“THE FULL-BRED BERKSHIRES.” 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —I have looked on with 
much amusement, at the quackery attempted to be prac- 
ticed on the public, relative to Berkshire swine ; and 
have been not a little surprised at the assumed dictation 
of individuals, whose knowledge of this breed, its chang¬ 
es and varieties, has been limited to a few imported an¬ 
imals and their descendants ; and who have undertaken 
to determine, from the color of some half dozen hogs 
brought to this country by Mr. Hawes, how many white 
hairs constitute a full blood, and how many black feet 
betray a grade ; to say nothing of the twist in the tail, 
and the bunch of hairs at its end. Now really, gentle¬ 
men, you must not wonder that there are scoffers at 
u book farming,” and those among us who set lightly by 
the scribbling of self-love; and while there are many 
who highly appreciate the much that is useful and in¬ 
structive in your columns, we must beg leave to laugh 
at the ridiculous, as its best cure. 
It is truly astonishing, that any one should display 
such woful ignorance as to the real origin and history 
of the hogs which now fill his stye, as is exhibited by 
an Albany breeder, in a late number of the Cultivator 
He calls them “ the full-bred Berkshires.” Let us exa¬ 
mine this matter a little, and see what are the charac¬ 
teristics of the Berkshires, as given by English writers 
Loudon, Culley, “ The Complete Grazier,” Parkinson’ 
and Low, all agree, with some little differences of ex¬ 
pression, in assigning to the original Berkshires, a taw- 
ney or reddish brown color, with dark spots. To this, 
I would add my own testimony, having formerly been 
myself a resident in the county of Berkshire. The pure¬ 
bred native hog at that time, was spotted, black and 
white, in nearly equal proportions, with a greater or less 
intermixture of reddish hairs, giving a ferruginous hue 
to the whole coat. They were a long, large, heavy hog : 
rather flat in the side, always full, and meaty in the 
ham; somewhat slope rumped, a little heavy in the 
bone, something straight in the face, but with a tolera¬ 
ble fullness in the jole, and a drooping ear; their hair 
was inclined to coarseness, and often curly. On the 
farm where I lived, they were seldom put up to fatten 
till three years old ; and when fit to kill, would average 
from twenty-five to thirty-five score. We used them for 
bacon, considering they made better hams and flitches, 
than any other breed. These were the hogs universally 
found in Berkshire, in my day. Mr. Astley of Oldstone- 
hall, has, I believe, the merit of having improved this 
breed as above described, by a judicious introduction 
of the eastern blood ; and the hog thus formed, has been 
crossed upon almost every race in England, in all cases 
with the most advantageous results. It is a cross of this 
improved Berkshire with the Chinese, which we have 
in this country, under the name of full-bred Berkshires. 
As to color, had that come under the consideration of 
the breeder, he might have varied it from pure white to 
jet black, by making use of the white or black Chinese, 
with strict reference to such a result. I shall not pre¬ 
tend to deeide which color has claims to superiority, al¬ 
though the black China is considered the most hardy 
and prolific, while the white is perhaps the better form¬ 
ed. Whether these differences are sensible in their 
crosses on the Berkshire, I am not prepared to decide. 
Again—there is of course, great variety of size, and 
some of form, according to the number and character 
of the crosses taken from the various races. Many of 
the smaller Berkshires, so desirable as porkers, are 
without doubt descended from a cross of the Axfords, in 
which there is a dash of the Barbadoes blood, strongly 
tending to confirm the reddish tinge of the old breed. 
But, without entering farther into detail, I think I have 
said enough to expose the utter absurdity of these criti¬ 
cal distinctions of color, even to the “ emblems” of three 
white toes, &c., which have been held up to just ridicule 
in some of ourlate agricultural papers. And who shall 
say now that he alone has The improved Berkshires ? 
