1847. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
205 
scription of stock for use on the road, and indeed for any 
useful purposes? On the contrary, it is frequently the 
case that horses which acquire no particular distinction 
on the turf, prove to be the most valuable stock getters. 
This can be substantiated. 
Mr. Burke, in the essay on breeding horses from 
which I have before quoted, observes —■“ There are 
many of our racing stallions that have scarcely ever be¬ 
gotten a foal that turned out a good racer; but that 
when put to mares not quite thorough-bred, have pro¬ 
duced hunters of first-rate capabilities.” 
An idea prevails, also, to some extent, that the Arab 
horses cannot improve the English stock, because their 
progeny do not always prove to be racers. In reference 
to this, a writer in the Farmers’ Magazine , (1845,) 
cites several examples of Arab horses having produced 
valuable stock. The first is the Cole Arabian , so called. 
*• He had,” says the writer, u some of the best Irish 
mares put to him, but none of their progeny could run 
with the common average of English and Irish race 
horses, except when receiving weight; and accordingly 
he was kept at Dublin for half stock, and his stock 
proved most excellent, sinewy, and spirited, with extra¬ 
ordinary powers as hunters or roadsters, some of them 
distinguishing themselves as steeple chasers.” He gives 
another example: 11 We have another instance in the 
fine grey Arabian imported by Gen. Brownrigg: the 
best Irish and English blood were put to him for trial; 
but although he got some splendid hunters, as to racing, 
it is altogether out of the question.” 
But although the horses of English blood have of late 
years generally beaten those of eastern origin on the 
course, it is not certain that a similar result would en¬ 
sue in a longer contest where strength and endurance 
would be more required. An account is given of a race 
which took place at St. Petersburgh, in Russia, on the 
4th of August, 1825, in which an English horse *ran 
49£ miles in two hours and forty minutes. This was cer¬ 
tainly an extraordinary performance, though it appears 
to have been exceeded by a Russian or Circassian horse, 
in another race which took place on the banks of th« 
Don, on the 28th of April, 1826. The distance run 
was 44f miles, in a continuous line. There were 
twenty-five horses engaged in the race. The winner, a 
horse called Jason, performed the distance in two hours 
and five minutes. Ten horses, besides the winner, ar¬ 
rived at the goal in good condition, but of the remaining 
fourteen, most “ died during the race or soon after¬ 
wards.” A comparison of the performances of these two 
horses, shows that the English horse ran 18 miles 210 
rods per hour, while the Circassian ran 21 miles 153| 
rods in the same time; and that the English horse would 
have been twenty-one minutes more than the Circassian 
in performing the 44| miles. Eq,uus. 
DEBATE ON THE PROFITS OF FARMING. 
Amateurs may engage in agriculture for the poetry of 
it; but most of those who follow the business for a live¬ 
lihood, are under the. necessity of making its profits the 
primary object. There is an impression, more or less 
prevalent, that farming is in general less profitable than 
most other occupations. We will not undertake to say 
how far this impression is founded in fact; but it will be 
obvious to those who examine the subject, that from the 
loose manner in which accounts of farming operations 
are generally kept, the actual profit or loss can hardly 
ever be determined with anything like accuracy. 
Believing that any remarks which tend to show how 
the great object of farming can be best attained, will be 
read with interest and advantage, we submit the follow¬ 
ing synopsis of a discussion on the u Profits of Farming,” 
which took place at the Agricultural Meetings held at 
the State House in Boston during the last winter. The 
reports of the discussion, as published in several of the 
Boston papers, were given in considerable detail; but 
we have only attempted to preserve the substance.— 
Eds. 
Mr. Sheldon, of Wilmington, said that though it 
was sometimes denied that there was any profit in farm¬ 
ing, he thought there was no business which gave a bet¬ 
ter profit. Nine farmers out of ten contrived, even 
without any system, to get along • and there was no 
other business that would give a man a living with so 
little system as most farmers practised. It was true 
that men of capital often failed; but it was because they 
farmed to suit their taste and, fancy , and not for dollars 
and cents. 
Mr. D. W. Lincoln, of Worcester, did not agree 
with Mr. Sheldon as to the profits of farming. He 
doubted if farming would afford anything more than a 
comfortable living. He believed that a day laborer, 
who should let himself to a farmer, would make more 
money than the farmer who hired him; and would, in 
ten years’ time, be almost able to buy out the farmer for 
whom he had been laboring, with the very wages paid 
to him. It was the common error of agricultural writers 
to exaggerate. He often heard of raising one hundred 
bushels of corn on an acre. He would not say that this 
could not be done; but he would gladly go one hundred 
miles to see it. 
Mr. Peters, of Westboro’, thought that there must 
be profit in farming. He had succeeded in bringing up 
a family of eight children on the profits of half of his 
father’s farm. He believed that there was a fair profit 
to be made by raising corn at 75 cents a bushel, even if 
you paid $12 or $15 a month for labor. He had got 
80 bushels from one acre, and could cultivate it for 
about $20 an acre. 
Hon. Mr. Denny could not agree to the proposition 
that all a farmer could get was a mere living. He 
thought if we were to take two thousand young men; 
let one half of them become farmers, and let the 
other half devote themselves to merchandise, in twenty 
years it would be found that the farmers had made the 
most money. He insisted that if equal capital, equal 
skill, and equal industry, were employed in farming as 
in trade, farming would give the most profit. But far¬ 
mers do not work so hard as merchants and manufac¬ 
turers, More mind is requisite to manage a farm well 
than to perform the usual kinds of mechanical labor. 
Lieut. Gov. Reed deprecated the practice of young 
men from the country crowding into the city. It was 
the disposition of the times—and a very bad disposition 
it was—not only to get rich, but to make haste to be 
rich. Farming was not the business to get rich by; 
but if happiness was an object, there was no business 
so well adapted to promote this as farming. Taste 
could not be much gratified by common farmers. They 
must be contented with a good living profit. 
Major B. Wheeler, of Framingham, had long thought 
farming the pleasantest, and on the whole, the most 
profitable business that is followed. He had been bred 
a mechanic; he then engaged in trade; was afterwards 
concerned in manufacturing; and now he attends to 
