THE CULTIVATOR. 
95 
to be most suitable for interbreeding. I will now add, 
that in following up this eross, the great aim should be 
to continue to adapt the sire to the individual characte¬ 
ristics of the dam. Pure blood is not all that is requi¬ 
site in the bull, and it will rarely or never happen, that 
the same one is adapted to each individual cow in a 
whole herd. Take, byway of illustration, the “ Hoosier 
calf” of your Indiana correspondent “C.” (given in your 
last) which is beautifully formed back of the shoulder, 
but has a heavy, coarse neck. On the other hand I can 
see from the window where I write, a half blood heifer 
which I call “ Princess,” which in the head, neck and 
crops, I have never seen excelled, even in a full blood, 
but the rump, back of the hips, is a little too thin—the 
hind legs somewhat crooked, and the hocks turned in. 
Now, it must be evident to any man, that the “ Hoo¬ 
sier calf” should be crossed with a bull peculiarly deli¬ 
cate in his head and neck, even at the expense of a lit¬ 
tle of the fullness of his points behind—while “Prin¬ 
cess” requires a bull unusually thick and full where she is 
too thin, straight in the leg, &c. The rule is, or should be 
absolute—never to breed from a sire and dam posses¬ 
sing the same defect. The bad point will appear in¬ 
creased in the progeny, and, it has been asserted, to an 
extent equalling the amount of the same defect in both 
parents added together! I am not sure that Nature is 
quite so mathematical as this in her proceedings, but 
she always punishes an infraction of her wholesome 
laws. The last point which I shall notice is, that the 
bull as well as the cow, should be descended from a 
family of good milkers. Though some have regarded 
this as mere theory, experience has satisfactorily pro¬ 
ven that milking properties are hereditary in the male 
as well as the female line. 
HENRY S. RANDALL. 
Cortla ndvile, April, 1840. _ 
Labor-Saving Soap. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —As you admit into 
your useful paper articles on domestic economy, I ven¬ 
ture to send you the following, which, on a trial of 
a year and a half, has proved fully equal to all the 
statements made in it. Any house-keeper, who will 
try it carefully and faithfully, need not fear disappoint¬ 
ment. 
Take 2 lbs. sal soda, 2 lbs. yellow bar soap, 10 qts. 
water, or in like proportion. Cut the soap into thin 
slices, and boil all together two hours, then strain through 
a cloth into a tight box or tub, let it cool, and it is fit for 
use. It should be placed in the cellar, at least during 
the winter, for freezing injures it. 
DIRECTIONS FOR USING THE SOAP. 
Put the clothes in soak the night before you wash. 
The next morning, put water into your kettle or boiler, 
(a boiler with a cover is best) one, two, or three pail¬ 
fuls, according to the quantity of clothes you intend to 
wash, (2 pailfuls will be enough for most families) and 
to every pail of water add about one pound of the soap. 
As soon as the water, with its dissolved soap, begins to 
boil, wring out the clothes and put them into it, with¬ 
out any rubbing. Let them boil one hour, then suds 
them and rinse them in a good supply of water, and 
they will be clean and white. They will need no rub¬ 
bing except a little on such places as are most soiled, 
and for that, no washboard will be required. If you 
have more clothes than you can conveniently boil at 
once, you may boil another set in the same suds in 
which you boiled the first, and with equal success. The 
suds are good also for cleaning up. 
Colored and wollen clothes must not be boiled as 
above, but they may be washed in the suds weakened 
with a portion of water. 
The advantages of washing with labor-saving soap, 
as above directed ; are, 
1. Much less hard work. 
2. Less time. 
3. The clothes will last longer. 
4. The hands are less injured. 
5. Less expense for soap, if you buy the mate- 
terials as cheap as they may be bought, and make the 
soap yourself. 
Six pounds of sal soda, six pounds of bar soap, and 
30 quarts of water will make about 50 lbs. of the soap. 
For the soda, I have paid 7 cents per lb. taking 20 lbs. 
and for the soap 8 cents per lb. taking half a box. The 
expense therefore for 50 lbs., making and all, could not 
have been much over 2 cts. per lb. I have paid 5 cts. 
per lb. for labor-saving soap in Boston, by the box, 
and the virtue of that made at home was fully equal to 
that which was bought. 
A pint measure will hold a pound of the soap, or a 
quart measure 2 lbs. The soap may be crowded in 
without much force, and thus the trouble of weighing, 
every time you wash, may be avoided. 
Every person, on a little reflection, must see the rea¬ 
son why the above mode of washing possesses superior 
advantages. The philosophy of the process is too ob¬ 
vious to require description. Let it be tried. One ex¬ 
periment will cost but a trifle. 
Those who have soft-soap may turn it into hard-soap, 
which boiled 2 hours with soda in the proportions above 
named, will make as good labor-saving soap, as that 
made with bar soap from the shops. The following di¬ 
rections for turning soft-soap into hard-soap, are taken 
from Gov. Hill’s Monthly Visitor : 
“To every three gallons of soap add about one quart 
of salt. Boil all together half an hour, then turn it out 
into a tub to cool. Cut the cake which swims on the 
top into pieces, and scrape off froth and other impuri¬ 
ties, melt again (without the lye and water underneath 
of course) and pour it into a box to cool. You may 
then cut it up into bars of proper dimensions for drying. 