What is to beeome of the “ Rudgwick ” cross, the “ Hamp¬ 
shire” of the present day, in which the Berkshire blood 
strongly predominates; the fine boned and delicate 
Diskley.” said to lay on a larger quantity of meat in 
proportion to bone and offal, than any other kind ; Lord 
Western’s celebrated breed of “ the Essex half blacks,” 
considered by many to be the finest in England ? What 
is to become of these and many others, all of them 
crosses of the Berkshire family? I would ask, then, on 
•what grounds the Albany importation claim to be the 
standard of “ The Improved Berkshires?” 
In the extra accompanying the May number of the 
“ Cultivator,” I saw an advertisement of “Pure Berk¬ 
shires, without any alloy of black Siamese or common 
white hogs.” I should really be glad to see one of the 
animals, for an improved Berkshire, without any of the 
eastern blood in him, cannot probably be found in Eng¬ 
land. 
I was much gratified to see in the last “ Cultivator,” 
an article relative to “ true size.” The writer indeed 
lays down the golden rule on that subject. “ The 
greatest weight in the smallest relative compass ; weight 
for inches, not for superfice .” Now, this is just as true 
with regard to swine, as to cattle. What is it that our 
breeders are doing, urged by the mania for size, but 
breeding back again as fast as possible to the old unim¬ 
proved Berkshire, thus undoing in their wisdom, all that 
the science of England has accomplished in so many 
years ? But, say our western friends, we must have 
size, to fill the pork barrel. Fill it with what ? Heads 
and shanks? They will indeed fill the barrel, but not 
the consumer, which is a far more important considera¬ 
tion. If the Berkshires can be forced to an increased 
size, and still retain their light offal, well and good— 
provided they do not degenerate into the coarse animal, 
of which there may be no little danger. But I would 
not be understood as advocating the paltry, short-sight¬ 
ed policy of those from whom we expected better 
things ; vvho have sent away such “ riff-raff,” to meet 
the pressing demand for Berkshires, as would induce 
one to suppose the very scourings of a citj r suburb had 
been collected for the purpose. How much more con¬ 
ducive to their own true interests, has been the course 
pursued by that shrewd, far-seeing people, the Sha¬ 
kers of Watervliet, in carefully preserving the size of 
their animals, to which I presume they are mainly indebt¬ 
ed for the late sale of their whole stock to Mr. A. B. 
Allen, of Buffalo, under tvhose judicious and careful 
management, their excellence will undoubtedly be pre¬ 
served, and the public expectation with regard to them, 
fully met. They will neither be stuffed to plethory, 
nor starved to pigmies; and considering Mr. Allen to 
possess the pride and feelings of a breeder, we may 
hope to escape the “ culls and runts” of his litters, al¬ 
though we may not always be able to command his best; 
for it is not to be supposed that any “ established breed¬ 
er of reputation,” would sell the refuse of his stock at 
any price, which would be the infraction of a rule well 
known to the true breeder—although it has not been 
picked up with other matters of the craft by the dealers 
in Berkshire pigs, who it seems sell all they can raise, 
at one price or another—if not $20, why then 20s. 
As the intent of your paper is to elicit truth, and serve 
the farmer, I presume you will not object to giving the 
above an insertion. I am not now a breeder of the 
Berkshire, having given my attention to other depart¬ 
ments, but I would lend my feeble aid to the mainte¬ 
nance of science, against quackery in every shape. 
Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 31, 1840. D. 
WHEAT vs. CIIESS. 
