brother farmers, and see if you will be obliged to dig 
up highways to make your hogs earn their living in the 
summer, when they ought to be in your pasture of 
clover; and be sure and get that good breed, that will 
not only grow, but will fat on clover: that there is 
such a breed of hogs, I will vouch for, as I have tried 
it to my satisfaction. The value of clover to a dozen 
hogs, is worth more than the seed costs, to say nothing 
about the feed it makes for your other stock, and the 
food for a crop of wheat or corn, oats, barley, &c. 
Brother farmers—I do not wish to be understood that I 
am an opposer to animal manure, for I think as much 
of that as any of you, and I try and keep as much of 
it under cover as I can during winter, so that I can 
have all the benefit of it in the spring of the year, for 
my corn and potatoes, ruta bagas, &c. I scrape my 
yard every spring, and never move my barn, as has been 
done in western New-York, to get rid of the manure. 
Brother farmers, let me hear from some of you about 
the value of clover as a manure, that our editors may 
have some facts before them, from which they can judge 
of its virtue. Yours, &c. 
HENRY BREMEN. 
Enfield, Tompkins county, N. Y. 1840. 
INQUIRIES. 
Messrs. Editors— There is a farmer in this vicinity 
who desires an expression of your opinion on some 
points upon which he is not aware that he can obtain 
satisfactory information from the former volumes of the 
Cultivator. His land consists of two farms ; one of 240, 
the other, 380 acres; 450 acres on both farms suitable 
for the plow, without any expense of draining ; the soil 
generally a gravelly loam ; some of it might be called 
by some farmers, a sandy loam ; quality at least equal 
to mediocrity in this region; stands drouth very well, 
anl does not retain the water so as to prevent plowing 
at any time. This land is now a large portion of it, to 
be broken up this season. There are about 90 acres 
now in wheat, and 56 in rye; 40 of which he intends 
to plow in for manure, about the first of June, and plant 
potatoes and ruta bagas; this rye is the second crop 
that has ever been on the land. The whole 450 acres 
appears to be well adapted to the cultivation of the ru¬ 
ta baga, potato, carrot and clover; and is a middling 
good wheat soil. This farmer does not expect to make 
himself rich by burning his straw, or moving his stables 
to get them away from the manure ; and therefore re¬ 
quests a few such suggestions as your experience may 
dictate, for the management of his farms ; and also an¬ 
swers to the following questions, so far as you are able 
to furnish them: 
1. Can sheep husbandry be made profitable at the 
present prices of wool and tallow, i ; locations where 
mutton will bring but a low price ? 
2. How many sheep can be kept on the same quanti¬ 
ty of food, or cn the same quantity of land, that will 
keep one cow 1 
3. Can pumpkins be profitably cultivated by planting 
them with potatoes, in the manner they are usually 
planted with corn ? 
4. How many tons of pumpkins can be produced on 
an acre of good land, if there be nothing else on it ? 
5. Are pumpkins equal to ruta baga, for food for cat¬ 
tle, pound for pound ? 
6. Is rye meal worth more, or less, than barley meal, 
pound for pound, to mix with boiled or steamed pota¬ 
toes, or ruta bagas, for making pork ? 
7. Are peas a good crop to plow in for manure ? 
8. If a crop of rye, oats or grass be turned into the 
soil, which, if cured for hay, would have produced a ton 
and a half of dry hay to the acre, how many loads of 
unfermented barn yard manure is it equal to ? 
9. Are ground peas worth more than corn meal, for 
making pork, pound for pound ? 
10. Is one bushel of dry peas, after being ground, 
worth 24 bushels of potatoes steamed, for making pork ? 
11. How many sheep can be pastured during the sum¬ 
mer and fall, on one acre of good clover pasture? 
12. How many pounds of ruta baga seed can be pro¬ 
duced on an acre of good land ? 
A new Straw Cutter. 
Mr. H. of Virginia, who is dissatisfied with Green’s 
Straw Cutter, is informed that I have invented one that 
will suit him ; have used it about three months and thus 
far, it answers the expectations of the inventor. This 
machine was constructed principally of wood, and per¬ 
forms the work well; but to make them preferable to any 
in use, for durability, I am now constructing one whol¬ 
ly of iron, except the frame. Measures will be imme¬ 
diately taken to obtain a patent, and the machines will 
be afforded at as low, if not lower price, than any other 
good machine. They will be so constructed, that in 
one minute they can be changed from hand to horse, or 
water power, by taking off a crank and budding on a 
band, They perform the work very fast, and with the 
application of but little power, and cut the fodder of 
any length desirable. Yours, &c. 
