38 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Short Horns vs. Herefords. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker— I have read with care 
the recent observations of Mr. Sotham, in the two last 
numbers of the Cultivator, and really I must say I have 
read nothing in them that is calculated to remove the 
impression that I received from his first communication, 
“ that the Herefords he has imported, have been bred, 
with a strong cross from the Durham.” In his last com¬ 
munication he appears to have selected my observations 
in the October number of the Cultivator, particularly, 
to which to address his reply. I can truly say I was 
rather sorry to see that, as the communication of Mr. 
Randall, had he selected it, to frame his reply to, would 
have opened to him a larger field, and given him much 
more matter to work upon, than did that from me. Wo 
doubt Mr. S. acted in that matter according to the first 
law of nature—he selected his weakest adversary, con¬ 
fident of an easy victory. I am pleased, however, to 
see that Mr. R. has again resumed his pen, and truly 
he has wielded it to some purpose in the last Cultiva¬ 
tor ; he has there made a reply to Mr. S. that will an¬ 
swer for himself, me, and all others who have given 
views, to which Mr. S. has taken exception ; and I 
should be disposed to let the matter, so far as I am con¬ 
cerned, rest where he has placed it, were it not for some 
observations particularly made to me by Mr. S. I have 
acted upon his suggestion, and reperused the remarks I 
quoted from “ Youatt,” and I see nothing more in the 
quotation than I did before. Mr. S. asks with confi¬ 
dence, ‘‘ If a good ox can be bred from an inferior dam ?” 
In reply to him, I would say, that according to his own 
showing, “ many a good ox has been bred from an in¬ 
ferior dam.” I take it from the little experience I have 
had, that it is much easier to raise a good ox, than to 
raise either a good bull or a good cow. This remark 
may appear strange to many persons, but will be easily 
accounted for and understood by every breeder. It 
would be considered now, a work of supererogation fra¬ 
me to prove “ Youatt’s History of British Cattle,” a 
standard work—every breeder considers it such—and so 
I have no doubt, does Mr. S., except so far as their 
views with regard to the Herefords antagonize. Eng¬ 
lish breeders are celebrated for their skill, and a great 
portion of that skill has been exhibited in the success 
which has attended the different crosses they have made 
with the different breeds of cattle. It is matter of his¬ 
tory that a most important improvement has been effect¬ 
ed upon the Devonshires by what has been termed a 
“ stolen cross with the Herefords.” The animals bred 
from this cross were called Devonshires, and so have 
continued to be called. 
Another and still more important cross was suc¬ 
cessfully effected between the Durhams and the Gallo¬ 
ways. The result, no doubt, of these crosses was much 
owing to the skill with which the animals with which 
they were effected, were selected by the spirited 
breeders who had the courage to venture upon them. 
Such an experiment made under the direction of a man 
of no practical experience or skill in his business, nine 
times in ten, would be a complete failure. The friend 
of Mr. Sotham in England, from whom he procured his 
stock, I have no doubt possesses much skill and expe¬ 
rience in his business as a cattle breeder, and really I 
see no harm in the fact of his improving his Herefords, 
by a “ stolen cross” with the Durhams ; the harm lies 
in his selling and passing them for pure Herefords, and 
not giving the proper credit for the improvement to the 
Durham, by whose agency it was effected. 
I would ask the cattle breeder to examine the portrait 
of the Earl of Egremont’s cow, given by Youatt in his 
history, called too a beautiful specimen of the Here¬ 
ford ; then examine the portrait of Mr. Sotham’s cow 
“ Matchless,” given in the November number of the 
Cultivator, and then say in all candor if there is one 
single solitary point of identity in “ Matchless” with 
the Hereford cow of Earl Egremont, except the color! ! 
and yet all this astonishing change has been effected in 
* seven or eight years!! 
One argument use! by Youatt, to prove that the 
Herefords are an aboriginal breed, is the largeness of 
the head and the thickness of the neck, when compared 
with the Devon cattle, an 1 he says, “ were it not for the 
white face, and the somewhat larger head and thicker 
neck, it would not at all times be easy to distinguish be¬ 
tween a light Hereford and a heavy Devon.” Now 
where is even the most remote degree of similarity be¬ 
tween “ Matchless,” and the portrait of the Devon cow ? 
