THE CULTIVATOR 
183 
her effluvia at that place, and she is driven out by a strong 
guard. 
If the subtended hive is used, and my system adopted, the 
third or top section is used only as a chamber for boxes, &c. 
The third year, early in the spring, this section, -which has been 
used as a chamber two seasons is placed underneath, next to 
the bottom board ; this raises the hive of bees by this shift, so 
that the section which was in the middle is now on the top. 
Now draw a fine wire through so as to divide off the top sec¬ 
tion; empty it of its contents; and use it as a chamber. This 
prevents the necessity of pruning the combs in the ordinary way; 
for the bees fill down the section next the bottom board with 
new combs, and enables them to replenish their stock by rais¬ 
ing their young, in cells not more than two years old. The 
caustic nature of lime is so unfriendly to life in most insects, a 
coat of lime paste should be laid on so as to fill up any space 
betwixt sections as well as bottom boards, and all cracks and 
open places ; and no moth’s eggs will ever hatch there. 
Respectfully, JOHN M. WEEKS. 
Comments on the Sept. Sfo. of the Cultivator. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —The first article that attract¬ 
ed my attention was Lord Western’s letter about his Merino 
sheep, in which he states, that by suffering two wethers to re¬ 
main three years without being shorn, the fleece of one did ac¬ 
tually weigh 28 pounds, and of the other, would weigh 30 lbs., 
as his Lordship guessed. Now, to say not a word of the mar¬ 
vellous in this statement, I beg leave to ask, what was the loss 
and gain of this experiment ? The gain, “ I guess,” would be, 
only the wonderment elicited among all the quid-nuncs and 
marvel-lovers of his agricultural brethren, while the certain 
loss, if the sheep lived, would be the whole interest of the mo¬ 
ney for which the fleeces would sell, if sheared annually as 
usual; besides incurring the not improbable risk of losing both 
principal and interest, should the sheep die, which surely 
ought to be estimated at something, if they were kept for such 
a period -without their yielding any thing in the form of profit, 
but manure. Although it is not probable that any of our farm¬ 
ers will be tempted to follow this English Lord’s example with 
their sheep, for they have but little fancy for such suspended 
and precarious profits ; still I have deemed his experiment de¬ 
serving of this brief notice. To make it worthy of imitation, he 
should have proved, that the 2S lbs. of wool exceeded the ag¬ 
gregate amount of three such fleeces as the slaughtered wether 
would have produced annually; and, moreover, that this excess 
would more than compensate, not only the certain loss of inte¬ 
rest, but the possible loss of principal by the death of the sheep. 
The next article is headed “ Fattening Animals,” and for this 
there are four rules given. In regard to the two first of these, 
there are, I think, some points yet undetermined, and some dif¬ 
ferences of opinion, even among the most experienced feeders. 
For instance, although all probably will admit, that “the food 
should be so prepared that its nutritive properties may be all 
made available to the use of the animal, and not only so, but. ap¬ 
propriated with the least possible expenditure of muscular ener¬ 
gy,” yet, when we come to inquire, what is this preparation ? 
we get different answers from different persons, and all of them 
with equal claims to our regard on the score of experience. 
Some contend, as I understand the author of the rule docs, that 
the best preparation is to cook their food. Others maintain, 
that this violates the .first rule, which requires, that " all the 
nutritive properties of the food should be made available to the 
use of the animal whereas, cooking destroys at least some 
portion of them, besides being unnatural. Again, the author 
of these rules seems to assert, that all their food, if fed raw, 
should be previously cut up. On the contrary, many contend 
that the risk of choking, where the animals are thus fed, is so 
considerable as to exceed the advantage, especially when the 
extra labor of slicing is taken into the.estimate. With respect 
to sheep, we know that in England, where sheep husbandry is 
probably better understood than in any other country in the 
world, it is the general practice to hurdle them on their turnep- 
fields, that they may feed themselves, and thereby save, not 
only the expense of diggingand slicing their roots, but also the 
expense of carting out their manure, if fed under a fixed shel¬ 
ter. It is true, that in fattening their sheep for market, more 
food is given to them in addition to roots : but whether the sli¬ 
cing of the latter be any advantage, is a matter which may be 
pronounced at least doubtful. 
