112 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
©rigitml }) apers from Contributors. 
COMMENTS ON THE APRIL and MAY NUMBERS. 
Under the head of “ Work for the Month,” in the 
April No., several things are stated as settled matters, 
■which seem to require farther investigation. The first 
is—Mr. Haggerston’s opinion that a mixture of two-thirds 
muck and one-third stable manure, is as valuable and ef¬ 
fective as the same quantity of stable manure alone. Now 
—unless this opinion is the result of very accurate com¬ 
parative experiments, often repeated—I would respect¬ 
fully suggest, that it is one of those novelties which re¬ 
quires a much fuller trial before it should influence gene¬ 
ral practice. 
The second questionable statement is, that “ stable and 
barnyard manures, when put unfermented upon land, 
should be covered.” Many good practical farmers assert 
the contrary, and plead long experience in justification 
of their opinion. I mean not at present, to side with 
either party, but like old Sir Roger de Coverley in Addi¬ 
son’s Spectator, will merely remark, that “ much may be 
said on both sides,” and therefore, that a final adjudication 
of the case should not yet be made. 
Lastly, in speaking of Asparagus and Strawberry beds, 
you say, “ None but compost manures of the best kind 
should be used for such purposes.” It is within my own 
knowledge, that several very successful gardeners prefer 
for the first,—either salt, marl, or wood ashes, whilst 
others—from whose beds I have often seen cuttings which 
measured an inch and more in diameter—cover them in 
the fall with, fresh horse dung mixed with straw, over 
which fresh wood ashes are strewed. Early in March, 
all the coarse parts of the manure are raked off, and the 
rest forked into the beds, over which some fine sand is 
then spread. A common notion prevails that it is wrong 
to disturb the roots, but I have known old beds to be ma¬ 
terially benefited by running a single coulter through 
them. 
On strawberry beds I have known marl, wood ashes, 
rotten chips, chaff or half rotted straw, to succeed quite 
as well as any other substances which I have ever seen 
applied to them. — 
Under the head of “ Nicking Horses,” you have giv¬ 
en, I believe, very proper directions; but I should greatly 
have preferred to have read the most severe reprehen¬ 
sion of this barbarous practice that you could possibly 
utter. The pain inflicted upon the poor helpless ani¬ 
mals subjected to it, is evidently excessive, to say noth¬ 
ing of its depriving them, during life, of that defence 
which nature has given them against the innumerable 
insects that for three-fourths of every year, are torment¬ 
ing them incessantly. But what makes the matter still 
worse, it is all done— not to make the horses more ser¬ 
viceable— not for any benefit that it can possibly render to 
ourselves,—but merely to gratify a most false, barbarous 
and cruel taste, at the expense of our humanity. It is a 
pity but that the nickers themselves had tails—like their 
kindred spirits, the monkeys, and could be once subject¬ 
ed to only half the pain of the process; “ I guess” it would 
speedily cure them of their barbarity to their poor horses. 
Your prescription for protecting “Poultry from Ver¬ 
min,” is probably very good; but I will add to it another, 
which I received many years ago, from a famous cock- 
fighter and breeder of game fowls, who said it was infal¬ 
lible. Make their nests and roosts of sassafras wood, and 
strew the leaves occasionally on the floors of their houses. 
I was much gratified, as I think every friend to truth 
and justice will be, by the remarks of the “ Onondaga 
Farmer,” upon that most unwarrantable attack on the 
character of the late Judge Buel, signed D. in “the 
South Carolina Temperance Advocate and Register of 
Agriculture.” Whatever the writer may know about 
South Carolina agriculture, it is perfectly manifest that he 
is profoundly ignorant of its condition in other States, or 
he could not possibly have represented as incredible, ac¬ 
counts of corn crops per acre which have been surpassed 
in every corn growing state of our Union, from which 
we have received any authentic statements, (and such are 
very numerous in our agricultural papers,) in regard to 
the great productiveness of this highly valuable grain. 
