THE CULTIVATOR. 
79 
I see by most writers on beet cultivation, that the leaves 
are considered highly nutritious, and are recommended to 
be cut and fed to stock. I suspect that persons thus writing 
had more theory than experience upon the subject, when 
they made such recommendations. I have universally found 
that they badly scoured all kinds of animals, even when ta¬ 
ken up from green pasture to feed on them, and if persisted 
in, created disease. I have tried all sorts of ways to pre¬ 
vent their scouring, by salting the leaves and mixing them 
with other food, but the result was the same. They 
have a sweetish bitter pungent taste, and I found upon 
chewing the leaves, that the effect on man was the same as 
as on beast. I know of no better use for them than to be left 
on the ground to fertilize and assist in giving it heart for 
another crop. But it will be seen that the roots alone make 
it a very valable crop, far more so than corn, or any of the 
smaller grains. The estimated cost of producing it, ranges 
from three to eight cents per bushel; the average is probably 
five to six cents. 
Range of Latitude for Cultivation. —In North Ame¬ 
rica, as high as 45° may be considered as one extreme for a 
profitable crop, but as to southern limits, I should essay it 
as an experiment, as far south as 30°. But in this low lati¬ 
tude it ought to be planted as early as the 20th February to 
10th March, on a cool and rather moist soil, for the purpose of 
being pulled and fed green at the beginning of summer 
drouth. Perhaps it would do well to plant between corn, 
making the rows a foot or two wider apart for the purpose of 
receiving the beet. The tall stalk would thus shade it from 
the excessive heat of the sun, and somewhat check its 
more rapid growth, and possibly tend to make it last longer 
through the summer. Should the beet succeed so far south, 
in this way it would prove a great assistance to stock grow¬ 
ers getting through those months in vvhich pasture, except 
in the woodlands, is so completely scorched up by the hot 
rays of the sun. I would respectfully recommend a thorough 
trial of it to the planter; it certainly may succeed as far 
south as Kentucky and North Tennessee and Missouri. I 
know men in an hour will gather a sufficient quantity in a 
wagon for a large stock. It may be thus transported from 
the field where it grows te that where it is to be consumed, 
and scattered round in the same way that corn is now fed at 
the south-west to cattle and hogs. I thus kept a large herd 
of hogs through September and October last year. 
Raising the Seed. —There is as much in choosing proper 
roots for this purpose, as in selecting animats to breed from, 
and the same general rule holds good in both cases—a medium 
size and fine true form. Roots weighing four to six pounds 
and of four to six inches diameter at the top and nine to thir¬ 
teen inches long, and smoothly and evenly tapering to a point 
without straggling branches, and of a creamy white color and 
smooth grain are the most desirable. “ Like produces like,” 
and with such selections followed up, the crop will soon run 
evenly of the same shape and size as the roots from which 
was grown the seed. Plant the seed roots, and in this lati¬ 
tude about the 1st of May, three feet apart; and as the stalks 
grow',stake round them in a circle and tie a small cord from stake 
to stake, for their support. When the seed shells easily, which 
if planted in May, will be in September, is the time to gather 
it. Two or three dozen roots will'grow seed enough for acres, 
and at one-tenth the cost usually asked for it at the seed 
stores. When grown at home one knows what he gets, and 
as it comes to him abundantly and cheap, he can without 
grudging give to his neighbors, and thereby greatly promote 
the culture of this most valuable of roots. 
A. B. ALLEN. 
Buffalo, March, 1840. 
6i Report on the Culture of Silk,” 
“ BY CHARLES F. DURANT.” 
Gentlemen Editors —The report under the above title 
published in your last Cultivator, will doubtless be regarded 
as an important communication to the public. Certainly all 
correct information upon the culture of silk in this country, 
will be readily appreciated at the present time, when so ma¬ 
ny are investing property in its culture. Misrepresentations 
can confer no benefit upon the public, and should therefore 
not intentionally be made; or if made should be speedily cor¬ 
rected. As one of your correspondents, I could not but be 
surprised that your well sustained paper should have admit¬ 
ted upon its pages, a communication which ventures to trifle 
so much with the public interest, and to send forth so much 
of the product of the imagination, instead of plain matters 
of fact. We need facts, which we can never obtain from 
a writer who seems as much intent on a high sounding 
Export as on an exhibition of truth. After having sent abroad 
Mr. Durant’s Report, surely you will feel that if the pub¬ 
lic, or a respectable portion of the public regard, it as an 
injurious representation of the business in which they are law¬ 
fully engaged, they have a claim to your columns in a few 
words of self defence. It is the object of this reply to dis¬ 
abuse the public from the effects of a declamatory misrepre¬ 
sentation. And as truth is my object, you will permit me to 
present, before I close, a word of correction on your note. 