The first rule concludes with the following declaration :— 
11 All food should be given to a fattening animal in such a state, 
that as little time and, labor as possible onthc part of the animal, 
may be required in eating.” Now, if the most important point in 
fattening an animal, be to do it in the shortest possible time, 
then this assertion may be correct. But if the preservation of 
its health, and the good flavor of their flesh, after they are kill¬ 
ed for use, be still more important, then the correctness of the 
rule may well be denied. For all medical writers on the sub¬ 
ject of diet, concur in the opinion, that the more slowly and 
thoroughly human beings masticate their food, the better they 
will digest it, and the moTe perfectly it will answer all the pur¬ 
poses for which it is taken. And why this should not be the 
case with brutes also, it will not be easy to prove, especially 
with all that ruminate. That it is the case,—not only with 
them, but also with hogs, all I think, will agree, who have ever 
tried the difference between beef and mutton fattened with grass 
and grain, while running at large, and that which is called stall- 
fed: and the difference between the flesh of hogs fattened in sties, 
and those which are made fat without being confined in pens, 
until two or three weeks before they are killed. If profit alone 
be our object in fattening animals, then, indeed, some time and 
expense may be saved by adopting the first rule with some qua¬ 
lification. 
The second rule requires, that “ from the time the fattening 
process commences, until the aiiimal is slaughtered , he should 
never be without food.” If I remember right, this requisition is 
opposed to the opinions expressed in different volumes of your 
own paper, by several of your correspondents, who write like 
experienced men. It is true, they agree that fattening animals 
should be fed regularly, and as often as they manifest an incli¬ 
nation for food. But they object to its constantly lying by 
them, which it must do, if they are " never to be without food 
because they are apt, when this is the case, to gorge" them¬ 
selves, and thereby retard, instead of hastening, the fattening 
process. — 
Under the head of "Work for the Month,” you recommend 
September, from the 12th to the 20th, as the best time for sow¬ 
ing wheat. This, I presume, has been found to suit your lati¬ 
tude. But as far south as about 3S°, I have never known nor 
heard ofa single crop, for many years past, that was not great¬ 
ly injured by the Hessian fly, if sown earlier than some lime in 
October. — 
To your excellent article entitled " Agricultural Capital,” 
permit me to add two other items to your enumeration. Al¬ 
though in applying to them the term “capital,” it may be 
thought that I give it a more comprehensive meaning, than is 
usually attached to it; I will venture to take this liberty. 
These items are, good character and good education, in which 
last I include, not only genuine agricultural science, to guide 
and govern agricultural practice, but all other knowledge 
which will contribute to make us better and wiser men,—bet¬ 
ter and more useful citizens,—better qualified, in every way, to 
promote not only our own, but other’s welfare and happiness. 
Such might be the yeomanry of our yet happy country, for their 
profession unquestionaby gives them vast advantages over all 
others towards making such attainments; and all they have to 
do in order to realize them, is, to cultivate their minds with 
the some care and assiduity which the best and most intelligent 
of them cultivate their fields. 
Your article on Botts suggests to me what I have often heard 
said by persons of great experience in raising horses. It is, 
that during the season when the bott-fly prevails, you should 
daily examine your horses and colts, and never suffer any of 
the numerous nits which they deposit on them, to remain a 
minute after you discover them. Do this for your horses’ limbs 
and bodies, and you will never need any remedy for killing 
botts in their stomachs. 
In regard to Mr. John William’s marvellous wheat., I would, 
most respectfully, recommend, that instead of "California,” 
he should hereafter substitute the term, “ Brobdingnag” that 
strange country once visited by that famous traveler, Captain 
Lemuel Gulliver, who found every thing therein on the gigantic 
scale, from the people " as tall as an ordinary spire-steeple,” 
down even to insects, the common house-flies being “as big as 
a Dunstable Lark,” and wasps “ as large as partridges.” 
Mr. Williams, I see, states that some of the heads of his 
Brobdingnag wheat, (as I beg leave to call it,) which be raised 
the present year, produced two hundred and four grains each. 
