THE CULTIVATOR 
97 
REPLY TO MR. BICKETT AND OTHERS, ABOUT 
AYRSHIRES. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —You are well aware 
that the letter about English stock that appeared over my 
signature in your paper of November last, was dashed off 
at your request, just before leaving Albany, and if I re¬ 
member rightly, was not, from the brief time I had, re¬ 
perused, but was handed you with a request to correct 
any little errors that might be contained in it. It is not 
to be supposed therefore, I weighed my expressions with 
that accuracy that their extensive circulation would seem 
to have demanded. It is preposterous to infer in my ob¬ 
servations on Ayrshires, that I could mean anything else 
than you were obliging enough to attribute to me in your 
December No., page 188, in reply toi “ A Novice,” in 
which you say: “ Perhaps, however, Mr. A. did not in¬ 
tend to assert that the cross proposed by him would give 
positive Ayrshires, but only a breed possessing all their 
essential and most valuable qualities.” 
Certainly this was what I intended, and as a proof of 
it, need only to refer gentlemen to a communication of 
mine on the same subject more at length, made to the 
president of the Kentucky State Agricultural Society, du¬ 
ring a visit to that warm hearted, hospitable country in 
January last, which was written previous to my seeing 
the December No. of the Cultivator. I quote from this: 
“ To those who wish for something like an Ayrshire al¬ 
ready acclimated to our country, I recommend to pur¬ 
chase snug short horned bulls of a medium size, bred 
from milking families, and cross them on the best milk¬ 
ers at their hand, and from these make the most approved 
selections, and then continue,” &e. The reasons I offer¬ 
ed for this course, were that our country has paid large 
sums for the importations of short horns, for this object, 
viz: the improvement of our native cattle; and I had 
been informed by several gentlemen, both in England 
and Massachusetts, that had imported Ayrshires, that they 
had rather disappointed expectation. These are persons 
of the first respectability, and one of them a president of 
an agricultural society; and if the advocates of the “ un¬ 
rivaled ” excellence of Ayrshires, can rebut this testimo¬ 
ny by facts, no one will more readily acquiesce in them 
than myself. I further added in the communication allu¬ 
ded to: “ That the Ayrshire is an excellent cow, both 
for the dairyman and butcher, in the particular districts 
of Scotland, where they are bred and fed as they are, I 
do not doubt.” What further would Mr. B. or others, 
desire me to concede, unless, to assert with him their 
“ unrivaled ” excellence for their milking qualities? This 
is a stronger expression than I am prepared to admit; 
but if they are entitled to it, it can easily be shown, by 
stating their yield in milk, with all the particulars of 
feed, &c. in this country. In the trial made in the Lon¬ 
don dairies between the Short Horns and Ayrshires, the 
latter were found inferior in the quantity of milk, pro¬ 
duced from the former, and I can give the name and date 
of a cow in this country, from a Short Horn bull, “ some¬ 
thing like an Ayrshire,” that averaged 41 quarts of milk 
per day for three weeks in succession, fed on grass and 
clover alone. Other cows of the same cross, have pro¬ 
duced from 26 to 28 quarts per day each, for weeks in 
succession, during the winter. 
As to “ staking my reputation as a breeder and judg¬ 
ment as a man, that the Ayrshires are a cross at all,” in¬ 
asmuch as I did not moot that question, I must decline 
from want of time, entering here on that subject. Some 
other matters in these comments, not being relevant to 
the subject, I shall be excused omitting to notice. I 
shall only add, that as I am a friend to the improvement 
of stock in any way, I shall learn and give currency to, 
any well attested experiments on this subject, at all times 
whenever possessed of them, with the sincerest pleasure. 
Respectfully Yours, A. B. Allen. 
Cincinnati, O. March 29, 1842. 
§^We have also from Mr. Allen, a reply to Dr. Mar¬ 
tin’s last article; but, believing the public feel little in¬ 
terest in the subject, we cannot make room, in the pre¬ 
sent crowded state of our pages, for a continuance of the 
controversy— Eds. 
CULTURE OF POTATOES, &c. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Your correspondent 
“ Columbia” thinks it is not right to plow in manure, nor 
to plow land in the fall of the year. Fall plowing has 
been condemned by our ancestors, but practice has con¬ 
vinced me that plowing in the fall does not injure the 
land. If a stiff soil is plowed in the spring of the year, 
when the ground is wet, the furrow slice will be as 
smooth as a mason can make mortar with his trowel, and 
when dried will be almost as hard as dried mortar, and 
it would be useless to undertake to raise potatoes on such 
a soil, plowed in the spring of the year. A light loam, 
in a wet season, may be tilled advantageously as Colum¬ 
bia recommends, but a clayey soil cannot. One of my 
fields, a sandy loam, was tilled last year as directed by 
Columbia, except in applying the manure, which was 
spread on the sod before plowing, and the product was 
fifty bushels to the acre short of the product of the field 
tilled in the way he so much disapproves of. One of my 
neighbors last year planted on the sod, as directed by Co¬ 
lumbia, and his crop of potatoes would not pay the ex¬ 
pense of digging, so he turned his hogs into the field, 
and they rooted up what few potatoes had grown. I 
have never attempted to raise potatoes by manuring the 
hills. I have known my neighbors undertake it,° and 
if a drouth succeeded, the crop was lost. I take the ma¬ 
nure, if possible, before it has lost any of its weight by 
fermentation, evaporation, or any other cause, and when 
I commence manuring a field I commence plowing it; I 
do not plow the manure in deep; four inches is sufficient 
for the first plowing, six for the second, and eight for 
the third and last plowing; this done, my field is in good 
condition for four years’ rotation of crops, viz: potatoes, 
oats, clover and timothy. 
