THE CULTIVATOR. 
183 
MR. PELL’S FARMING. 
We give the following letter from Mr. Pell, with 
pleasure, and shall be glad to receive the results of the 
experiments, spoken of in his private note as now in pro¬ 
gress, for publication. Notwithstanding the favorable 
results which Mr. P. thinks he obtained from the use of 
one bushel of clover seed to the acre, and a bushel of 
salt to a ton of hay, we cannot but think that a reduction 
of at least one half these quantities might have been made 
without a decrease in the product of hay in the one case, 
and with a decided benefit to his cattle in the other. To 
compel animals to eat a larger portion of salt than nature 
requires, cannot but be injurious. While we by no 
means question the statements of Mr. P. in relation to his 
experiments, we cannot doubt but that there must have 
been other favorable circumstances concurring, aside 
from the use of charcoal, to produce the extraordinary 
yield of wheat alluded to. 
Luther Tucker, Esq.— In overlooking the May 
number of the Cultivator this morning, I was surprised 
to find several communications had been sent you for 
publication by different individuals, questioning the util¬ 
ity of a few experiments I had tried, found advantageous, 
and made public, solely that others might be benefitted. 
“ Long Island” attributes my success in wheat culture to 
the use of lime, and says, “ Let the experiment of lime 
and charcoal be made side by side, and given to the 
world.” 
I would refer “ Long Island” to an article of mine 
published in the December number of the Cultivator, 
page 197. The land which produced at the rate of 78| 
bushels of wheat to the acre, was manured with pulver¬ 
ized charcoal dust, lime not being used in that experi¬ 
ment. By analysis the soil contained gypsum and a 
little common salt, soluble in water—a very little phos¬ 
phate of lime, carbonate of lime, and si-licate of potash, 
soluble in muriatic acid. So that further than what was 
naturally in the soil, no addition of lime was made. This 
spring on the 23d of April a head of clover fully devel¬ 
oped, was plucked near the same piece. Near it, I limed 
four acres, at the rate of 200 bushels of oyster shell lime 
to the acre, and the yield was not 25 bushels per acre. 
Next in order, page 153, I find Mr. J. Johnston of 
Geneva, has taken up his “pen to show” that my “ opin¬ 
ions are wrong,” and some of my “ practices are actually 
cruel.” I have pursued the same mode for two years, 
^sowing half a bushel of timothy seed, and one bushel of 
clover seed to the acre; likewise have cut my grass, 
housed it on the same day, and salted it with one bushel 
of fine salt to the ton. In the winters of ’43 and ’44,1 
fed 12 head of cattle and three horses on hay so cured, 
and I flatter myself they would be considered creditable 
to any farmer, by either Mr. Johnston or Mr. Curtis. 
I have within the last two years, tried Mr. Johnston’s 
method of sowing five pounds of clover seed on a small 
gore of land, and contiguous to it one bushel. From the 
latter I cut three tons, and from the former one ton of 
hay to the acre—measured when cured. Mr. Johnston 
“ thinks I am one of those farmers that tell men to do so 
and so, but who neither., helps to do it, nor sees that it is 
done.” I will confess that I do not often help to do the 
work, but generally see that it is well done. 
Page 161, I find a letter signed Daniel S. Curtis, who 
says, speaking of himself—“ My practice is to cure my 
hay 'properly , and put 2 quarts of fine salt to a ton, taking 
care to have the lumps well pulverized. Curing hay in 
the cock is the only right way.” Mr. Curtis further 
says—“ Ten dollars worth of grass seed to the acre, 
would look large to farmers that do not usually sow over 
two.” Where I sowed by the old rule 5 pounds to the 
acre as before mentioned, I cut one ton of hay, worth in 
this vicinity $12, and in the other instance from a bushel 
sown, timothy included in both cases, the yield was three 
tons, worth $36. 
In my communication I did not say my plan was the 
only way, but merely mentioned the fact that others 
might receive advantage from it, not supposing for a mo¬ 
ment that farmers who had never sown more than 5 lbs. 
to the acre would condemn an experiment before they 
had tried it themselves. 