To the Editors of the Cultivator —In your 
August number, I find an article from your correspon¬ 
dent L. Hulett, approbative of the doctrine that wheat 
degenerates to chess, and your accompanying strictures 
declaring your uncompromising hostility against such 
“agricultural heterodoxy.” Now, Messrs. Editors, as 
you profess to deal in “ facts” more than “ theory ” I 
will endeavor, in a plain unvarnished style, to furnish 
you with a few “ facts,” which you must admit are 
stubborn things^ and which, in my very humble concep¬ 
tion, cannot be fairly controverted. What I harm to say 
will be in vindication of that, as you opine, diabolical 
and exploded doctrine that there is a change of wheat 
into cheat or chess. The summer and first of the fall 
of 1838, was an unusually dry season. The corn corp 
did not produce more than one-fourth the average quanti¬ 
ty, but the wheat of that year was very fine and the 
yield never better. In consequence of having no fall of 
rain from July to September, the wheat which was scat¬ 
tered and shattered out by reaping att-harvest, remain¬ 
ed upon the fields in a perfect state. The fall rains com¬ 
menced,and by a continuation of several weeks of moist 
warm weather, the wheat that escaped the scythe came 
up and clad the fields in green. Several individuals, 
myself among the rest, came to the conclusion that 
we would try an experiment, and that we would make 
a fair trial to ascertain whether our luxuriant fields of 
volunteer wheat, would reproduce wheat or degenerate 
into cheat. We did not therefore permit our fields to be 
grazed during the fall, winter or spring. 
I propose to introduce to your especial notice three 
separate and distinct fields, one owned by Hr. M. one 
by Col. B. and the last by myself. Dr. M. had within 
his enclosure, and from which he reaped his wheat 
some 70 or 80 acres of land. As soon as his shocks of 
wheat were moved, he put 80 or 100 head of hogs into 
his field for the purpose of gleaning it. They gave the 
land a thorough nose cultivation by rooting over nearly 
the whole surface of the field. The result was that the 
wheat came up very handsomely, whereupon the hogs 
Avhere taken to other fields and the experiment, for such 
it was, was left to develop itself. Col. B. had within 
his enclosure from 80 to 100 acres, from which he had 
abstracted a very bountiful crop of wheat. That por¬ 
tion which had cheated the scythe; scattered on the ground 
and came up at the same time with Dr. M’s; and dur¬ 
ing the fall, winter and spring, promised an abundant 
crop. This field had very few if any swine running 
upon it, and consequently had no advantage from their 
nose culture. Within my own enclosure of 50 acres, af¬ 
ter harvesting and the removal of my wheat, I put in 
my stock of hogs, but they were not numerous enough 
to give it a good cultivation. While some of it was 
well tilled, other parts were but slightly rooted. When 
the wheat came up after the autumn rains, the hogs 
were taken to another field. I will now disclose to you 
the results. Dr. M. in June, 1839, from his field" of 
volunteer wheat before described, saved about 400 bushels 
of excellent wheat. A considerable portion of his field 
was almost exempt from chess, while in some parts less 
cultivated by the hogs that article abounded. Col. B’s. 
field, to the astonishment of all beholders, was out 
and out every inch of it a splendid field of chess. A 
few spears of wheat, few and far between, could only 
be seen. I think 6 or 800 bushels of chess could have 
been harvested. From my own field I obtained a pret¬ 
ty good supply of excellent wheat, but more mixed with 
chess than Dr. M’s for want of the same cultivation. 
Now, why all this discrepancy between the several 
fields above described is obvious to my own mind, and 
to that of every person in this region. 
Is it not as plain as the nose on a man’s face, that the 
extraordinary yield from Dr. M’s field should be ascrib¬ 
ed exclusively to its superior cultivation by his 100 hogs; 
and that the greater mixture of chess with my own 
should be ascribed to less or a more inferior culture, 
and that the total degeneration of Col. B’s. field into 
chess, may properly be attributed to the entire want of 
tillage.^ Let metaphysicians canvass it as they may, a 
single tact is worth a thousand abstract theories. 
I will also remark that Dr. M., Col. B. and myself, 
invariably riddle the chess and small grains of wheat 
irom our seed wheat. If all the chess seed had been 
procured in 20 miles square, it would not have sufficed 
for seeding so large a field as Col. B’s. Chess cannot 
be found on our lands except after the growing of wheat, 
and then it is but rarely suffered to come to maturity as 
our stock are premitted to graze it sufficiently to keep 
it down. 1 could enumerate a number of herbs, plants, 
&c. from the vegetable kingdom, and that since the 
hand of man has cultivated them, has rendered them 
entirely dissimilar in appearance and taste to their pris¬ 
tine state when plucked from the wilderness. I am, 
until I find something more conclusive on the subject, 
“ a sturdy, staunch believer” in the transmutation of 
wheat into chess. I suppose this hasty sketch, should 
you think it worthy of an insertion in your invaluable 
paper, will draw down upon me, the animadversions of 
many anti-chess men, but it will be to me no cause of 
regret, as the best method to come to right conclusions 
is by sifting every topic to the bottom. 
