362 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
Nov, 
10 lbs. Another cow owned by the same person, pro¬ 
duced from June 1st to 9th, 17 lbs. 12 oz. butter. 
Henry J. Reed, Princeton,—cow calved April 26th, 
1850. From June 1st to 9tli, gave 14 lbs. 4 oz. butter, 
and from 1st to 9th September, 9 lbs. 4 oz. Another 
cow owned by the same person, gave in the same time in 
June 16 lbs. 14 oz. butter, and same time in September 
11 lbs. 12 oz. 
N. T. Leonard, Westfield,—cow seven years old 
(“ native,”) calved August 25th, 1850. In ten days in 
September, gave 19 lbs. 13 oz. butter. 
Benj. H. Stedman, Chickopee,—cow eight years old, 
(“ native,”) calved February 21, 1850. In ten days in 
March, gave 19 lbs. 4 oz. butter; and from 10th to 20th 
Qf June, 17 lbs. 12 oz. During the time first mentioned, 
the average weight of the milk was 41 lbs- 4oz. per 
day, and during the latter time, 34 lbs. 4 oz. per day. 
J. M. Montgomery, Great Barrington,—cow calved 
April 10th, 1850. From 1st to 10th July, she afforded 
17 lbs. 10 oz. butter; from 1st to 10th September, 16 
lbs. 2 oz. The average weight of the milk at the trial 
in June, was 41 lbs. per day. Her feed during both tri¬ 
als, was grass only. 
W. W. Hallenbeck, Great Barrington.—cow calved 
July 20th, 1850. From the 1st to the 10th of Septem¬ 
ber, she afforded 17 lbs. 8 oz. of butter; from 11th to 
20th, 19 lbs. 6 oz.—weight of milk averaging 36 lbs. 8 
oz. per day. 
John G. Wilson, West Stockbridge.—cow calved 
April 1st, 1850. The second week in June she gave 14 
lbs. of butter; the first ten days of July, 18 lbs. 8 oz.; 
first ten days of August, 16 lbs.; first ten days of Sep¬ 
tember, 14 lbs. 14 oz. Feed, grass only. 
B. A. Race, Egremont,—cow yielded in the first ten 
days of June, 14 lbs. 11 oz. butter; first ten days in 
July, 13 lbs. 12 oz.; first ten days in August, 11 lbs. 8 
oz. She was pastured in the highway all the time, and 
was fed with two quarts of “ provender,” (corn and oats 
ground together?) per day. 
Stephen Karner, Egremont,—two-year-old heifer,— 
calved 23d May, 1850. In the first ten days of June, 
she afforded 10 lbs. 6 oz. of butter; first 10 days of July, 
10 lbs. 14 oz.; first ten days of August. 10 lbs. 2 oz.; 
first ten days of September, 9 lbs. 6 oz. Her feed, the 
whole time, grass only. 
To the above we may add, that S. G. Atherton, Har. 
yard, Mass., states in the Massachusetts Plowman, that 
he has a “ Durham cow, nine years old, which calved 
in April,” and gave in the first seven days of July, 278 
lbs. of milk, from which was made 13 lbs. 8 oz. of but¬ 
ter. He says he has another cow, (breed not mention¬ 
ed,) six years old, which gave in the same time 259£ 
lbs. of milk, which gave 12 lbs. 9 oz. of butter; and a 
three-year-old heifer, which in three days in June, gave 
4^ lbs. of butter. The feed of all during the trial, and 
for some time previous, pasture grass only. He states 
that these belong to a lot of twenty-four cows, all run¬ 
ning together. 
Fashion makes foolish parents, invalids of children, and 
servants of all. 
Trust him little who praises all, him least who is indif- 
rent about all. 
On the Value of Results 
Obtained by Comparative Analyses of Soils. 
Analytical Laboratory, Yale College,! 
New-Haven , Conn.. Sept. 24, 1851. J 
Messrs. Editors —In my last letter, when commenc¬ 
ing the illustration of this subject by tables of analyses, 
I observed that the results there given, were not intended 
as examples of complete anylyses, but only as having 
been made for a certain purpose. They may, in fact, as 
some most important substances were neglected, be call¬ 
ed somewhat rough analyses, and as such, may, in some 
quarters, be looked upon with suspicion; it may even be 
said, that if the examination had been very minute and 
critical, much of what now seems different, might have 
been reconciled, or that the points of coincidence in cer¬ 
tain cases, would have been less distinct. 
In order to throw light on this point, I will insert here 
two very elaborate analyses of cotton soils from Missis¬ 
sippi. These analyses were made in my laboratory some 
time since, by Messrs. Ernie and Brewer. The soil A. 
is from land which now produces fine crops of cotton; 
the soil B. has been worn out by cotton cropping, and 
the produce has diminished very greatly. They are of 
the same character of land, on the same plantation, and 
■were doubtless originally alike in composition. The fol¬ 
lowing results show the differences which now exist. 
Soil A. Soil B. 
Organic matter,. 4.740 pr ct.6.290 pr ct. 
f Silica, . 1.299 0.072 
Portion so-i Alumina, iron tephospac acid, . 0.230 0.019 
luble in | Lime,. 0.189 0.020 
water. | Magnesia,. 0.090 none 
A. 2.470 •{ Manganese,... 0.034 none 
per ct. | Potash,. 0.248 0.120 
B. 0.147 | Chloride of sodium, (com. salt,) 0.107 none 
per ct. (Soda,. none 0.015 
( Sulphuric acid,. 0.144 0.009 
Silica,. 0.409 0.920 
Alumina,..... 1.644 1.820 
Portion Iron,. 1.44S 0.670 
soluble in Lime,. 0.535 1.340 ■ 
acid. Magnesia,. 0.576 0.080 
A. 4.96 Manganese. 0.002 none 
perct. Potash,..... 0.348 0.070 
B. 5.19 Soda,. none 0.180 
perct. Sulphuric acid,. 0.070 0.0SG 
( Phosphoric acid,. 0.092 0.003 
Portoin in-f Silica,. 78.845 84.930 
soluble I Iron and alumina,. 5.046 2.370 
in acid. -{Lime,. 1.098 0.260 
A. 87.83. j Magnesia,. 1.142 0.680 
B. 88.373. (Manganese,. 0.623 none 
100.059 99.867 
For the purpose of affording all the insight possible 
into the nature of the differences between these two soils, 
the portions soluble in water and acid have been examin¬ 
ed separately. The substances soluble in water, repre¬ 
sent those immediately available for the wants of the 
growing crop. The substances soluble in acid, represent 
the amount that will soon, and is constantly more or less 
rapidly becoming soluble, so as to enter the plant. That 
which is most difficultly soluble in acid is undergoing in 
the soil a gradual decomposition, which is continually and 
successively bringing small quantities into a condition fit¬ 
ted for the nutriment of plants. The last portion, that 
which is insoluble in acids, is almost always by far the 
largest, as in the present case. Even this insoluble part, 
does not remain unchanged; there are certain influences 
in the soil which slowly act upon it, and bring, though 
very gradually, small portions into a soluble state. 
Thus, then, w r e look under the first head for that which 