The largest head I ever measured was rather more than five 
inches—but I will say five. It was of the kind called blue stem, 
and contained, as well as I can recollect, only seventy grains, 
which is nearly double the average quantity of our ordinary 
wheat, in the southern states. Therefore, Mr. W.’s Brobding¬ 
nag head, if it grows at all like other wheat, must have been— 
either within a very small fraction of fifteen inches long, or 
must have been nearly three times larger in circumference than 
the head I counted, to hold the number of chambers necessary 
to contain these 204 grains. Mr. W. farther says, " It may be 
considered a reasonable estimate, that in a good soil, each kernel 
sown, will produce 1,000 grains.” Well, therefore, may the pro¬ 
prietors of this most stupendous wheat ask, for single heads, the 
very moderate price of one dollar each, since the grains of only 
one head sown, as Mr. W. suggests, would produce in twelve 
months, 204,000 grains, which would yield at the asking price, 
(and he may safely calculate upon finding gulls enough among 
our brethren to give it.) the very comfortable, snug, little re¬ 
turn of one thousand dollars for one ! Hence it is demonstra¬ 
ble, that to sow California or Brobdingnag wheat, at a dollar 
per head, of 204 grains each, should it yield as well for others as 
for Mr. Williams, would throw into the back ground, at a sight¬ 
less distance, even the wildest of the numerous speculations 
which has ever yet humbugged our money-loving, most gullible 
country. — 
Mr. Solomon W. Jewett’s communication on " The Manage¬ 
ment of Meadow and Pasture lands,” deserves the attentive 
perusal of all our brethren—both for his facts and opinions. 
Among the latter, however, there is one in regard to which 
there are many who differ from him. He says.—" Horses will, 
in a few years, destroy a good pasture, by cutting up the sward ; 
they return no manure to the soil that is of any benefit to the 
herbage.” The first clause of the sentence is generally believ¬ 
ed to be true; but it depends on the particular breed of horses 
raised, whether this " cutting up” be not amply repaid. Again, 
cattle cut up pasture more than horses, for their hoofs are di¬ 
vided into two parts, each having a sharp point, which neces¬ 
sarily cuts more than the round, solidhoof of the horse, as may 
easily be seen by examining the pastures in which both kinds of 
stock run together. Moreover, if the horse manure dropt in 
their pastures be " of no benefit to the herbage,” the manure 
of cattle must be still more worthless, since it has often been 
proved by accurate analysis to be weaker. 
Mr. J. C. Mather’s article on “Lime,” furnishes a fit occa¬ 
sion to susgest what all our brethren, I believe, deem a great 
desideratum among us. That is, for some one to make a series 
of experiments to ascertain the best and the greatest quantity 
of this substance which can be beneficially applied to land. 
This is still a matter altogether undetermined, although lime 
has been used to improve land for many centuries past. Dr. 
Wm. Darlington, who is highly distinguished both as an agri¬ 
culturist and botanist, says, in a letter to the late Judge Buel, 
that in Pennsylvania the quantity generally applied varies 
from 20 to 100 bushels, according to the quality of the land, the 
richest requiring the most lime. Judge Buel himself, in his 
" Farmer’s Companion,” states the maximum and minimum at 
120 and 60. On the other hand, the English writers, of whom I 
shall quote only James Anderson, the distinguished author of 
" Essays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs,” and of 
several other performances, recommends far greater quanti¬ 
ties. The extract which I am about to give, is from his essay 
“ on quick lime as a cement and as a manure,” than which I 
have never read a more learned, comprehensive, and at the 
same time practical treatise on the subject. It is published at 
the end of “ Marshall’s Gardening.” In speaking of lime as a 
manure, he says : "It is common to hear those, who have had 
little experience of it as a manure, recommend very great cau¬ 
tion, lest too great a quantity be employed, for fear of burning 
the soil, as they express it. This idea of burning has been evi¬ 
dently adopted, from what has been experienced by applying 
caustic lime to animals or vegetables, in large quantities, as it 
often corrodes and shrivels them up, and produces other effects 
which greatly resemble those of fire. But it cannot produce 
any such effects, unless there are vegetables growing upon the 
soil at the time. In that case, the vegetables might, indeed, be 
corroded by the lime, if rain should fall immediately after it 
was spread, when newly slaked; but as It loses this fiery corrosive 
power in a few day s after it is spread, nothing of that kind can be 
expected to happen to the soil. Accordingly, we never hear of 
crops being burnt up by too great a quantity of lime, in those 
countries where it has long been used as a common manure, al¬ 
though it is there often employed in much larger quantities 
than in any other places where it is more rare. 