Your agricultural friend, 
R. E. MOSELEY. 
North River, Buckingham, Va. Aug. 1840. 
NOTE BY THE EDITORS. 
Defective as we may seem in courtesy not to be in¬ 
fluenced by Mr. M.’s argument, we are compelled, while 
we yield an affirmative answ r er to each of the queries 
he has made, to draw from them an inference totally 
averse to his ; and we go farther and state that, when 
all the circumstances of the cases adduced, and the na¬ 
ture of the two plants are taken into consideration, the 
communication furnishes a most decisive proof of the 
fallacy of the doctrine of transmutation. 
That there was chess in the wheat fields, and that it 
was scattered at harvest, as well as wheat, is clear from 
the paper, as we may be assured that no “riddling” 
will entirely clean foul seed, and that where chess ri¬ 
pens in wheat, enough will be left in the field to seed 
it plentifully. Some seeds will grow and come to ma¬ 
turity if left on the surface; others require covering, 
and perish without. Chess is of the first kind, wheat 
of the last. Where the hogs rooted, the wheat was 
covered, and of course grew, and in proportion to the 
“nose cultivation” was the crop. Where the surface 
was undisturbed, the wheat either did not vegetate at 
all, or perished; while the chess occupied the whole 
space and gave a luxuriant crop. 
Our correspondent has begged the very question in 
dispute, by assuming that the chess could not have grown 
from seed, and then endeavoring to trace it to the de¬ 
generation of the wheat. The exceeding loose manner 
in which he has stated the impossibility of procuring 
chess to seed Col. B.’s field, will give an air of hyper¬ 
bole, (wrongfully perhaps,) to the other “ facts” of the 
statement. Let it once be proved that chess has grown 
where no chess could possibly have been; and where 
nothing but pure wheat was sown, and the question will 
be settled, not before. All the suppositious “facts” in 
the case weigh not a feather in the argument. 
We can readily conceive that Mr. M. has known 
plants change their “ appearance and taste” by cultiva¬ 
tion ; the production of the pippin from the crab-apple 
is a familiar instance ; but has he known one species of 
plant, having marked and uniform characters, change 
to another well marked and distinct species? Has he 
known the apple change to the pear, or timothy grass 
to orchard grass ? That is the question; and until it is 
answered in the affirmative, change in appearance and 
taste will not be apt to go far with the farmer, or the 
careful observer of nature. The reader is referred to 
“Popular Errors,” No. 3, in another column, for a far¬ 
ther exposition of this, as we confidently believe, hetero¬ 
dox notion. 
RULES IN SOWING WHEAT. 
Messrs. Editors —As the time for wheat sowing is 
near at hand, I wish to give a few short rules, which, 
if strictly followed, will convert every believer in the 
doctrine of transmutation of wheat into chess, from that 
absurd opinion. 
1. Harvest and draw into your barn all the chess you 
find growing in your wheat. 
2. At no time scatter or feed out any chess, until it 
is ground fine. 
3. Sow ho chess with your wheat. 
Follow the above rules a few years, and you wall be 
disposed to laugh at the credulity of the man who ven¬ 
tures the assertion, that wheat turns to chess. But re¬ 
member the third rule. E. MARKS 
Navarino, Onondaga county, Avgust 6, 1840. 
INQUIRY. 
Messrs. Editors —If your correspondent, signing “J. 
R. B.,” who so highly recommends Robinson’s Works on 
Rural Architecture, in the June number, will state the cost 
of each, he will confer a favor on a mechanic, and constant 
reader of your paper. 