True, they are both the portraits of cows, but so were 
Allen’s portraits of t: Seneca Chief” and “ Alligator” 
both hogs, but the similarity was done with when you 
had called the name common to the genus. It may be 
askel by some if Mr. Sotham’s Herefords are really 
Durhams , how do you account for the color ? That, I 
answer, in the hands of a skilful breeder is easy—the 
color of the Devon is very tenacious when crossed with 
any other breed ; so say men of experience in the matter; 
so doubtless is the color of the Herefords ; and a small 
degree of attention to the selection of animals retaining 
the color to breed from, would easily retain that point, 
when every other one was gone. Mr. S. has mistaken 
my remarks when he says I talked of “ showing spirit 
in selecting a breed of our own,” “ and would be plea¬ 
sed to hear my suggestions in commencing the breed.” 
My observation was, and I am pleased to have an op¬ 
portunity to repeat it —“ See what the Herefords 
were—hear what they are now—then say if there is im¬ 
propriety in charging their admitted recent improve¬ 
ment, in points in which the Short Horns excel, to an 
admixture with them. If such is the fact, and we have 
a number of the finest specimens of the Short Horns to 
begin with ; cannot we, by judicious crossings, and pro¬ 
per attention, form for ourselves , if I may be allowed 
the expression, a breed of grade cattle, without expend¬ 
ing enormous sums of money, to pay our trans-atlantic 
neighbors for doing work that we ought now to do for 
ourselves V Mr. S. thinks it would take a century to do 
any thing of importance in such a matter. I beg leave 
to differ with him, and in answer to his argument of time, 
would only say to him, see what Mr. Hewer has done 
in eight or ten years. I can give him an example near¬ 
er home; see what Col. Jacques has done !! The truth 
is we have breeders of as much skill and as much spi¬ 
rit as England can boast of. Col. Jacques has done as 
much for a milking breed of cattle as ever Bakewell or 
Collins has done for a beef breed. True he had the 
benefit of their experience as far as it went in his road, 
but this we can all have if we take and read the Culti¬ 
vator, and it perseveres in the course it is now taking. 
Let me press it still further upon the community, foster 
your own country and let every effort be made to ad¬ 
vance her general interests, in agriculture and stock 
raising. Keep the pure blood pure, and purify the 
scrub stock by admixture with it; keep nothing but a 
full blood bull, and let all your cows to him, and in a 
few years, by proper management, our stock will com¬ 
pare with England’s best. J. H. HEPBURN. 
Jersey Shore, Lycoming Co., (Pa.) Dec. 16, 1840. 
R2PLY TO “N. Xff. D.” 
I love the application of science to the practical pur¬ 
poses of life, and am free to admit that it is one of the 
greatest improvements of this utilitarian age ; but I am 
strongly inclined to believe, that the practice of up¬ 
braiding and decrying those who follow the dictates of 
their own understanding, and value the wisdom and ex¬ 
perience of past ages, is not calculated to advance the 
interests of true philosophy or improve the agriculture 
of the day. It is too much like a controversy between com¬ 
mon sense and learning,which invariably ends in a victory 
of the former over its best friend, a friend with whom it 
will always harmonize when both are understood ; and is 
one cause why learning makes little progress among those 
who put a high estimate upon the value of their senses. 
For my own part, I frankly acknowledge that I would 
not give up a single faculty of my understanding, nor 
the power of drawing a single deduction fairly from its 
exercise, for all the knowledge of Aristotle, or all the 
discoveries of Sir Humphrey Davy. “ My Lords,” 
says the Earl of Chatham, in one of his eloquent defen¬ 
ces of American resistance, “ I am often led to distrust 
the refinements of learning, when I so frequently see 
learned men suffer their minds to be misled by it; how 
lamentable indeed would be the condition of mankind, 
if science and learning, udiich fall to the lot of so few 
men, were necessary for our successful progress. Pro¬ 
vidence has taken better care of our happiness, and has 
given us in the simplicity of common sense, a rule for 
our conduct that will never deceive us.” 
