50 THE CULTIVATOR. 
feeding-racks may be placed under cheap sheds, 
made of boards, or with poles covered with straw. 
In these protected situations, they would not be 
blown down by wind. Where stones cannot be had 
for forming the walls, turf embankments will an¬ 
swer to protect the trees while they are small; af¬ 
ter they have become strong, they will need no 
protection. The manure could be all saved here, 
and carted to places where it w*as most needed. 
In regard to the location of these structures, Mr. 
William Hogg directs that they be 11 situated on 
that department of a farm where the sheep most ea¬ 
sily congregate in times of difficulty. Their parti¬ 
cular site should lie apart from rocks, steep or ab- 
rubt precipices. Such obstacles to the tempest on¬ 
ly redouble its fury, and at uncertain intervals 
throw the regular current of the wind and drift into 
furious rushes, almost in every direction. If it be 
possible, they should be placed where the general 
stream of wind is not obstructed nor hurried by any 
object on the earth’s surface, but where it blows 
constantly, open and free.” 
With such shelter as is here proposed, the health 
and vigor of the sheep would be secured, and the 
great losses which are now annually sustained from 
undue exposure, w*ould be avoided. The sheep will 
naturally gather round these sheltered places in in¬ 
clement weather, and will pass and repass, as they 
find most conducive to their comfort. Their health 
and strength being preserved, they will eat their 
food with a good appetite, and will graze, or feed 
at the racks, according to the state of the weather. 
“Instinct” as a Scottish writer observes, “will teach 
them when to fly for shelter, and when to return to 
the pasture; at the same time the shepherd may be 
with them, rejoicing in his own safety as well as 
theirs.” 
$l)c Tanner’s Note-Book. 
Subsoil Plowing. 
Eds. Cultivator —Professor Johnston, in his 
Agricultural Chemistry, observes that in sandy, and 
generally all light soils, of which the particles are 
very fine, the capillary action is of great importance, 
and intimately connected with their pow r er of pro¬ 
ducing remunerating crops. That they absorb the 
falling rains with great rapidity; and these carry 
down the soluble matters as they descend. On the 
return of dry weather, the water re-ascends from 
the lower strata, and again diffuses the soluble in¬ 
gredients through the upper soil. A waiter in the 
October number of the Horticulturist, remarks that 
this action is very much aided by a trenching of such 
soils, provided the best soil is always kept on the 
surface. 
Now this commends itself as sound reasoning; 
and yet, it is so unlike the results of an experiment 
I tried the past summer, on similar principles, that 
I am constrained to submit the case to you, and 
learn in what manner you will account for a differ¬ 
ence I shall proceed to state, without repudiating 
this doctrine. 
It was conducted upon a piece of five acres of 
land—a sandy loam—resting upon a subsoil of yel¬ 
low loam. There was drawn upon it, the past 
winter, some two hundred loads of manure, which 
in the^spring was evenly spread, and the ground 
plowed; using on one-half of it a subsoil plow, that 
was driven eight inches deep, making a united depth 
of sixteen inches with both plows. It was then 
Jan. 
thoroughly harrowed, and on the 12th of May- 
planted to corn. 
The early growth of it was soon vigorous and 
luxuriant, with no perceivable difference between 
the portion subsoiled and the other, and so con¬ 
tinued until about the middle of July, when it all 
became very much affected by the severity of the j 
drouth that prevailed. It was then I expected to s 
realise the advantages of the subsoil plo-wing, in a 
facilitated capillary attraction, as well as a more 
abundant aliment from the vrider and deeper range 
thus secured to the roots; but it was not percepti¬ 
ble, nor did any difference manifest itself until the 
harvesting the cVop. All of it having suffered very 
much from the effects of the drouth, and, so far as I 
could judge, alike. 
That portion of the row, up to the point where 
the subsoiling commences—and which -was of the 
same length, and contained the same number of 
hills as that subsoiled—yielded one-half bushels of 
ears of corn more than the part subsoiled. And this 
difference was very nearly uniform in each row,— 
thus proving, very conclusively, that the subsoiling, 
so far at least as this crop was concerned, was a 
decided injury rather than benefit. 
Now, Messrs. Editors, you who are 11 bound to 
know everything,”’ will you please account for this 
difference? You see, readily, that it is at war with 
the theory quoted at the outset; nor does my mind 
suggest any reason, satisfactory for it, save one, at 
variance when applied to this character of soil ,— 
and it is, that the readier escape of moisture, from 
the greater depth, is not made good by an ( increased 
capillary action; and that in a season like the past, 
unusually dry, the crop consequently suffers more. 
With a more tenacious subsoil, this would not be. 
Indeed, I am some doubtful of the expediency at 
all of the subsoil plow, for this character of soil; 
but more from the results of this experiment than 
any actual knowledge on the subject; and I shall be 
greatly obliged to you, in common I presume with 
many others, for any reliable information that will 
elucidate this point. P. Waterville, N. Y., No¬ 
vember 10, 1849. 
The above results are different from any which 
have before come to our knowledge, in relation to 
subsoil plowing. We shall not attempt to explain 
them; but w-ould suggest that the crops, on the sub¬ 
soiled and unsubsoiled portions, be carefully noticed 
the coming and succeeding seasons. Eds. 
Mayweed—Corn Chamomile. 
Eds. Cultivator —Among the many noxious 
weeds that have been introduced into our country, 
there is scarcely one that is more to be dreaded by 
the farmer than the Anthemis arvensis, commonly 
called corn chamomile, or wild chamomile. On ac¬ 
count of its close resemblance to the Maruta cotula, 
or mayweed, the two plants are confounded, and 
supposed to be the same by many. The mayweed 
was called Anthemis cotula by Linnaeus and others; 
but De Candolle and, after him, most of our best 
botanists, have placed it in a different genus. The 
wild chamomile is easily distinguished from the may¬ 
weed by the larger heads of its flowers, and from 
wanting the strong, unpleasant smell peculiar to 
the mayw^eed, and by its botanical characters. 
The Anthemis arvensis is a native of Europe, Asia 
Minor, and is frequent in Egypt. As yet, it is 
sparingly naturalized in the United States,—being 
found in parts of New-England, New-York and 
Pennsylvania. In western New-York w-e have seen 
whole fields of wheat nearly choked out by this vile 