I have learned by experience, that a small farm pays 
a better interest than a large one. I formerly owned 170 
acres of land. I had the misfortune a few years ago, to 
lose my only son, a youth of eighteen; so I sold half of 
my farm, and now I find the income of my farm more 
than when I owned the whole, and I think I can double 
my present income by increasing the fertility of the soil. 
A few years past I have tried by way of experiment, 60 
bushels of mild lime to the acre, on my oats. I think 
they were materially benefited, and the land made more 
productive by it. My oats, these two years past, ave¬ 
raged 56 and 58 bushels to the acre. I surveyed one 
acre of my last crop, had them thrashed out, and I had 
71 bushels. We do not in these parts of “ creation,” ev¬ 
er expect to get such large crops as some published in 
the Cultivator. Yours, &c. 
Tyler Fountain. 
Pcckskill, N. Y. April, 1842. 
PROFITS OF FARMNIG IN THE WEST. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Having opened your 
columns for the publication of some very valuable farms 
“ down east,” I claim for the “ far west,” the insertion 
of the following exhibit of the productions of a farm on 
the banks of the Fox. 
In the reports of the farms alluded to aboi r e, an impor¬ 
tant item, materially affecting the balance sheet, is omit¬ 
ted. The profit or loss of any operation, can only be 
correctly ascertained by taking into the account the cost 
or value of the capital employed. 
1841. Farm, Dr. 
To cash, for its purchase, 640 acres at $5,.. $3,200 
“ Stock invoice,. 2,500 
“ Labor, 2 men, $150 per year,. 300 
“ <£ 1 man 4 months,. 60 
“ “ extra, in harvest,. 35 
<c Interest on capital,. 399 
$6,494 
1841. Farm, Cr. 
By 40 acres wheat, 20 bus. 800 bus. at 70 c. $560 
“ 40 “ corn, 50 « 2000 “ at 18 c. 360 
“ 40 “ barley, 40 “ 1600 “ at 25 c. 400 
“ 40 “ oats, 50 “ 2000 “ at 15 c. 300 
“ 3200 lbs. wool, at 28 c. 896 
“ Invoice of farm,. 3,200 
“ Stock to new account,. 2,700 
--- 5,900 
$8,416 
6,494 
Profit,. $1,922 
For the sake of brevity, fractions, and unimportant 
items on both sides of the account are here omitted, the 
object being to enable the young man with small means 
to contrast the produce of acres valued at $5, with those 
which are said to be worth $200. 
Respectfully yours, 
Edw’d W. Brewster. 
Elgin, Kane co. III. March 1, 1842. 
SHEEP BARN. 
Messrs. Editors —Having seen an article in your pa¬ 
per, “ On feeding sheep at stacks,” I thought the subject 
worthy of particular attention, and after having reflect¬ 
ed upon it for some time, have concluded to send you 
the following imperfect sketch of a method which must 
be far superior; which we will denominate a 
Self-foddering Sheep Barn. —(Fig. 59.) 
A, Length, 30 feet—B, Height from top of shelter, 10 
feet—C, Width at the top of the posts, 10 feet—D, Width 
at top of shelter, 8 feet—E, Length of rack sticks, ex¬ 
tending from the ground to top of shelter, 5 feet—F, 
Roof of shelter—G, Props, extending from posts of shel¬ 
ter to posts of' barn—H, Runners by which to draw it— 
I, Rack, whole width of the bottom of the barn, con¬ 
verging to a point—J, End of shelter boarded up. 
Here we have sufficient length for sixty sheep to eat 
at once, which they would not be very likely to do, as 
they would have access to hay at all times. My object 
in having the width greater at the top than at the bottom, 
is, first, that the building may hold more hay. This may 
be an objection in regard to the hay settling as fast as 
the sheep eat it from beneath the mow, but the question 
arises, were the sides perpendicular would not the hay 
settle so fast as to cause a waste ? I think it would; then, 
second, that it may not settle so fast as to cause a waste 
of fodder. We consider that a building of this size ought 
to hold from three to five tons of hay, properly mowed 
away. We would recommend keeping the middle full¬ 
est at all times, that it may not wedge too much. It 
will be perceived by an end view of the barn, that the 
rack comes to a point near the ground, from each side 
of the mow; now if the sheep eat on, or from the base 
of the mow to the extent of eight feet, how can the hay 
wedge so much in a slope of two feet in ten, as to be 
prevented from descending. The shelter, being five feet 
high and five feet wide, protects the sheep while eating, 
and at all other times. The width of barn and shelter at 
the base, being eighteen feet, and props from outside of 
shelter to posts in barn, render it less liable to be blown 
over by the violent gales which at times sweep across 
our country. We think three pair of cattle sufficient to 
move it on level ground. 