S. W. FOSTER. 
P. S. Will Messrs. Brentnall inform the public with 
what kind of food they fed their hog, of which they 
gave an account in a late number of the Cultivator, and 
which obtained so great weight, in so short time ? 
Scio , Washtenaw Co. Mich , S. W. F. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
PITTS’ MACHINE FOR THRASHING AND CLEANING GRAIN—[Fig. 76.] 
Messrs. Editors— The above cut- is a true representation of Pitts’ Machine for thrashing and cleaning grain. 
Its weight is 700 pounds,.occupying a space about eight feet by two feet four inches. The' whole machinery is 
durable, and easily kept in repair. It thrashes and cleans all kinds of grain in the best manner, performing 
the work at the rate of from 25 to 50 bushels per hour. Four hands are required to tend the machine when in 
operation, viz.—one to forward the bundles, one to feed, one to measure and put the grain into bags, and one to 
pitch the straw away as it comes from the machine. It can be easily moved from place to place, and attached 
to any horse power, and can be used in the field as well as on the thrashing floor, there being no Joss or scatter¬ 
ing of grain after it is once fed into the machine. 
It may not be improper to state, that I have located in the city of Albany, N. Y., where I am engaged in ma¬ 
nufacturing the above machines, together with a superior four horse sweep power ; price of the above machine 
without the horse power, $150—$100 will be added for the horse power. Respectfully, 
Albany, July 20, 1840. JOHN A. PITTS 
“POPULAR ERRORS” RECONSIDERED. 
Gentlemen Editors —In the May number of the 
Cultivator, (page 81,) I noticed an article headed 
'‘Popular Errors in which the writer, among other 
things, asserts, and labors to prove, that wheat will not 
turn to chess. That it will, is certainly a very popular 
belief among the farmers in this wheat-growing commu¬ 
nity ; but I very much doubt whether “ M. S. D.” will 
be able to convince them that their belief is founded in 
ignorance. His very logical arguments amount to this, 
that, “ because an oak will not turn to a maple, a pine 
to a tamerack, or the progeny of a Durham bull to an 
alligator, why, forsooth, wheat will not turn to chess!” 
I do not intend at present, to enter into any lengthy ar¬ 
guments, to prove this l< Error” to be correct; but shall 
merely introduce one fact, that I am an eye witness to, 
and can prove by others who have seen the same, which 
I think must settle the point at once, in the mind of ev¬ 
ery one, not even excepting that notorious unbeliever, 
“ M. S. D.” himself ; which is, that wheat and chess will 
both grow on one stalk, the head being part wheat and 
part chess. Now I contend the wheat turns to chess, 
but if it can be accounted for on any other principle, I 
should like to be apprised of it through the columns of 
the Cultivator. It would annihilate the argument of 
“ M. S. D.” to say the chess turned to wheat—it is out 
of the question. The above fact may have been pub¬ 
lished and before the public; if so, I am ignorant of it. 
That a belief in the transmutation of wheat, has a per¬ 
nicious tendency, by causing the believer to be negli¬ 
gent in tilling his land, or careless in procuring good 
seed, as asserted by “ M. S. D.” is another mistake : 
because tilling the land well, sowing good, sound, healthy 
seed., not already half degenerated, and but one remove 
from chess—ditching and furrowing after seeding to 
drain oil'all standing and surplus water, will obviate to 
a great degree, the natural causes that produce a degen¬ 
eration and transmutation. Until the union of wheat 
and chess on one stalk is disproved, or otherwise ac¬ 
counted for, (and other good reasons,) I shall remain a 
firm and sincere believer in the transmutation of wheat. 
Yours, &c. LOWELL HULETT. 
Byron, Genesee Co. June. 1840. 
Note by the Editors. 
We cheerfully give a place to the communication of 
Mr. Hulett, on the question of the transmutation of 
wheat, and add a few remarks on what we consider 
its agricultural heterodoxy. “ M. S. D.” will answer 
for himself if he pleases. 
In the first place, the theory of transmutation is indi¬ 
rect contradiction to the whole known order of nature. 
Not a single instance has been given in the long contro¬ 
versy to which the dream has led, or ever can be given, 
of the conversion of one species of plant to another, or 
one species of animal to another. Until this is done, we 
have a right to infer that it cannot be done. The true 
doctrine is, varieties change, species never. Now wheat 
is a well defined species of plant called Triticum, with 
many varieties; and chess is another distinct species 
called Brovms. The difference in root, leaf, stem, flow¬ 
er, head, and seed, is as well marked, invariable, and 
distinct throughout, as it is possible to be in any two 
plants; and there is as much reason to suppose that 
wheat changes to oats, broom corn or the sugar cane, as 
to chess. A few years since, Mr. Thompson announced 
that he could change wheat into chess at any time, by 
cutting off the tap root of the plant, below the upper or 
surface roots. His experiments were repeated by hun¬ 
dreds, and it is needless to say no chess was the result. 