I have been led to make these remarks from reading 
in the Cultivator, (page 197, vol. 7,) the opinion, (for 
there is no evidence that the conclusions are drawn from 
experiment,) of your scientific correspondent, N. N. D. 
of Stockport, that “ some lands which contain a large 
per centage of the oxide of iron, are remarkable for 
their fertility ; these are injured, and in fact ruined, by 
the application of manure.” And he goes on with con¬ 
siderable display of chemical learning to fortify his fact 
with reasons. I should not call public attention to this 
opinion if it did not appear to be authenticated by a 
scientific and popular writer, whose object is laudable ; 
but I lay down the broad position, that no land intend¬ 
ed in the economy of nature for the purposes of resi¬ 
dence and cultivation, was ever injured by the applica¬ 
tion of manure. Plants require only a determinate 
quantity of manure ; an excess is detrimental. And so 
a man requires only a certain quantity of food ; an ex¬ 
cess is injurious ; but, that land was ever seriously in¬ 
jured and in fact ruined, by the application of .manure, 
is a new theory in agricultural science ; it is one of 
those hypothetical opinions drawn from the refinements 
of learning, that serve to bring it into disrepute. Hy¬ 
pothesis non lingo, says Newton, in his Principia ; and 
“ je ne vois jamais science s’avance par hypothesis,” 
says Cuvier in his Ossemens Fossils; but the opinion 
of your correspondent, who can’t give up manure in all 
cases, is said to be the result of practical experience, 
and is probably like another opinion sometimes advanc¬ 
ed in the Cultivator, “ that draining is a great improve¬ 
ment, but we cannot entirely give up irrigation.” The 
truth I take to be, that all lands from which crops are 
taken, require the application of manure, and the omis¬ 
sion to apply it must end in sterility ; but lest we should 
be supposed capable of misrepresenting your corres¬ 
pondent, let us have his own language : “ Some farm¬ 
ers have actually denied the efficacy of animal manures 
and have asserted that their frequent use would make 
the land barren ; in their experience this was literally 
true : and chemistry explains why it is so ; experience 
shows us that all the soluble salts of iron are pernicious 
to vegetation ; all the insoluble oxides of iron are harm¬ 
less. ° Some soils which contain a large per centage of 
the oxide of iron are remarkable for their fertility; these 
are injured and in fact ruined by the application of ma¬ 
nure. Animal manures all contain more or less of sul¬ 
phur ; according to the irreversible laws of combination, 
sulphureted hydrogen is one of the products of their de¬ 
composition ; this unites with the oxide of iron in the 
soil, and by a play of double affinities, water and sul- 
phuret are lormed from their union ; this sulphuret of 
iron by continued exposure to the atmosphere absorbs 
oxygen from it, and hence results another chemical 
transformation, and sulphate of iron is produced ; this 
is another very soluble salt, most pernicious to vegeta¬ 
tion, and absolute sterility must result.” It is perhaps 
not intended by N. N. D. to take any distinction between 
animal and other manures as they are used indiscrimi¬ 
nately in the above extract, and it is probable that sul¬ 
phur exists m them all, and besides it is the sulphate of 
iron that does the mischief. But while the iron is only 
Hurtful m its acid combinations, Dr. Jackson is quoted 
to show, that one of the methods of improvement em¬ 
ployed extensively m Belgium, is to spread iron, copper, 
sulphur, &c. upon the surface for the purpose of general’ 
mg sulphate of iron, a substance that liberates carbonic 
acid gas, amd forms gypsum from calcarious soils.” 
t 1 understand this reasoning, (which my readers 
must excuse me if I admit I do not) it is this : that sul¬ 
phate of iron which is always per melons to vegetation, 
when applied to calcarious soils—is fertilizing! and al¬ 
though the oxides of iron are harmless, they ruin ma¬ 
nured land! and why? Because the manure generates 
sulphureted hydrogen, which, uniting with the oxide 
forms water and sulphuret of iron ; the sulphuret ab¬ 
sorbs oxygen from the air and produces the sulphate. 
