THE CULTIVATOR. 
381 
SMITH’S HORSE POWER CORN SHELLER AND SEPARATOR—(Fig. 101.) 
This machine, patented by F. N. Smith, is recommended as possessing the following advantages: 
ff 1. It is simple in construction and capable (with ordinary team for threshing) of shelling and separating effec¬ 
tually from one to three hundred bushels of ears per hour, depositing the cobs a reasonable distance from the 
shelled corn, which are perfectly clean from corn silks, husks, &e„ and neither the corn or cobs are broken, so as 
to be injured by the operation. 2. It may be fed from the shovel or basket, or feed itself by drawing the corn 
from the crib, in either case operating equally well. 3. It is durable to almost any extent, as it improves by use. 
4. It is safe in its operation against accidents of any kind whatsoever. 5. It may be readily attached to any horse 
or other power, taking the place of grain thresher, and is equally portable with the same. 6. It will shell large, 
small, and deformed ears with the same facility, also green or damp corn with the same perfection as when dry. 
7. Corn shelled after this manner, is allowed by those having tried the experiment, to look better, and measure 
from 5 to 10 per cent more than horse treading or flailing, as the corn leaves the operation as soon as it leaves the 
cob, the cob remaining until clean.” The above machines are kept constantly on hand and for sale at the foundry 
of Hanna & Peaslee, Kinderhook, Columbia county, N. Y. Price $40—warranted. 
INQUIRIES ABOUT CHARCOAL, &c. 
To Za. Drummond, Esq. of Amherst Co., Va.: 
My Dear Sir —As I find your name in the pages of 
the Cultivator, I take the liberty of addressing you through 
this medium. And I feel gratified that the friends of ag¬ 
riculture, notwithstanding their living thousands of miles 
apart, can thus interchange sentiments, and be benefited 
by each other’s experience, although not personally ac¬ 
quainted. Thanks to the Cultivator, I have been benefit¬ 
ed by the communications of yourself, neighbor Robin¬ 
son, and other valued correspondents of this useful agri 
cultural journal. While I am combatting with the vari¬ 
ous incidents of a pioneer life, enjoying its sweets as well 
as occasionally tasting its bitter, you, hundreds of miles 
distant, are setting under your own vine and fig tree in 
the sunny fields of the south. 
What I desire, is, to be further informed of the fertili¬ 
zing effects of charcoal as a manure—its best method of 
application, and to what soil it is best adapted; whether 
clayey or sandy. I am particularly desirous of knowing 
what was the result of the experiment you made (as men¬ 
tioned on the 48th page of the Cultivator, vol. 10,) of 
scattering it, after being pounded, over the litter of your 
cattle yard. Does it answer your expectations as a ma¬ 
nure? Will it pay the expense of burning, if the wood 
costs nothing more than the cutting? 
My attention has been more particularly called to your 
communications, by reading an article in the last number 
of the Cultivator, from A. J. P. of Newburgh, N. Y., who 
says it is f( in itself, almost or quite valueless;” and “ it 
is at any rate doubtful if it is ever converted into earth, 
or of itself, furnishes any food for plants.” He further 
says that ee when used in the compost heap, or when sat 
urated with urine, all the substances it comes in contact 
with, are brought under its influence, and when applied 
to the soil, are gradually separated by the rains which 
fall upon them, and undergo in the earth the decay which 
fits them to become food for plants. Used in this way, 
charcoal will undoubtedly be found very useful, much 
more than when applied alone.” In your letter of Jan. 
15th, 1843, as referred to above, you asked the opinion 
of the editors on this subject. As we may benefit by 
their opinion, as well as by the theory of A. J. P., the 
readers of the Cultivator, (one in particular,) would like 
to avail themselves of your experience on this subject. 
On the 80th page of the same volume in the following 
March, you stated that you should “ try it on corn, wheat, 
cabbage, meadow and grazing lands, and report the re¬ 
sult.” We hope, friend Drummond, that you will give 
us a report of your experiments, whether they are favor¬ 
able, or the contrary. And whether the application of 
charcoal alone or in the compost heap, is the most advan¬ 
tageous. 
I suppose you and the readers of the Cultivator, think 
it strange that a western man should think of manuring 
his land—that the fertile fields of the west need no ma¬ 
nure, and that there is no possibility of their repayiug the 
least outlay for manure, or anything farther than getting 
in the seed, and inclosing the whole farm, however large, 
with the fewest number of miles fencing possible. But 
we hope to see this idea scouted some day or other. 
Should this idea continue to prevail, and our farmers act 
accordingly, we must soon abandon the raising of wheat 
and see our eastern neighbors, on their Oldfields, beating 
us in bountiful crops. Do not call mean ill omened bird; 
but it is true. Where nature yields so abundantly, if we 
do not return something to recruit her exhausting ener¬ 
gies, we shall soon be doomed to the sad disappointment 
of seeing a yearly diminution of her products, though 
small at first, but a diminution as sure and steady as the 
sands of the hour glass. Our farmers act like the “ horse 
leech’s two daughters, crying give, give;” but they make 
no return. There is as much reason in working our hor¬ 
ses and oxen without feeding, as thus tasking our farms 
without giving them their requisite food; and the man 
who should refuse to feed his working team because it 
was already fat and sleek, would act as rational as the 
farmer who should continue to work the domain God 
has given him, without feeding it with those fertilizing 
agents and manures which are so necessary for maintain¬ 
ing it in a fat and luxuriant condition. These things will 
not always last. The improved system of husbandry, 
with rotation of crops, and a liberal use of fertilizing 
agents, will be adopted here. From fifteen to thirty- 
bushels of wheat, to our eastern farmers, looks like a li¬ 
beral yield. These are our common crops. But forty 
ami fifty bushels to the acre, is as common in England, 
as thirty to thirty-five is with us. And even sixty bush¬ 
els of wheat is sometimes produced from a single acre of 
ground. Now the question is, ought western farmers to 
sit down and content themselves with from fifteen to 
thirty bushels of wheat from an acre of ground? Assu¬ 
redly not. But some say when wheat is but fifty cents 
per bushel, it will not pay the outlay of a thorough sys¬ 
tem of manuring. Our crops, I do not mean all of them, 
