THE CULTIVATOR 
17 
The above is a portrait of Bernard, the property of Dr. John A. Pool of New-Brunswick, New-Jersey, which ob¬ 
tained the first prize at the late Fair of the American Institute. Though but three years old, he had previously re¬ 
ceived four first prizes at different Fairs, one of which was from the New-Jersey State Agricultural Society. 
BURNING TURF. 
sand is in the greatest proportion, and when that was 
separately analyzed, it furnished nearly thirteen per cent of 
potash. The professor says,—“ Abundant evidence might 
be adduced to prove that the true fertilizing principle 
in marl is not lime but potash .” Here then we have the 
opinion of Prof. Rogers agreeing with the theoretical 
views of Dr. Liebig, and the practical application of 
New-Jersey marl, producing a striking correspondence 
between theory and practice in the recommendation and 
use of potash as a fertilizer. 
Again, Mr. Keeler observes that,—“Since the intro¬ 
duction of lime among us (thanks to the genius of im¬ 
provement,) many of our sandy loams, by a top-dressing 
of the two together, have approximated in yield to the 
best wheat lands of Pennsylvania. It is spread broad¬ 
cast (marl and lime,) over fallow at the rate of five tons 
of the former, to thirty bushels of the latter, per acre. 
Experience has demonstrated that the combination is one 
of great usefulness; that the efficacy of the one contri¬ 
butes to the speedy action of the other; that the noxious 
agents contained in the clayey marl, when brought in 
contact with lime, are rendered inert to vegetation, but 
more properly speaking, by mutual affinities converted 
into efficacious substances. Pasture lands, whether mea¬ 
dow or upland, that have afforded but a scanty herbage, 
are astonishingly benefited by a slight application of 
marl; but the more general method of applying it, is to 
spread it broadcast over a grass sward following a win¬ 
ter crop. Its most decided effects I am inclined to believe, 
are on a clover ley; and so powerful are its fertilizing 
powers, that when scattered over those melancholy fields, 
so sterile as to produce only a stunted growth of wild 
weeds, a luxuriant crop of white clover follows.” 
Here again we have the practical and useful applica¬ 
tion of lime in conjuction with a marl containing potash, 
producing a further correspondence between theory and 
practice in the utility of both lime and potash as ferti¬ 
lizers. 
May we not draw some useful inferences from these 
facts? Wood-ashes have long been known and used to 
fertilize the soil and increase its cultivated productions. 
Few or none of our farmers, however, have attributed 
their beneficial effects solely to the potash it contains. Had 
this been the case, they would have rejected the spent 
ashes of the soap-boilers, and employed unleached ash¬ 
es. Of late years the cultivators of the soil in the neigh¬ 
borhood of New-York city, use the unleaclied ashes, ap¬ 
plying about a gill to a hill of corn, before the first hoeing. 
They have been applied broadcast upon other crops, 
and mixed with the barn-yard manure. The spent ash¬ 
es contain lime, which is put in the leach-tubs by the 
soap-boilers, and notwithstanding these ashes are depri¬ 
ved of most of their potash, they nevertheless produce 
fertility. This fertility must arise from the small re¬ 
mains of potash, and the lime they contain. If then, 
we find refuse or leached wood-ashes doing so much ser¬ 
vice we must surely conclude that pure unleached ash¬ 
es would be additionally useful. 
The barren plains of Hempstead in Queens and Suffolk 
counties, of New-York, may, and have been rendered 
productive by ashes. Many acres of these barren lands 
have been added to the adjacent farms on its borders, 
and kept in a fertile and productive state by ashes. 
The entire plain, many miles in length, might be re¬ 
claimed by employing potash and lime. Situated in the 
center of Long Island, distant from six to eight miles from 
the water on either side, the transportation of manure is 
an objection. But the carriage of unleached ashes and 
lime in barrels, by water, or on the Long Island rail¬ 
road, would not be so costly as more bulky manure; and 
even potash itself might be conveyed in barrels, mixed 
with the soil, and distributed as manure there and else¬ 
where. Has not Hempstead plain once been a prairie, 
and its rich soil been exhausted by its constant employ¬ 
ment as a common for pasture of sheep and cattle of the 
neighboringtowns ? 