I find nothing very objectionable in the first part of Mr. 
Durant’s Report, till he comes to what he sarcastically calls 
the “ Silk Business ,” when he loses the cool temper of an 
inquirer after truth, and, regardless of consequences, de¬ 
claims in a most glaring (though incorrect) description of the 
tree business. Now it is obvious that all the misrepresenta¬ 
tions of Mulberry trees given to the public within a few 
years past, are just as cordially to be deprecated, as is Mr. 
Durant’s Report, so far as it is not sober truth. Misrepre¬ 
sentation for or against a thing, are equally unjustifiable; 
though I would rather encourage enterprise than discourage it. 
In reporting against the public excitement on the sub¬ 
ject, he says, “ The Morns alba (common white mulberry) 
universally esteemed one of the best for feeding silk worms, 
could not be sold for one cent,” &c. It is not universally ad¬ 
mitted, that the white mulberry is “ one of the best." Its 
leaves, when obtained, are not objectionable. But there is 
a variety, and I may in truth say more than one, whose 
leaves, for kind, are as good, and for quantity, far more abun¬ 
dant; and the tree is as hardy. Of this fact Mr. D. is igno¬ 
rant ; for we could not suppose that he would intentionally 
deny it, if he knew it. I am persuaded that he has some 
things yet to learn. Nor will he admit any assertion on ex¬ 
perience as good evidence of the fact. His own must be his 
criterion. 
Mr. Durant also makes this broad assertion; “ So extrava¬ 
gant were the estimates of the profit, that, for each thousand 
dollars in multicaulis last spring, even at the then high prices, 
it was generally supposed that fifty thousand dollars could 
be realized by the sale of the increased buds in the autumn 
of 1839.” Did Mr. D. suppose that in this paragraph, he 
was reporting truth ? Does he not know that there is no 
truth in saying “ it was generally supposed that fifty thousand 
dollars would be realized,” as the profits of one thousand 
dollars investment ? Did one person in ten thousand ever 
suppose this ? Why then slander the public 1 Tenfoldl s a 
great yield for a thousand trees ; and few, if any, really 
supposed that the prices could advance from what they were 
last spring. Call this a flourish, yet it deeply affects the in¬ 
terest of the community. It is nothing short of exaggera¬ 
tion employed seemingly for the purpose of bringing into 
disrepute, all that has recently been done to encourage the 
culture of silk; unless the report would except what has 
been done with white mulberry trees. 
Admitting that Chinese mulberry trees have been extolled 
beyond their value ; does this afford a reason W'hv every one 
should disparage them below their value ? What choice is 
there worthy of attention, in misrepresentations 1 If Mr. 
Durant prefers the Morus alba to some kinds which he may 
never have seen, at least tested, why should he indulge 
himself to speak contemptuously of all the other kinds. Even 
if other kinds were not so good, (which is not a fact,) justice 
should give them all the credit which they merit. Is it fel¬ 
low-feeling and good will, that would kick the silk business 
down hill, while he presumes to prove that it already de¬ 
clines, at least where most was to be expected ? Is it good 
or ill will that represents nearly all the silk culturists in 
America as “ bankrupts,” without assigning any reason for 
it, while reasons may exist, which if made known, would 
present no valid objection against the silk culture ? Did Mr. 
D. state the whole truth, or keep a part from sight to carry 
a purpose into effect ? After having announced the failure 
of several noted establishments, he says, “the legitimate 
silk culture, like some bright star in a troubled atmosphere, 
has moved steadily onward.” What is meant by this proba¬ 
bly we are to learn from a future number of the Cultivator. 
And probably he means the culture of silk, as in Mansfield 
and Ashford. I am not so far from these places as not to know- 
something on the subject. Mansfield now has a variety of 
the mulberry besides the white, which, if duly cultivated, 
will lessen the expense of making silk fifty per cent, from 
their past experience. And with their former trees, good far¬ 
mers testify that they derived more profit from their silk than 
they can by cultivating their farms in any other way. And 
if so, why may they not avail themselves of trees that will pro¬ 
duce more than twice the quantity of foliage of equal quality T 
Why should we willingly discourage any improvement which 
may be made in the tree 1 I fear that envy has prevailed as 
much as benevolence ought, in some communications made to 
the public. Give every tree, every business and every man 
their due, and we ask no more. Is it incredible that by re¬ 
quest, one of the Chinese Missionaries, Mr. Bridgman, 
should obtain seed of the most approved tree in China and 
send it to this country, and that this should produce a noble 
tree, rapid in its growth and hardy in in its nature, being ac¬ 
climated to a northern temperature, and most abundant in 
its foliage 1 Why should this fact be incredible 1 Or if ad¬ 
mitted, what lover of his country would willingly ridicule 
its growth ? 