Mr. Curtis speaks disparagingly of straw, chaff and 
refuse hay as compost, and as if I strongly recommended 
it. If he will take the trouble to refer to my letter dated 
Jan. 21st, ’44, on seeding grass lands, &c., he will find 
I merely say it is supposed by chemists, that the plan of 
keeping a large stock of horned cattle for the express pur¬ 
pose of manuring a farm, is an erroneous one, on account 
of the various substances taken from the food to support 
the animal economy, and ask the simple question,—If, 
instead of keeping stock for that purpose, the farmer 
should convert his straw, chaff and refuse hay, into ma¬ 
nure in a compost heap, he would not save without the 
least loss every requisite for the ensuing crop ? It is 
well known that in Virginia and other parts of the coun¬ 
try, a great number of cattle are kept expressly for that 
purpose. Mr. Curtis surmises if I have fed any length of 
time on hay cured as aforementioned, and not lost my 
stock, “they must be of a different temperature from his 
neighbor’s cow.” I imagine they are of the same tem¬ 
perament and habits as his neighbor’s stock, and assure 
him that for two years their chief food has been hay so 
preserved, which they have always eaten with apparent 
satisfaction, and my man says he has never observed that 
they ever drank an unusual quantum of water. As to 
quantity of hay cured on my place, year before last and 
last year I cut the grass from fifty acres, and cured it as 
aforesaid, and intend intend to continue the same plan, 
being satisfied that I derive great advantage from it. My 
cattle are still “ punished by the cruel practice,” as I pur¬ 
sue the English mode of soiling, and do not permit them 
to change their fodder, until corn and rye sown broad 
cast, is fit to cut in turn with clover, to afford a change of 
diet. I am very respectfully yours, R. L. Pell. 
Pelham , Ulster Co., May 17, 1844. 
FARM LANDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
A Pennsylvania correspondent, Mr. P. Peterson, who 
dates, “Four miles East of Pittsburg,” says: 
“I will take the liberty of recommending to the 
Orange County farmers, and to any others, the western 
part of the State of Pennsylvania, it fitting the very ob¬ 
jects which they desire. 
1st. The land is cheap and good. 
2d. The climate is remarkably healthy. 
3d. It is a desirable part of the country. 
4th. Schools both private and public are as plenty as 
bad farmers. 
5th. There are churches of every denomination and 
for 100 miles square will number with any other part of 
the union. 
6th. Farming implements, cows, horses, hogs, oxen, 
wagons and furniture can be had cheaper than any other 
place within my knowledge. If you don’t believe me, 
come and see for yourselves. 
The land in this section of the country is generally im¬ 
proved, and in consequence of the reverse of times, many 
farmers and other persons owning lands have become 
involved, which obliges them in many cases to sell their 
improved farms, and seek for others further west unim¬ 
proved and at less prices. 
In Washington county, Penn., (which joins lines with, 
the state of Virginia,) the land is of an excellent quality, 
and generally limestone land, abounding with coal. The 
price will vary from fifteen to forty dollars per acre, ac¬ 
cording to the improvements and situation. 
In Fayette county the land is generally good, of a 
black mould and abounds with coal. The price will 
vary from ten to thirty dollars; building not so good as 
Washington co. In Westmoreland co. the land is good, 
but varies very much in quality. Price, $10 to $25. 
In Alleghany county, south and west of the Alleghany 
river, the land is rolling and of a good quality, coal in 
abundance, and some lime stone. Price varies very 
much, owing to the necessity of the seller; for a good 
farm improved, say $20 to $30 per acre. On the north 
side of the Alleghany river the land is not so good. Can 
be had for from $3 to $20 per acre, according to the im 
provemenfs. 
In Beaver county the land is rolling, good, and can be 
had at moderate prices. From $12 to $15 per aci*e for* 
pretty good farm, common buildings.” 