By adding a proportion of rosin, well pulverized, at the 
last boiling, you will have yellow soap, like that made 
for market.” 
Some have said, the use of soda in washing, turned 
the clothes yellow. I am assured by those who ought 
to know, that used as above, it has no such effect. The 
repeated encomiums of the women of my household on 
the virtues of labor-saving soap, have induced me to 
take an account of the whole process of making and 
using, from their own lips, and I send it for insertion in 
your numerously and widely circulated paper, hoping 
that the wives of your subscribers will be profited there¬ 
by, and if they like it, make known the same to their 
neighbors, who do not read the Cultivator. I think 
they will save enough in one year to pay for a volume 
of the Cultivator. N. H. 
Yoke for Breacliy Cattle. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —I deem it the duty of 
every subscriber to an agricultural paper, who believes 
that he himself derives "any benefit whatever from its 
perusal, to endeavor to contribute something besides 
his subscription, toward the benefit of others. This, 
too, he should attempt, whether he estimates his contri¬ 
butions as of great or only small value ; for, if no more 
than two or three of his brethren can gain useful in¬ 
formation from it, he ought to think his trouble suffi¬ 
ciently rewarded; since nothing is more certain than 
that we were all sent into the world, to labor for others 
as well as ourselves. He should ever bear in mind the 
truth of the quaint, old saying of William Camden, the 
great antiquary, that “many a little makes a mickle 
and, therefore, should always be willing and ready to 
add that little, however small it may appear, to the ge¬ 
neral stock. If he waits until he can make a contribu¬ 
tion of such seeming importance, as to cause his name 
to be ranked among the agricultural benefactors of our 
country, he will either communicate nothing, should he 
be a modest man, or something, if he be self-conceited, 
that will be more wearisome than instructive to his 
readers, and much fuller of vanity than of useful in¬ 
formation. 
This brief preface must plead my excuse, should any 
be deemed necessary, for my present unconnected and 
desultory epistle. For I address it to you on the prin¬ 
ciple first stated; and likewise from a belief that the 
experiment which I am about to recommend, is well 
worth making; and that at least one of the subsequent 
inquiries may elicit from some of your numerous, intel 
ligent correspondents, highly useful information upon a 
very important branch of husbandry, in regard to which 
multitudes of our brethren are either most deplorably 
ignorant, or unpardonably neglectful. This experi¬ 
ment, if made, will test the utility of a very simple con¬ 
trivance lately described to me, which seems well cal¬ 
culated for preventing the mischiefs so often done, by 
what our brethren “ down east” have most aptly de¬ 
nominated “breachy cattle and which are so common, 
I believe, in every neighborhood throughout our whole 
country, as to require no particular description. They 
are, in fact, the certain consequences of had fences, 
scant feeding, and inexcusable carelessness in their 
owners—things, by the way, which may too often be 
noticed by any who will take the trouble to look around 
them. But what is still worse, these same “ breachy 
cattle ,” together with our other farming stock of simi¬ 
lar provident propensities, created by similar neglect, 
are the lamentable sources of more feuds, quarrels, and 
bitter animosities among neighbors engaged in agricul¬ 
ture, than all other causes of dissension put together. 
Any contrivance, therefore, which promises well to 
prove even a partial preventive to these sore evils, 
seems entitled to a trial. On this ground, permit me 
to give you a sketch of the one already referred to, as 
it was described to me—thus: 
[Fig. 61.] 
In this rough representation, which I make solely 
from verbal description, a is intended to represent a 
bow made of round iron, about five-eighths or three- 
fourths of an inch in diameter: b, b, two rings at the 
ends of the bow, of a size to fit near the extremities 
of the animal’s horns, (if they have any,) to which 
they are fastened by small nails or screws, as at c, c. 
The curvatui-e of the bow must, of course, be made to 
fit the particular shape of the horns which it is intend¬ 
ed to render harmless ; and so must be the size of the 
rings. This I offer merely as a thing worth trying, for 
I cannot yet speak of it from my own experience. 
But this is not necessary to convince me, that such a 
bow must be far preferable to the numerous awkward 
and cruel contrivances usually resorted to, for prevent¬ 
ing the injuries inflicted upon ourselves as well our 
neighbors, by our own cattle: such contrivances, for ex¬ 
ample, as heavy boards swung over the creature’s faces 
which nearly deprive them of the use of their eyes; 
enormously heavy yokes; and even large logs fastened 
to their necks by grape-vines, which soon cut through 
the skin, thus making painful sores, while the weight 
that they are compelled in this way to drag, almost 
take away that power of locomotion so vitally necessa¬ 
ry to all animals, which are obliged to shift for them¬ 
selves. — 
Selection of Seed—Shelter for Sheep and Cattle. 