Messrs. Editors, in a note subscribed to the above named 
report, you very justly defend the multicaulis from contempt. 
And after saying that none of the “ tropical varieties” will 
endure our northern winters, you claim that the main ques¬ 
tion now is, to silk growers, “ which will produce the ear¬ 
liest foliage in greatest quantities from trees planted in the 
spring, as all these varieties must be.” Here, gentlemen, 
you assume too much in saying that all these varieties must 
be planted in the spring. I have now' some fifty Canton 
trees which are in good condition where they grew last sum¬ 
mer. They seem to have received but little injury from the 
winter, though the cold has been more intense than we have 
known for 20 years: the mercury having stood 26 degrees 
below zero. 1 have also found trees which were dropped 
on the ground last October, and have lain exposed to all 
weather possible sin.ce, and are now apparently in good 
heart. The above named trees have had no artificial pro¬ 
tection. I have other evidence than this that they are as 
hardy as the white mulberry in the same circumstances. 
You are also under a mistake in supposing that no variety 
but the multicaulis, planted in the spring, will afford foliage 
for feeding the same season. Believe me, gentlemen, you 
can have all the evidence you wish from this town that the 
Canton tree planted in the spring, will outstrip the multicau¬ 
lis, side by side, and be as soon or sooner ready to afford 
foliage equal in weight and superior far in apparent texture. 
I used both the white and Canton, and I testify that I have 
no evidence that the leaf of the Canton is at all inferior to 
thatjof the white, while it is four times as large. I made 
silk that will bear the test even of envy, exclusively from 
the Canton planted last spring in seedlings. I could have 
made many pounds, had I not been desirous to have the pub¬ 
lic behold the beauty and splendor of this variety. One tree 
from a seedling bud, grew seven feet high, and possessed 
lateral branches enough to make upwards of forty feet of 
growth. There are many eye-witnesses of this tree. While 
the leaves fall a little short of those of the multicaulis in 
size, they exceed them in thickness. The tree strikes its 
roots deeply into the earth and spreads widely around; thus 
it is guarded against winds and cold. On the above descrip¬ 
tion you may rely. R. T. 
Eastford, ( Ct.) March 3, 1840. 
Ruta Baga injurious to Milk. 
Messrs. Editors —I see it stated in the January 
number of the Cultivator, in an extract from Governor 
Hill’s Address, that the feeding of ruta bagas to milch 
cows, will not hurt their milk. My experience differs 
from this. When I commenced feeding my milch cows 
with turneps, they entirely changed the flavor of the 
milk and the butter, so much so as to render them unfit 
for use. On changing the food, the milk assumed its 
naturally sweet flavor. J. W. POINIER. 
Morristown , N. J. Feb. 1840. 
To the Amateur Farmers of Western New-York* 
In addressing you on a subject which I consider of vital 
importance to our agricultural prosperity, a few preliminary 
remarks may be proper. It is unquestionably true, that for 
many years to come, the great object of attention in our 
country must be active productive labor; probably, until the 
end of time, every department of society must depend on 
those who till the soil—and it is a palpable misnomer which 
designates so large a portion of mankind as “ the laboring 
poor.” No man is poor because he labors; on the contrary, 
he alone is rich. If the time shall ever arrive, when by the 
force of circumstances or legal enactments, men produce no¬ 
thing more than their own necessities require, the absurdity 
of calling the laborers the “ poor” will be abundantly mani¬ 
fest. It will then be seen, that they are the only rich men, 
and that all the unproductive classes, are literally dependent 
upon their bounty, and fed with the crumbs from their table. 
It is the great mass of mankind having a common condition, 
that is thus distinguished by the epithet “ poor.” In this 
country, particularly, there are few that can be called rich; 
and if, as an eloquent statesman has said, these were all 
hung at the lamp-post, and their property equally divided 
among those who labor, it would scarcely buy them a sup¬ 
per. Nothing therefore can be more base than the canting 
whine of, “ the laboring poor.” It arises from a total want 
of thought, and is calculated only to revive the factions of 
the middle ages—the bitter animosities of the Guelphs and 
Ghibelines. The rich are only the managers and trustees of 
the poor, because to make the property of the rich available, 
he must return it in one shape or other to the productive 
classes ; when therefore the poor make war upon the rich, 
they are destroying their own trustees, their own property, 
and act as wisely as when they burn haystacks, throw the 
contents of granaries into the river, or scatter streets with 
flour, which, made into bread, would keep them from starv¬ 
ing. Whatever may be the disposition of the rich to perform 
their duties to society—such is the organization of the social 
compact, that, willing or unwilling, they must perform the 
trust nature confides to them, and if done fraudulently or 
negligently, a change speedily takes place, and the trust be¬ 
comes the trustee. 
