in plants, (which ash is made up of the 
several substances already named,) they are all 
absolutely essential to the full development, 
and perfect maturity of the seed-bearing plants. 
A soil which is naturally so fertile that it will 
grow a long succession of crops, without any 
addition of manure, is found, upon analysis, to 
contain in its inorganic parts a notable portion, 
or quantity of the several chemical substances 
above named—potash, soda, lime, &c. Soils 
are thus constituted in good land, when nearly 
cleared of the forest growth; and such is the 
character of the fertile soils of the prairies and 
other rich lands of the west. But each success¬ 
ive crop harvested removes a portion of these 
important ingredients from the soil, and annual 
croppings, without suitable returns of manure 
in some form or other, Sooner or later, reduces 
these fruitful lands to a state of sterility. 
Levi Bartlett. 
Warner, N. H., Feb., 1850. 
IMPORTED SHORTHORNS—REPLY TO DR. MARTIN. 
Dr. Martin’s article having been shown me, 
I deem it proper now, to correct his errors, so 
far as he refers to me. The Doctor thinks me 
mistaken in saying that “ The pedigree of the 
Princess tribe traces farther back than any one 
recorded in the Herd Book.” Now the Princess 
tribe traces back in the Herd Book, in named 
animals to Tripes by the Studley bull, in 1740. 
None except the Princess and the Wildeyes can, 
by named animales or known crosses, be traced 
a year beyond 1770, and only one tribe beside 
the Princess and Wildeyes to 1770, and that. 
Lady Maynard, Comet’s family. The Duchess, 
Daisy and Red-Rose tribes cannot be traced in 
known crosses, a day beyond 178Q. I am now 
speaking of what is recorded in the Herd Book. 
Nothing, whatever, is known in or out of the 
Herd Bool^, of the Duchess, Daisy nor Red-Rose 
tribes, prior to 1780; only that they were good 
cattle; and of Lady Maynard, (or Favorite’s and 
Comet’s tribe,) beyond 1770, it is known that they 
were bad cattle. Now of the Princess family, 
their printed pedigree, in the Herd Book, goes to 