It is equally manifest that this writer is quite as ignorant 
of the character of Judge Buel, both as a farmer and a 
man; for no one in the United States was more highly 
esteemed by all who knew him, nor did any man ever 
dare before to impeach his veracity. But pertness and 
self-conceit are always connected with dogmatism, and 
generally seek to attract public attention,—not by dis¬ 
playing any merit of their own, (for they have none,) 
but byattempting to destroy the merit of others. 
The annual manuring of peach trees insisted upon by 
J. Dille, is certainly not necessary in all situations; for I 
myself, have seen several peach orchards which bore ve¬ 
ry fine fruit, equally good during many successive years, 
and without manure. He makes another assertion which 
I have never seen verified; nor can I see any reason why 
it should be correct, although I do not mean positively 
to contradict him. It is, that “'no tree so soon exhausts 
the soil in which it grows.” Now nearly all fruit trees, 
except the plumb and quince, are considerable larger, 
and of course have more roots constantly drawing nour¬ 
ishment from the earth. Consequently, it is at least pro¬ 
bable, if not certain, that they exhaust more than the 
peach. Of this much my own experience has long as¬ 
sured me,-—that peach trees will flourish in land too poor 
either angles, pears, or cherries. 
T. of New Jersey says,— “it is well known that if bri¬ 
ars are cut in the heat of summer, the roots generally decay 
and die.” I wish I could confirm this from my own ex¬ 
perience; but unfortunately, I know well that they (at 
least the variety called the dew-berry or running briar,) 
very rarely, if ever, will die, merely by being cut, in the 
country with which I am best acquainted. 
If your worthy correspondent who subscribes herself 
“ A Farmer’s Wife,” calls such a breakfast as she de- 
cribes, “plain and simple,” I feel a strong curiosity to 
know what, and how many articles would compose such 
a breakfast as she would call the reverse of “ plain and 
simple.” Her bill of fare for only one man, consists of 
bread, meat, one doz. potatoes, a bowl of apple sauce, 
pickles, coffee or tea, mince and apple pies, with cakes 
and cheese ! ! But if “ industry and sweet sleep,” should 
give one man an appetite to devour even the half of such 
a medley of viands, I should fear that it would not take 
many such breakfasts to put him into his coffin. How¬ 
ever, there is no disputing about tastes, and if the good 
lady has “ a sure enough husband,” or particularly de¬ 
sires one whose appetite craves, and whose stomach can 
safely slow away such a cargo, far be it from me to make 
the slightest objection to it, unless indeed, there was 
some danger of my being compelled to feed him for the 
customary price. — 
I verily think the May number of your paper worth 
any three that I have yet seen of them, although I have 
been a subscriber from the beginning, and have never 
read one which I did not value at double the amount of 
the annual subscription. Your two statistical tables alone, 
would be a good bargain at two dollars, if they could not 
be obtained elsewhere. —■ 
In your article headed “Work for the Month,” you 
did not sufficiently regard differences of latitude, when 
you said, “May is the month in which Indian Corn 
should be planted;” for in Florida this work is com¬ 
menced about the end of February, and is done gra¬ 
dually, later and later, as the latitude increases to the 
north. Corn planted in good land, even as late as June, 
will often succeed very well in latitude 37. 
In speaking of the Irish potatoe, you say, “ the Pink¬ 
eye and Mercer are the best table potatoes.” My family 
are now (14th of May,) using the Chenango variety, and 
we all deem them fully equal, if not superior, to the two 
kinds which you recommend: although I can say nothing 
of their productiveness, having now planted them for the 
first time. — 
The article under the head “ Statistics—State of the 
Country,” together with the two tables above it, contains 
information of very great interest; but it is deficient in 
one highly important thing, although it could not per¬ 
haps be easily obtained: this is a statement of the quan¬ 
tity of land actually cultivated in each state. This, if 
known, would enable us, when compared with the pro¬ 
duce per acre of each kind of crop in the several states, 
to make a pretty fair estimate of the agricultural improve¬ 
ment in each; at least of the old states, wherein nearly 
all the arable lands are already in cultivation. 