The question, what enables professional or wealthy men, 
the unproductive members of society to maintain their ascen¬ 
dency over the community ? is an important one. Is it any 
thing but their superior intelligence and education? Let any 
one of them lose caste, by neglecting these things, and then 
place one of each class side by side, under circumstances 
that require the development of mental and physical energy, 
and a single day determines their relative eminence and rank. 
The increased wealth of a country is generally in proportion 
to its increased intelligence ; they are mutual correlatives, 
and hence the conclusion is inevitable, that the means of 
education and intelligence should be of the most liberal kind. 
Among the narrow minded opulent, the opinion prevails to 
some extent, that to maintain their supposed pre-eminence, 
they must bind down in ignorance the understanding of the 
many ; they oppose and ridicule every effort made to en¬ 
lighten the farmer upon his social position ; they find large 
numbers ready to join the senseless cry against “ book farm¬ 
ing;” they excite the tiller of the soil to march under the 
Cimmerian banner of “no agricultural schools;” they teach 
him that he is already perfect in his business, and that it 
consists in industry alone; that because the plow has been 
used from the remotest antiquity, it is not susceptible of im- 
rovement; and that farmers are either above, or perhaps 
elow, the care of government. 
All other branches of industry require the fostering care of 
the legislature of the nation; but the country is not satisfied 
with the laissex nous faire as it regards farmers; it puts upon 
them the shackles of ignorance—it marks them as culprits. 
Such legislatures may have much knowledge of political 
arithmetic, but I doubt their having studied the theory of 
moral proportions—the rule of three in matters of policy and 
interest; and what is more surprising, there is no example to 
justify this treatment of the farmer in the conduct of any other 
civilized government or country. Look at England. All the 
great and noble of the land embarked in the promotion and 
extension of agriculture. See under the patronage of govern¬ 
ment. her professors of agriculture in her universities: Look 
at France, with no less than fifteen agricultural institutes: 
See the autocrat of Russia, sending agents into every part 
of Europe, to ascertain the best systems, and introducing 
them into his empire: See Sweden and Denmark, with pro¬ 
fessorships intended exclusively for the benefit of the farmer: 
Look at Prussia, making it the study, that in the primary 
schools follows reading, writing, and arithmetic: and even 
wretched, bigotted, prejudiced Spain, overcoming her reli¬ 
gious predilections, and inviting from Sw’eden a professor of 
agriculture. After surveying these, and even Egypt and 
China, let us turn to the only republic on earth—one that 
swells like the frog in the fable, with its own pretensions to 
wisdom, and is not the contrast, warm as is the attachment 
to liberty, almost enough to make a monarchist of every 
farmer. Yet the farmer is courted as the main bulwark of 
freedom; one who is to anticipate every danger to our insti¬ 
tutions; and who is to snuff the approach of tyranny in the 
scented gale; while he is treated, as the crafty trader treats 
the untutored Indian, giving him beads for his lands, and 
baubles for his gold. 
I have not forgotten the men I am addressing, nor the chief 
object of these remarks. Commerce and manufactures; the 
advantages of the steam engine; the discoveries of seience, 
and the inventions of mechanical genius, have gradually 
produced numbers of wealthy men, (of whom you constitute 
no trifling proportion,) who from the very organization of 
our constitutions, must be kept occupied, or become worse 
than useless. If a man has no motive to industry, he is cut 
off from all the elements of happiness: and the father who 
remembers the struggles he made in early life to raise him¬ 
self to affluence, should also be aware, that by the accumu¬ 
lation of wealth, he has taken from his son the motive for 
exertion, and that he has placed him in a situation of danger, 
one in which he wall be liable to mistake the difference be¬ 
tween a life of leisure and a life of indolence. He wonders 
that his son is not disposed to pursue the acquisition of 
wealth as he has done; and consents to let him vary the mo¬ 
notony of existence, by' entering upon an already overstock¬ 
ed professional career; he has no motive to exertion—and as 
the author of Modern Chivalry observes, considers his pro 