And do not the rich prairies of the west owe their fer¬ 
tility to the practice pursued by the aborigines, of annu¬ 
ally burning them and thereby enriching the soil with a 
yearly supply of potash ? 
May we not profit by the union of theory and practice 
as above related. The New-Jersey marl contains sand 
with potash, a small portion of clay, some iron, and oc¬ 
casionally a little lime, and other ingredients of no mo¬ 
ment. Now cannot those who live on sandy soils, manu¬ 
facture an article similar to Jersey marl, by a mixture of 
sand and clay and potash? Those who occupy clayey 
soils, want only sand and potash, the latter to be purcha¬ 
sed in barrels for easy transportation. If we wish to 
make a compound as mentioned by Mr. Keeler, of marl 
and lime, we have only to mix the due proportions of 
sand, potash, clay and lime. A barrel of stone-lime, 
burnt at Athens on the Hudson river, contains about three 
bushels, and when slaked will make from eight to ten 
bushels. Shell lime is principally used hereabouts and 
in New-Jersey, but it frequently contains so many un¬ 
burnt shells, that the writer is possessed rvith the notion 
that stone lime purchased in barrels and slaked when and 
where wanted, is preferable, and the cheapest. He feels 
so sanguine on the subjet that he intends an experiment 
with sand, lime and potash, (requiring no clay, as his soil 
is argillaceous) and if he succeed, you may hereafter hear 
further from him. Richmond. 
Staten Island, N. Y. Dec. 6 , 1841. 
Large Hogs. —The Messrs. Gidneys of Newburgh, 
N. Y. recently slaughtered six hogs, which weighed 
3,171 lbs. The heaviest weighed 630 lbs.—the lightest 
430 lbs.—average weight, 528 1-2 lbs. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —In the year 1830, I 
made an experiment on the burning of blue grass turf; 
and thinking it likely that its promulgation may be of 
some service, I send it for publication. 
EXTRACT FROM MY MEMORANDUM BOOK. 
August and September, burnt four stacks of blue grass 
turf, which produced about three thousand bushels of 
ashes. The turf was taken from about three acres of 
sour ground, which last year was in wheat, and which 
absolutely produced no grain. The turf was burnt and the 
ashes scattered on the same ground on which it grew; 
and the process was as follows: a circular wall of turf was 
made, about ten feet in diameter, about two feet high, 
and eight or ten inches thick, into which was cast a 
cart load of dry wood, which was set on fire, and 
when the blazing was nearly over, and the interior at 
its greatest heat, the turf was cast in promiscuously 
about fourteen or fifteen inches deep, and more turf 
was added in small quantities as required. The shape 
of the stacks was conical; the exterior was packed 
neatly, so that it should not fall, and the height was 
about ten feet. The turf had been plowed up about 
two weeks before the burning began, and although but 
moderately dry, and more than nine-tenths of the weight 
of the sods was poor clay, yet to my surprise it burnt 
well, though slowly. By a regular course of feeding, 
two of those stacks produced black and sooty ashes; 
the other two I believe I injured by projects. Into one 
of the last mentioned I frequently thrust a long crow¬ 
bar, thereby giving it air, whereby it was caused to 
burn freely; the black smoke which issued was evidence 
of the discharge of soot, and the ashes were left pale. 
The other I fed too fast, and therefore I had to pull 
it down and reburn. For a stack of the above men¬ 
tioned size, from ten to fifteen inches of sods should 
be added in twenty-four hours, and about four times 
during the day; say sunrise three inches, ten o'clock 
three inches, three o'clock three inches, sundown four 
or five inches. But this will depend on the state of 
the weather and turf; at any rate, be cautious in hurry¬ 
ing the process, remembering, however, to lose nothing 
in smoke. The exterior of the stack will not burn, 
consequently it stands well until pulled down, which 
should not be done until moderately cool. My ashes 
were scattered on the ground from whence the clods 
were taken, and in 1831, without other manure, I har¬ 
vested therefrom a good crop of wheat. 
The labor which I spent in picking up and burning 
the turf, and spreading the ashes was perhaps 
worth... $10 
The riddance of the pest was worth, say . $10 
3,000 bushels ashes, at 1 cent per bushel,.. . 30 40 
And my profit is, then,. $30 
or, in other words, I make four hundred per centum 
on my outlay. 
