PROFITS OF HENS. 
A correspondent at New-Brunswick, N. J., gives the 
following account of an attempt to make hens profitable. 
He says—“ I fitted up for them a spare out-building, 
letting them run in the barn-yard and in a small field, 
containing about an acre and a half. The result for the 
last year is as follows:— 
Dr. 
To 45 hens, at 25 cents,.$11.25 
« 4 cocks, at 50 cents,. 2.00 
« grain fed,... 20.00 
$33.25 
Cr. 
By 3302 eggs,. $34.02 
“ chickens killed during the summer 
and fall,. 14.84 
By 100 fowls on hand, at 25 cts.,. 25.00 
“ 4 cocks, at 50 cts.,. . 2.00 
$74.86 
33.25 
Thus you will see I have a clear gain of $41.61 
My own labors I count as nothing, because they were 
given in the morning and evening, when I had little 
else to do. I hope this will induce all those farmers 
who now let their fowls roost in the trees, and get 
their living as they can, to build a fowl house, the en¬ 
suing season, and commence to keep a debtor and credit 
account of them.” 
In reference to the same subject a correspondent at 
Castleton, Vt., writes:—“I will state the amount of 
eggs that I gathered from the first of January, 1845 till 
the first of November, 1845, ten months. 
Jan. and Feb.,. 196 
March,. 358 
April,. 413 
May,. 375 
June,.. .. 219 
July,. 112 
August,. 241 
Sept.,.'. 211 
October,... 113 
Total,.. 2248 
<C I had 22 fowls—21 hens and 1 cock. One hen was 
set in April for early chickens. In June I killed five 
hens, and three more set and hatched, making four that 
raised chickens. There was feed by them constantly 
from the first of January to the fii'st of July, after which 
they were fed morning and evening. They ran at large 
all the time, and many eggs were lost in consequence. 
I have looked over the last three volumes of the Culti¬ 
vator, and I do not recollect to have seen so large an 
amount of eggs from the same number of hens.” 
SOUR SOILS NOT NECESSARY TO PRODUCE SORREL 
L. Tucker, Esq, —Among the many popular super¬ 
stitions in vogue at the present day, there are none 
more easily refuted than that which supposes acidity in 
the soil to be the sine qua non to the growth of sorrel, 
(Rumex acetosa .) So far from the truth is this idea, that 
it may with confidence be affirmed, that on such a soil, 
sorrel can not grow. At least, it may be demonstrated, 
that, unless an alkali be present in the soil, the plant 
cannot attain perfection. Why a sour soil should be 
considered more necessary for this plant, than for the 
pie plant, or any of our sour fruits, I am at a loss to 
imagine. That it is not, may be conclusively shown by 
a chemical analysis of the plant itself. The leaves of 
sorrel owe their acidity to the presence of a salt called 
by chemists, the binoxalate of potassa. This is com¬ 
posed of two equivalents of oxalic acid, and one of po¬ 
tassa. This alkali, all will admit, is drawn from the 
soil. But whence comes the acid. As a preliminary 
to answering this question, I will state that oxalic acid 
is composed of two eq. of carbon, three eq. of oxygen, 
and one eq. of water. This differs from carbonic acid, 
which is largely absorbed from the atmosphere by all 
plants, only in containing less oxygen. 
The following table exhibits the composition of seve¬ 
ral vegetable products, and shows how simple is the 
process of converting any one of them into another. 
Oxalic acid contains 2 eq. carbon, 3 eq. oxygen, 1 water.* 
Carbonic acid “ 2 “4 “ 
Acetic acid 
ee 
4 
<( 
4 
ee 
4 hy’gn. 
Tartaric acid 
«( 
4 
fC 
5 
ee 
3 
ee 
Cane Sugar 
ee 
12 
ee 
11 
ee 
11 
ee 
Grape Sugar 
ee 
12 
ee 
14 
ee 
14 
ee 
Starch 
ee 
12 
ee 
10 
ee 
10 
ee 
Gum 
ee 
12 
ee 
11 
ee 
11 
ee 
Now it has been shown by Liebig, that it is from the 
atmosphere that plants derive all their carbon, in the 
shape of carbonic acid; and from the above table, (which 
is mostly from Liebig,) it will at once be perceived that 
carbonic acid has only to part with one equivalent of 
oxygen and take one of water, and we have the identical 
acid, which, uniting with an alkali furnished by the 
soil, forms the acid salt found in that pest of the far¬ 
mer, sorrel. 
That the above is a correct account of the modus 
operandi of nature, can hardly admit of a doubt; and if 
so, we must look to physical, not chemical means to 
rid us of the nuisance. W. R. P. 
Bowling Green, Wood Co ., Ohio . 
RUST ON WHEAT. 
Mr. Tucker. —Having been a subscriber of the Cul¬ 
tivator for many years, and having read the different 
opinions in regard to rust in wheat, I avail myself of 
the present opportunity, to offer a few remarks upon 
that subject. 
In the year 1840, I had sown 9 acres of wheat, 4 of it 
being in an orchard. It grew admirably, very tall and 
thick, with fine long ears, and was admired by all who 
saw it. This was within one week of harvest, when 
there arose a very heavy and thick fog, coming on from 
the east, with a gentle wind sufficient to waft it along, 
and continued two days, after which time it cleared off, 
and to my regret, I discovered my wheat was ruined. 
But what was my surprise, when I came to harvest that 
part in the orchard, I found all the wheat under the 
west side of the apple trees entirely free from rust. 
That circumstance fully confirms, what has ever been 
my opinion, that fog is the only true cause of rust. I 
believe if there was a high, tight board fence erected 
on the east of the wheat field, it would protect the 
wheat as broad as the fence is high. Never in 
my long course of experience, have I known rust with¬ 
out fog. I see by the January number of the Cultiva¬ 
tor, that a Tompkins county farmer, who suffered in 
one piece of wheat so greatly, had another piece a half 
a mile distant, escaped entirely. But he says it was 
sheltered on two sides by a wood, which goes a great 
way to corroborate my statement. 
Richmond. 
We have received a communication from Mr. Wm. 
Byers, Brook Hall, Va., giving his views on the sub¬ 
ject of rust and smut in wheat. He supposes that rust 
is most likely to take place in those seasons which in¬ 
duce a vigorous growth of wheat in the latter part of 
winter or early spring. In consequence of this early or 
premature growth, he supposes the energies of the roots 
become exhausted about the commencement of the fill¬ 
ing of the grain, and that the grain fails for want of 
support. Under these circumstances, he thinks, if wet 
weather ensues, the roots decay and “ the black rust 
or smut is produced ;” and if the weather is dry, “ the 
root fails, and the red rust is very apt to make its ap¬ 
pearance; or if not, the grain is small and the crop 
light.” If, however, according to his theory, “a dry 
spell of weather takes place after the early growth, and 
* Water is composed of 1 eq. of oxygen and 1 of hydrogen 