"I myself have had the experience of lime in all proportions 
from one hundred to above seven hundred bushels to the acre, 
upon a great variety of soils; and have always found that its 
effect in promoting the fertility of the soil, has been in pro¬ 
portion to the quantity employed, other circumstances being 
alike. 
" The expense in most cases prevents farmers from employing 
this manure in greater quantities than those above mentioned; 
but accidental circumstances clearly show, that if it were ap¬ 
plied in much larger quantities, the effect would only be to pro¬ 
mote the luxuriance of the crop in a higher degree. 
" A gentleman of my acquaintance, in whose veracity I per¬ 
fectly confide, happening to be from home when a large field 
was limed ; and having no occasion for the whole quantity of 
lime that had been brought for that purpose and laid down in one 
corner of the field, his servants, without driving it away, mixed 
what remained with the soil, although the lime lay there about 
four inches thick over the whole surface. The effect was, that 
for many years afterwards, the grain in that place, was so im¬ 
moderately luxuriant, that it fell over and rotted before it 
came to the ear. After many years this luxuriance abated a 
little, so as to allow the grain to ripen; but it was there al¬ 
ways much more luxuriant than in any other part of the field. 
" An accidental experiment, nearly similar to this, fell under 
my own observation. It happened that the servants of another 
farmer In id, by mistake, a few heaps of lime upon a grass field 
that he did not intend should be broken up at the time. The 
mistake was soon discovered, and no more lime was laid down 
at that place, and the few heaps, (about a bushel in each,) 
were allowed to lie neglected, without being spread. The field 
was pastured upon for seven or eight years after that, before it 
was converted into tillage; and the heaps were by that time be¬ 
come so flat, and so far sunk into the ground, that they could 
hardly be discovered. 
“ Before it was plowed up, the whole of the field was limed, 
and this part equally with the rest; nor were the old heaps 
touched till the plow went through them in tilling the field, 
when the lime was then turned up, with only a very small mix¬ 
ture of soil. The consequence was, that at every one of these 
heaps, a tuft of corn sprung up with such luxuriance as to be 
entirely rotted before harvest; and for many years afterwards 
these tufts could be distinguished from the other parts of the 
field, at a very great distance, like so many buttons on a coat.” 
The above facts appear to me perfectly conclusive as to the 
effects of lime in England, and why it should not act nearly or 
quite in the same "way in the United States, will not, I think, be 
easy to prove. — 
In L. F. A.’s brief article, beaded “Imported Berkshire 
there is a single sentence which would make an excellent theme 
for a whole volume; it is truly " multum in parvo,” and I there¬ 
fore beg leave to repeat it, in the hope. that he or some other of 
your numerous correspondents will give us, at least an essay, 
on a subject so deeply interesting to us all.. In speaking of the 
far greater attention paid by English agriculturists, than by 
those of the United States, to every thing connected with their 
profession, he justly remarks, that "wlienmijid is thus applied 
to the development of matter in agriculture—as unhappily for 
our true interest it is not —then shall we witness equal success 
and improvement; and then will the land-holder take his true 
position in wealth and influence with the other professions of 
our country.” But alas ! although this all-important truth is 
pcrfectly.'ohvious to the dullest understanding, and has been 
again and again, presented to us in almost every variety of as¬ 
pect that language could give it, most of us appear as utterly in¬ 
sensible of it, os if we had neither intellects to comprehend, 
nor souls to feel how deeply it concerns our whole brotherhood 
always to regard husbandry both as a science and an art, if we 
would ever attain that rank and estimation in society to which 
we have a perfectly just claim; one too, which all would ad¬ 
mit, if we would only seek it as we ought to do. Commentator. 
Cutting' up Corn. 