The plowing of turf for the purpose of burning should 
not be more than about three inches deep, and never 
mind to lead off much earth by the harrow or other¬ 
wise, for the more earth one can burn the better, as by 
this means the acid is dissipated by the burning, and 
absorbed and counteracted by the manure. 
By making four stacks or mounds on an acre, the 
greatest distance to move turf would be about eighteen 
yards; and my estimate is, that two hands with a hand 
barrow can attend ten or twelve fires, after the first 
day. The turf should be packed somewhat after the 
manner of brick, to guard against rain, and perhaps it 
would be best to make those packs immediately around 
the stacks, and then one old man or woman would be 
sufficient to keep ten or twelve fires going. 
Land thus turfed, and intended for winter grain, I 
would replow some inches deeper after the turf is off, 
and after sowing the grain and ashes, harrow all in to¬ 
gether; indeed August and September are the proper 
months for this operation, and the ground being thus 
prepared at the proper season for winter grain, it should 
therefore be sowed. I have never attempted to burn 
any other turf than this blue grass, but suppose any 
kind would burn equally well; and the richer the 
earth, certainly the freer it would burn. 
Za. Drummond. 
Amherst, Va., Nov. 1841. 
ON FEEDING APPLES TO STOCK. 
Messrs. Editors —Permit me to call the attention, 
through your valuable journal, the Cultivator, of my 
brother farmers, to the subject of feeding apples; and 
especially of those who have large orchards, remote 
from market, and make cider of them, and then per¬ 
chance sell it at a dollar per barrel—as I think I can show 
them that they can dispose of them to much better advan¬ 
tage by feeding them to their cows and swine. Both are 
exceedingly fond of them. I am well aware that there 
exists a great prejudice against this practice; but eight 
years experience warrant me in saying, that it is not 
supported by facts, and that it is mere prejudice. The 
common opinion is, that apples dry up milch cows, 
and many think, that they will kill them. I have often 
heard farmers relate how they lost a valuable cow or ox, 
and how such a neighbor’s cows broke into his orchard 
one night, and he lost a number of them, and those that 
did not die, nearly or quite lost their milk. Now the 
same result would have followed had the cows got to a 
pile of potatoes or bin of oats. But I must confess that 
I was a believer once myself, and indeed came very 
near losing a very valubable cow, by eating too many 
apples, about ten years ago. It dried up her milk en¬ 
tirely; thus confirming all the arguments against apples; 
and I assure you I was most careful thereafter to keep 
my cows from eating them. But thanks to a kind and 
unknown friend in Vermont, who sent me a paper con¬ 
taining his experiments in feeding apples to milch cows, 
which appeared to me so satisfactory that I at once deter¬ 
mined to make a trial of it. I told my hired man what I 
intended to do; he objected strongly and advised me not 
to do it, using the old arguments, &c. But I was deter¬ 
mined upon making the trial, and not to be dissuaded 
from my purpose. Accordingly I commenced feeding 
my cows a peck apiece the first night and again next 
morning and evening; on the third day I had increased 
the quantity to half a bushel morning and night. By 
this time there was an increase of milk fully one-third. 
The fourth and fifth days I gave them three pecks a piece* 
morning and night, but there was not a corresponding in¬ 
crease of milk. I then gave them a bushel each. They 
ate them the first, second and third time, but there was a 
decrease; I then went back to half a bushel, and an in¬ 
crease of milk followed. This satisfied me that a bushel 
twice a day was too much, and produced injurious effects. 
I legret that I did not follow up the experiment, with 
one cow, and note the result. I fed over two hundred 
bushels that fall, and was very much pleased with my 
first experiment. 
And while I was paying strict attention as to their effect 
upon the quantity of milk, I was not unmindful to note 
the quantity of the cream and butter, and found that it 
fully corresponded with the increased quantity of milk, 
and that the butter was of superior quality. The apples 
were about three-fourths sour and one-fourth sweet, ripe, 
grafted fruit; and eight years experience has fully satis¬ 
fied me that apples are perfectly harmless; that they 
will not kill cows nor dry their milk any more than po¬ 
tatoes, pumpkins or grain; but when eaten to excess, 
have an injurious effect, dry up their milk, and I have no 
