1852 
THE CULTIVATOR 
247 
Short-Horn Bull « Splendor ” 
Eds. Cultivator —I send you a cut of my Short-horn 
bull “ Splendor,” for which, with a few remarks, I de¬ 
sire a place in the Cultivator. 
Splendor, now in his fifteenth year, was bred by Mr. 
Thos. Weddle; (dam Beauty, sire Charles, (1816,) both 
imported by T. W.;) he has been owned most of his life 
in Avon and Lima, Livingston Co., N. Y., and has been 
served mostly to native cows; the improvement shown 
by his get, thus bred, is very remarkable, being large, 
well made, and with a style peculiarly their own. Mr. 
Albertson, a former owner of this bull, writes me as 
follows: “ Splendor has long been considered by good 
judges, as the best sire in Western New-York, his get 
making more pounds of meat for food consumed, than 
any other stock. * * * We feed off our steers at 
three years old, (often at two.) * * * His heifers 
commonly make good milkers. I own a cow of his get, 
that in good feed has given 70 lbs., (85 qts.) of milk per 
day.” * * * Mr. Ganno, of Michigan, has a grade 
cow got by Splendor, which has given 30 to 35 quarts of 
milk per day, for weeks together. She made 26 lbs. of 
butter in ten scccessive days. The large, mostly white 
fat heifer, which received the first premium at Albany, 
last winter, was got by Splendor. She was bred by Mr. 
Aaron Barber, of Avon, N. Y. John R. Page. Sen- 
nett , Cayuga Co., N. F- 
A Call for Experiments. 
Eds. Cultivator —Equality of circumstances which 
might influence the result, and perfect accuracy in every 
particular, are absolutely necessary in order to derive be¬ 
nefit from experiments. And even after having done all 
»n the most accurate manner, it would not seem to be safe 
to form positive conclusions from the results of one trial; 
for there may be circumstances unknown to us, or beyond 
our control, which might give a result from which we 
should, if we depended upon it, form wrong conclusions; 
or, publishing them, we might possibly mislead others. 
Indeed, I do believe that many an inquirer after agricul¬ 
tural truth, is discouraged by the apparent conflicting of 
the results of experiments, and it may be is led to think 
it makes no great difference, after all, which w r ay a given 
tiling is done. 
I am led to these thoughts, in part, by reading the com¬ 
munication of F. B. of Canaan, N. Y. I may be wrong, 
for I never have tested the matter by careful experiments, 
yet had come to the conclusion that it was preferable to 
cut corn by the roots, both as to yield of fodder and 
grain. As to quantity of fodder, I will not speak, but 
simply staje one fact which has come under my observa¬ 
tion, relative to the quality of corn-stalks cut at the 
roots. Cattle will eat them at least half of the time, in 
preference to good hay, and surely they would not be 
likely to turn from hay eating, on which they might grow 
fat, to stalks which would hardly sustain life. 
As to the yield of corn by the two methods, I have 
heretofore been satisfied with forming some conclusions 
from reasoning, and the trials of others, and guessed at 
the rest—a way of doing things for which I will offer no 
apology. Yet it is decided beyond a doubt, that several 
kinds of grain are better, both as to quantity and quality, 
when cut before the kernel is hard; and enough is known 
of the nature of fruits, to make conclusions drawn from 
their habits, out of place when applied to grain. Accu¬ 
rate and continued trials are needed—close examination 
into every circumstance which might effect the result; a 
particular noting of ripeness to which the grain had ar¬ 
rived when cut; the size of the bunches, and length of 
time it stands before being husked. Why may not quite 
a number try the experiment this year, and compare 
notes through the medium of the Cultivator, and conti¬ 
nue to try and compare results, until we have proved 
corn to be an exception among grains, or are able to add 
certainty to reason and analogy. H. W. Ira, N. F. 