What quantity of calcarious matter is necessary to 
change the iflnuence of the sulphate and form gypsum 
from the soil, is not explained to us ; but I suppose any 
soil that will effervesce with acids, is entitled to the 
epithet calcarious. If we can from such a combination 
obtain gypsum, we should be happy to see the proofs. 
Now admitting the fact which is not proved, that there 
is a small quantity of sulphureted hydrogen gas evolv¬ 
ed by the decomposition of manure, it would seem from 
Du Hamel’s experiments, that it was highly useful in 
vegetation, and most assuredly it would require a dou¬ 
ble play of affinities to produce water and sulphuret of 
iron, from a union of the oxide of iron —in the soil— 
with sulphureted hydrogen gas ; certainly there must 
be some double dealing in it, for it cannot be done as 
far as our experience goes, by any honest simple pro¬ 
cess. The affinity of iron for hydrogen gas is well known, 
but in this instance there are still stronger affinities to 
overcome. The gas immediately on its development would 
become dissipated in the atmosphere ; if there was any 
water in contact with it, it would immediately absorb the 
w x hole of the gas, and instead of uniting with the oxide 
and forming the substances usually distinguished among 
mineralogists by the names of magnetic pyrites and cu¬ 
bic pyrites, which I suppose to be the sulphurets of iron ; 
it would, according to all the rational deductions that 
can be drawn from its nature, perform the other func¬ 
tions of aerial phenomena upon the surrounding vege¬ 
tables. If,, however, it should not escape, but unite 
with the oxide and form water, how long has this been 
considered detrimental to the growth of plants ? We 
know, if it comes in a deluge like Noah’s flood, it would 
destroy “ every living thing,” but even then it would 
not “ produce sterility ;” but perhaps it is not the same 
water as that usually produced by the union of hydro¬ 
gen and oxygen gases ; it may be a kind of mineral 
water. 
I am not a man of science, but a plain country farm¬ 
er, and therefore, not disposed to dispute with your 
learned correspondent upon scientific subjects, but 
when he tells me that manure is pernicious to land ; that 
the water formed by any chemical combinations in the 
soil is injurious to vegetation; that oxide of iron mixed 
with manure by various transformations, becomes py¬ 
rites or green vitriol or copperas, I feel as if I wanted 
to ask him for the proofs. Let us have the proofs ; 
we don’t dispute the facts, but let us see the experiment. 
The writer of this article has been for many years fa¬ 
miliar with land containing large quantities of the oxide 
of iron, upon which manure has been applied without 
stint or measure for ages, with, unhappily for this new 
theory, a continued increase of fertility. Holkham. 
Friendsville, Pa. 12 mo. 25, 1840. 
Haising Potatoes from the Seed. 
Messrs. Gaylord h Tucker —During the past sea¬ 
son I have reared potatoes from the seed ; as the pro¬ 
duct far exceeded my anticipations, I will state the 
course of culture I pursued, and the result. As it has 
been generally supposed, that it required about 3 years 
to perfect the growth of the potato from seed, many have 
been deterred from making the attempt. Last fall I 
plucked from the stalk of a Mercer potato, a single 
cluster of four seed balls ; these were preserved during 
winter from frost. On the 11th April, the seeds were 
sown in a hot bed ; on the 18th June, the plants being 
from four to five inches in height, were taken up; twen¬ 
ty-five of the strongest plants were transplanted to the 
garden in rows fifteen inches apart, and six inches dis¬ 
tant in the rows ; they were once earthed or hoed slight¬ 
ly. Some of the tops were small, but generally as large 
as ordinary field potatoes ; consequently they became 
somewhat smothered under their own foliage, and would 
doubtless have done much better had they been planted 
the same distance apart usually given in common field 
culture. The whole were gathered on the 17th Oct. ; 
the tubers weighed 18£ lbs.; one potato weighed 8J 
ounces, several 6 ounces, and half of them large enough 
for the table ; they were generally kidney shaped, vari¬ 
ous in color, and in their general appearance a marked 
difference, the product of one plant onlv partaking of 
the parent. WM. W. VAN LOAN. 
Cat skill, Oct. 28, 1840. 