As to my inquiries, they will relate, on the present 
occasion, only to the two subjects comprehended in the 
following questions: 
Is there not an important difference between the qua¬ 
lity of the seed of the center stems, and lateral branch¬ 
es of all such plants as produce their seed like the car¬ 
rot and parsnip ? 
Which is best—to shelter, or not to shelter, sheep 
and cattle from snow and cold rains ? 
It is probable, I think, that to some of your readers, 
the first query may appear trivial, and the second, even 
silly, unless I assign some good reasons for asking 
them. I must, therefore, take the liberty to state such 
as have prompted me to make the inquiries. We are 
all aware that the culture of root crops has become a 
matter of constantly increasing interest; consequently, 
every probable means of improving them, both in quali¬ 
ty and quantity, ought to be subjects of a proportionate 
degree of attention. Again—most, if not all of us be¬ 
lieve, that this improvement depends, in a great mea¬ 
sure, upon the purity and excellence of the seed which 
we sow. Surely, then, it is well worth attempting to 
ascertain as far as practicable, exrnry circumstance 
which can in any way deteriorate them. One cause of 
this deterioration certainly is, that the abominable lust 
of gain tempts too many of our professional seedsmen, 
to increase the quantity at the expense of the quality 
of what they sell, by mixing ripe and unripe seed to¬ 
gether. This is obvious—even to the purblind, in all 
those kinds wherein the mixture can be detected by the 
eye: such, for instance, as beets and mangel wurtzel. 
And the fact is undeniable, that in almost every parcel 
we buy of these kinds, a large portion of the seed in 
each will be found to be scarcely half the size of 
others, and of a greenish instead of a brown color; 
showing, most manifestly, that they were gathered be¬ 
fore they were ripe. Yet, we all continue to submit si¬ 
lently to this gross and fraudulent imposition, instead of 
publicly exposing the perpetrators of it, as we ought to 
do, for the general good. Another proof of this mix¬ 
ture having been made, may be seen when the roots are 
dug up ; for some wall be four or five times the size of 
others, although growing w ithin a foot or tv r o of each 
other, and in soil precisely of the same texture and fer¬ 
tility. Now', if this great difference in the size of beets 
and mangel wurtzel, be attributable, as I believe it is, 
chiefly, if not entirely, to the sowing of ripe and unripe 
seed together, is it not probable that the similar inequa¬ 
lities of size in carrots, parsnips and other roots which 
produce their seed in the same manner, may be owing 
to the cause which I suspect, and that is, the difference 
in quality between the seed of the centre stern, and of 
the lateral branches? But, be this as it may, I trust 
you will deem it a matter worthy of investigation. 
I will now state my reasons for asking the second 
question. Know, then, gentlemen, that multitudes of 
our brethren—at least in the middle and southern states 
—have adopted, in regard to sheep, and, in many cases, 
to cattle, also, the favorite “let alone principle^ of the 
advocates of “ free trade.” Nay, to such an extent have 
very many of them carried it, as to afford just grounds, 
if we judge by their conduct, for considering them so 
marvelously diffident of their own pastoral skill, as 
confidently to believe, that their sheep certainly, if not 
their cattle also, have much more sagacity and ingenui¬ 
ty than themselves, not only in guarding their ow n bo¬ 
dies against the inclemencies of the weather, but in 
protecting their own stomachs from the painful assaults 
o/ daily hunger—being left in instances innumerable, to 
choose for themselves in both particulars—although 
that liberty of choice, in countless cases, is worse even 
than Hobson’s, who had, at least, one alternative of 
some value presented to him. 
To both my queries I respectfully beg answ'ers from 
such of your correspondents as can speak from their 
own experience, for I confidently believe that many will 
be benefitted thereby—especially, if they can give us 
the results ot the “ let alone f and the opposite practice. 
Not that I anticipate the slightest advantage to the fol¬ 
lowers of the former, who belong, in general, to the 
anti-book farming class—gentlemen, whose habit it is 
to sneer with most ineffable contempt and self-compla¬ 
cency, at every thing they see in print; for, although 
like Toney Lumpkin, they can manage to read “ your 
print-hand pretty well,” they rarely take the trouble to 
do it, unless for the purpose of indulging in a senseless 
laugh at the author’s labors. 
With sincere wishes for the success of your highly 
useful paper, I remain, gentlemen, 
Your constant and much benefitted reader, 
JAMES M. GARNETT, 
April , 10, 1840. _ Of Essex Co. Va. 
Peaches—Change of Fruit. 
Messrs. Editors— I have one thing which I wish to 
communicate to the Cultivator, concerning peach trees, 
viz : I have a number of trees of the yellow kind, which 
ripens usually about the first of October; but last the sea¬ 
son they bore fruit resembling the red rare ripe, and 
ripened about a month earlier than ever before. Now, 
the question is, What was the cause af this change of 
color and time of ripening? I can not tell, unless it is 
caused by some disease which may cause the prema¬ 
ture death of the trees. DAVID FOOTE. 
West Chester, Ct. Feb. 1840. 
