406 
THE CULTIVATOR 
Dec 
Mr. Colby’s Devon Bull Champion. 
We republish the above portrait, given in our October 
No., in order to correct a gross blunder in the pedigree 
which we then attached to it. Mr. Colby sent us two 
portraits of his stock, but afterwards concluded to have 
but one inserted. By one of those mistakes which fre¬ 
quently occur, and which are generally laid to the charge 
of “the printers,” we attached the wrong pedigree to 
the portrait. The true history of “ Champion” is as 
follows: 
This certifies that “ Champion,” the full blood Devon 
bull owned by L. H. Colby, that took the first premium 
at Utica in September last, was raised by us, and was 
four years old If st March. Champion was sired by our 
full blood bull “Bloomfield,” and out of “ Beauty,” now 
owned by Mr. Colby. Bloomfield took the 1st premium 
at the State Fair at Albany in 1850, and Beauty has 
taken the 1st premium at every fair where she has been 
exhibited, viz: at the American Institute in 1849, and 
two other fairs. Bloomfield was sired by Mr. Patterson’s 
bull “Eclipse,” and out of one of his full blooded cows. 
Beauty was sired by “ Exchange,” and out of a daughter 
of old “ Fancy.” which was sired by our celebrated bull 
“Holkham.” S. & L. Hurlbut. Winchester Centre, 
Conn., Nov. 13, 1852. 
Fertility of the Ohio Bottoms. 
A transient correspondent of the N. Y. Evening Post 
boldly attacks an article in the October Cultivator, on 
the fertility of certain Ohio soils, and to which he applies 
the phrase “ empirical quackery ,”—In opposition, we 
presume, to what he would term “ scientific science .” 
If we could only read the French and Latin with which 
he has sprinkled his article, we should doubtless find 
them more correct than his English—at least we charita¬ 
bly hope so. 
The whole object of the article in our October number, 
was to show the importance of rendering the food of 
plants accessible, by means of well pulverised and mixed 
soils. This view the correspondent of the Post regards 
as “ calculated to confuse,” &c., and “ to discourage the 
progress of the farmer,” &c. He thinks the atmosphere 
will more easily penetrate a coarse than a finely pulve¬ 
rized soil—forgetting that it would only enter between 
the coarse masses, and not into their substance. The air, 
it is true, would pass with great facility into a pile of 
cobblestones and unburnt bricks j but this heap, even if 
containing a good quantity of manure in lumps, would 
make rather a harsh bed for the delicate fibrils of a plant, 
and afford slim nourishment to vegetation. Why do 
chemists pulverize finely all substances on which the}’' 
wish acids to act freely? That it may enter and operate 
on every part at once. A similar pulverization equally 
facilitates the chemical changes which are constantly go¬ 
ing on in soils supporting vegetation. 
He thinks the fertility of the Ohio bottoms is owing 
wholly to manure dropped by the cattle and hogs which 
feed in the fields after the corn has been husked. This 
is undoubtedly of great value—and much more so on 
such a soil as will render this manure most easily acces¬ 
sible to the crop. It is the combination of both that 
makes the best soil. He thinks the eighty bushels per 
acre should be set down forty or fifty, because he has 
travelled through Ohio, and did not learn that more than 
this is raised there. According fully to him strict accu¬ 
racy in his observations, he will permit us to relate an 
anecdote. A rogue was arrested for stealing a sheep, 
which he stoutly denied. “Here are two witnesses,” 
said the judge, “ who saw you steal it.” “ An’ very 
well,” said he, “ I can bring twenty witnesses that didn’t 
see me steal it.” 