Where farmers, who are in the habit of keeping large 
flocks of sheep on large farms, are obliged to travel one 
mile or more in a day, to fodder, it is found to be an un¬ 
pleasant task, especially in bad weather. In the summer 
season we do not think of yarding our sheep and carry¬ 
ing their food to them. If we were to do so, who could 
imagine that they would look as plump and healthy as 
when they have their liberty, and use such quantities as 
nature requires for their support? The advantages then 
of this “ Self-foddering barn,” over the stack feeding 
system, are these—first, the hay is protected from the 
weather; second, it does not get wet by fog, nor do the 
sheep wear the wool off their necks by reaching after 
the hay, as they do by feeding in board racks; third, 
there can be no danger of the falling of the mow as in 
stacks, when eat out below; and fourth, the hay seed 
will not be as likely to enter the wool as when they reach 
directly over head. George. 
Amenia, Dutchess co. March 5, 1842. 
CHEMICAL MANURES. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Your correspondent 
Mr. Geo. Woodfin, in an article on chemical manures, 
page 61, vol. 9, criticises my article inserted page 181, 
vol 8, as follows: “The well intended efforts of your 
correspondent Wm. Partridge, in the November No. of 
the Cultivator; upon a more careful examination, I am 
sure he will correct some errors into which he has fal¬ 
len, especially when he recommends the use of caustic 
lime in the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia. Lime 
has no affinity for ammonia, and when the sulphate of 
ammonia has been actually formed, the moment it is 
brought into contact with lime, will be liberated and dri¬ 
ven off.” 
I would inform Mr. Woodfin, that I am always open 
to conviction, whenever it can be proven that any opin¬ 
ion I have given is erroneous. There is no bigotry in 
practical science. All branches of the practical sciences 
are dependent on series of facts to sustain them; but when 
new theorists suggest changes in long established opera¬ 
tions, whose actions have been proven by numerous ac¬ 
tual experiments, it behooves them to point out the se¬ 
ries of new facts which displaces the older ones. I 
would request Mr. G. W. to review his criticism, and 
see if it does not destroy his own theory. I will quote 
the article I wrote you, and I think any person capable 
of judging, will see at once, the error our friend G. W. 
has fallen into: 
“ The question has been asked, does the lime used in 
making alkaline vegetable powder from urine, prevent 
the escape of the ammonia? 
“ I presume caustic lime, or fresh burnt is used; in 
which case, instead of preventing the escape of the am¬ 
monia, it facilitates its escape. Ammonia as found in 
urine, is in the state of a sub-carbonate, and when mixed 
with caustic lime, the lime combines with its carbonic 
gas, and the ammonia immediately becomes volatile and 
will readily escape. 
“ If caustic lime be a necessary ingredient in making 
vegetative powder, its use can only be necessary to libe¬ 
rate pure volatile ammonia from the salts with which it 
is combined when in the state of urine. Plaster of Paris 
is a sulphate of lime, having little affinity for carbonates 
or sub-carbonates of ammonia; but when caustic ammo¬ 
nia is presented to it, a portion of the sulphuric acid of 
the sulphate of lime will combine with the ammonia, 
and leave the lime, forming a sulphate of ammonia and 
a sub-carbonate of lime. Hence the use of lime in the 
composition of vegetative powder.” 
It appears then that my friend Mr. G. W. agrees with 
me that caustic lime has no affinity for ammonia; yet if 
I read his criticism understandingly, he presumes I had 
asserted that a mutual affinity existed between them_. 
My knowledge of chemistry must have been very crude 
indeed, if I could have supposed that any two alkalies 
had an affinity for each other. Mr. G. W. speaks of ob¬ 
taining sulphate of ammonia by mixing urine with plas¬ 
ter of paris, or sulphate of lime. In this our opinions 
differ in toto. Plaster of paris is a chemical compound, 
composed of sulphuric acid saturated with lime; now ac¬ 
cording to all the known laws of chemical action and 
chemical affinities, the sulphuric acid cannot leave the 
lime and combine with the ammonia of the urine, until 
the urine is deprived of its carbonic acid gas. In the ar¬ 
ticle I sent you, I merely gave the rationale of the pro¬ 
cess by which alone a combination could be effected. 
Let us re-examine what my friend Mr. G. W. says on 
this operation. “ Lime has no affinity for ammonia, and 