Msssrs. Gaylord & Tucker —It has been the practice of most 
farmers for a few years past, to cut up their corn at the bottom, 
and stack it in the field. But I find there is a difference in the 
mode of doing it; now I will give you and your readers the man¬ 
ner in which we doit. Two of us take five rows, and commence 
cutting; when we vet an armfull, we set it up on the middle 
row, around a hill "which is left standing, to make the stack, 
never laying it down at all; when the stack is made of sufficient 
size, we take a band of straw, turn the tops down, and bind 
around it, and it is done. We are convinced that we can cut up 
a field of corn in this way in less time than we can in topping, 
binding and stacking it in the old way. Where we cut it up and 
lay it down in bundles, and then have to go and bind them, and 
drayv them together to stack, we have found it to be an ugly and 
tedious job; besides it takes about double the time and labor to 
do it. As to the economy of cutting up corn, I think there are few 
farmers that will question that point; the abundance of cattle 
fodder which is saved, is enough to induce any farmer to do it; 
besides this, we have the ground clear for the spring crop. I 
know there arc some farmers who object to this manner 
of curing corn, on the ground that corn gets ripe better 
when topped than rvhen cut up at the bottom. Now as to that I 
think that the majority of farmers will bear me out in saying 
that corn cut up fit the bottom will ripen better, be sounder and 
heavier corn than in any other way in which it can be cured. 
Talking, a short time since, with a practical farmer and gar¬ 
dener of this place, (Leman Stone, Esq.) he said, "that coin 
may be cut up a great deal earlier in the season than most peo¬ 
ple think,” for he says "as quick as the kernel begins to grow 
hard in the center, it will do to cut up, and then the stalk which 
is green will retain the juice, which is carried to the ear, and 
both the ear and the stalk are preserved in a much better con¬ 
dition than when the stalk is left to dry up before it is cut up.” 
If you or any of your correspondents have abetter way of cut¬ 
ting up corn than this, I wish you would give it to us through 
the columns of the Cultivator. Yours with respect, 
Derby, Conn. Sept. US, 1841. LEVI DURAND. 
The South Downs. 
Messrs. Editors — I have frequently seen noticed in the Cul¬ 
tivator, importations of different breeds of the English sheep, 
among which the South Downs appear to be finding some favor 
with your New-York fanners and breeders. The amount in¬ 
vested in sheep in the Green Mountain State, at the present 
time, is perhaps double, if not treble, to that of neat cattle; 
consequently wool and mutton are among the first great com¬ 
modities of our state. The breed of sheep in the west part of 
the state, so far as I am acquainted, is principally a cross be¬ 
tween the Spanish Merino and native sheep, approaching, in 
many places, very near to full blood Merino. The Saxony 
sheep have also been introduced and crossed to some extent 
with our grade Merinoes, but without that success, I think, 
which is necessary to warrant further experiment. They are 
decidedly too tender a sheep for our latitude and present, en¬ 
couragement for growing fine wool. Our high blooded Merino 
wethers possess too small a carcass for profitable feeding, and 
the quality of the mutton is considered by some to be inferior 
to that of the native sheep. 
I have bad some thoughts oflate of attempting to introduce 
some South Downs into this vicinity, ifl could become convinc¬ 
ed that a cross with our present breed would add to the inte¬ 
rest of growing wool and mutton in Vermont. Notwithstand¬ 
ing our distance of 180 miles from Brighton, the business of 
feeding and driving fat sheep to that market forms no inconsi¬ 
derable item in sheep husbandry. 
It would be very interesting to me, and I think to a large por¬ 
tion of your Vermont readers, would you, or some of your rea. 
ders who are well acquainted with the different breeds of sheep, 
and the relative value of wool and mutton, answer some or all 
of the following queries : 
What is the value cf South Down wool, compared with Ame¬ 
rican Merino ? 
Is the wool of sufficient fineness to manufacture into such 
cloths as take a lead in demand in the American markets ? 
What amount of wool per head would a flock of 100 yield, if 
kept together on common ordinary keep ? 
How docs the yearling’s fleece compare in weight with two, 
three, and four year old sheep? 
Do they incline to fatten easily? 
At what age can the wethers be most profitably fitted for the 
stall, in places as distant from market as Vermont? 
How does the mutton compare in quality with other varieties 
of sheep, and what its weight? 
How will the pelts compare in value with the Merinos 
slaughtered in November or December ? 
Are. they more or less subject to scab or foot-rot than other 
sheep? 
What is the present value of South Down bucks and ewes, in 
the vicinity of Albany ? J. N. SMITH. 
Chimney Point, Vt., September 25, 1841. 
0°We shall be gratified to receive answers to all or any of 
the above inquiries, and ive doubt not some of our readers will 
be able to furnish satisfactory replies.—E ds. 