The pear has a tap root in most cases, the apple rare¬ 
ly; will cutting off the tap root of the pear tree convert 
it into an apple tree? The mere statement of such an 
absurdity is a sufficient refutation, and yet it is precise¬ 
ly on the same level with the transmutation of wheat 
into chess, by mutilation or injury. 
In the second place, we deny the “fact” upon which 
Mr. Hulett rests his belief, most confidently and posi¬ 
tively. We do not mean to assert that Mr. H. does not 
believe he saw what he states, most firmly, but we 
mean to assert that he was mistaken in the result of 
his observation. We have known so many instances 
where a similar demonstration has taken place, in 
which, under a more careful examination the “ facts” 
vanished into thin air, that we are incredulous as to any 
such, where they contravene a known law of nature and 
nature’s God. We will mention one or two of these ca¬ 
ses that have fallen under our observation, and almost 
any one who has taken the pains to examine for him¬ 
self, will recollect similar instances. 
In October, 1832, Mr. Wadsworth brought from 
Michigan, a head of wheat, which he left at the office 
of the Genesee Farmer, as furnishing proof positive, 
and such as every man might see for himself, that wheat 
did turn to chess, and were here both growing on one 
ear. A single small branch of the chess sprung out 
among the kernels of wheat, apparently truly attached 
to the same stalk. The head had been kept some time, 
and all pronounced the “ fact” decisive. To put the mat¬ 
ter beyond a peradventure, a minute examination and 
dissection of the wffieat ear, was made with the aid of 
a magnifying glass. The process of removing the 
glumes or chaff of the kernels w as made with care, and 
it was discovered that the stem of the panicle of chess, 
which was not larger than a horse hair, had in the reap 
ing, or some other way, been forced between the main 
stalk and the glume, thus retaining the chess in its 
place; while the slender stem of the chess was bent up 
in the direction of the beards of the wheat, and thus en¬ 
tirely escaped notice. Thus was dispelled fact No. 1, 
to the astonishment of a multitude of firm believers. 
Those wffio have the curiosity to look at this instance 
more fully, may find it detailed in the second volume of 
the Genesee Farmer, page 353. 
Another “ fact” of a similar kind wms presented to our 
notice a short time before leaving Rochester. Mr. An¬ 
drews of Pittsford, a most respectable and intelligent 
farmer, a disbeliever in transmutation for forty or fifty 
years, liberally educated, and accustomed to think for 
himself, w-as converted to the theory of transmutation 
by a similar ear of wheat, and urns kind enough to bring 
it to us for our inspection. The head had been shown 
to many, and was considered as affording an unansw era¬ 
ble argument in favor of the change of wheat into chess; 
and we doubt not the “fact” would have by seme been 
cheerfully sworn to, on the evidence offered, had it been 
necessary. Yet this head of wbeat when examined, 
and the glumes carefully removed, was found to be as 
far from affording any evidence in favor of transmuta¬ 
tion, as others. The stem of the chess panicle w>as tunn¬ 
ed around and drawn close to the base of the glume and 
broken off, so as to leave no trace to its detection, so 
long as that remained unmolested. Mr. Andrews w as 
astonished at the result, as also several others who wit¬ 
nessed the unravelling of the mystery. One such car 
of wheat will confirm hundreds in this popular error, 
viien if men would do in this as they do in other cases, 
use their fingers, as well as their eyes, such “ facts’’ 
would soon be seen to be no facts. 
The unanswerable arguments brought forward by 
David Thomas in the Genesee and American Farmers, 
against the theory of transmutation, should forever have 
settled that question; certainly until those arguments 
and facts had been disposed of. For ourselves, we have 
canvassed so many “ facts” like the one stated by Mr. 
Hulett, and those noticed above, that independent of 
our belief in the impossibility of such a departure from 
the law of nature, we always look on such statements 
with suspicion, and however respectable and credible 
the individual, utterly unw'orthy of the least credence 
in themselves 
We must be permitted to believe that the position of 
our correspondent “ M. S. D.,” that a belief in the theory 
of transmutation, has a tendency to induce carelessness 
in cultivation, and thus perpetuate the evil, notwith- 