In the article on “ Stabling Horses,” I concur entirely 
with the writer who signs himself “A Subscriber,” in 
preferring earth floors to any I ever saw made of plank, 
or to any which I believe can be made of that material. 
My preference is founded upon an experience of more 
than 40 years, during which I have had many opportu¬ 
nities of comparing the two kinds of floors, and of hear¬ 
ing the opinions of breeders, trainers, and owners of 
horses, in a state, wherein I believe more attention is 
paid to this kind of stock, than in any other state of our 
Union. — 
Mr. L. A. Morrell’s “Salmagundi No. 5,” has the 
same intermixture of the pleasant with the instructive, 
which characterizes every thing from his pen. But when 
he talks of justifying “a boy for striking his daddy,” if 
he caught him feeding his sheep with “ oats in the sheaf,” 
I feel the same kind of inclination “to veto” his declara¬ 
tion, that he says he felt “ to veto” your recommendation 
of this mode of feeding. 
The “ Corn-stalk Cutter,” recommended by A Farmer, 
who dates his communication from Montgomery co. Md., 
may be preferable to the one formerly described by Mr. 
Garnett, but I cannot perceive from the drawing and de¬ 
scription, that it is either more “ economical” or simple. 
Indeed, unless I misunderstand the manner of using it, as 
described by the Montgomery farmer, it will not cut the 
corn-stalks sufficiently"close to the ground for sowing 
small grain. But, be this as it may, there is a corn-stalk 
cutter described some years ago, in the Farmer’s Regis¬ 
ter, which seems to me, most manifestly superior both to 
the Montgomery farmer’s and to Mr. Garnett’s. It is sim¬ 
ply a small hoe made sufficiently light to use with one 
hand. The edge is to be well steeled, and always kept 
sharp. In using it, the stalk or stalks are held by one 
hand, whilst the hoe, wielded by the other, cuts them off 
close to the surface of the earth, or even below it, which 
neither of the others will do. And the stroke of the hoe 
being the same as that to which the arm is accustomed, 
no soreness thereof is produced by the act of cutting. 
The “ Distress in England,” as represented in the short 
article under this head, is truly afflicting to any humane 
mind. Does it not arise—at least in a great measure— 
from the disproportion between manufacturing and agri¬ 
cultural labor, caused by injudicious and unjust legisla¬ 
tion in regard to the two classes of Manufacturers and 
Agriculturists? If it does, let our legislatures take care 
not to follow an example so fraught with national ca¬ 
lamity. — 
Mr. Ives’ article on “Rotation of crops,” deserves the 
attentive perusal of every farmer desirous of making 
himself well acquainted with this important practice, as 
there can be no good farming without it. There is no 
apparent extravagance in any of his calculations, nor any 
result stated which might not reasonably be expected by 
any body who will carefully try his plan. 
The notion of Mr. Lyttleton Physick, about planting 
and cultivating corn, may suit the country in which he 
lives better than any other, for aught I know to the con¬ 
trary; but he has against him, the opinions of all the corn 
growers whom I have ever seen south of Mason’s and 
Dixon’s line, where, I may say without presumption, 
that this matter is quite as well understood, as it is be¬ 
yond it. Throughout this whole extent of country, at 
least, so far as I am acquainted with it, the corn growers 
therein, know well, from long and repeated trials, that 
no corn can be planted close enough in their climate, 
“to prevent the growth of weeds,” and at the same time 
to make as much corn as would pay for the culture and 
gathering of it. They know also, and have often proved, 
that if they cease to work their corn when it has attained 
only “ one-third of its height,” they might as w r ell have 
saved themselves the trouble of working it at all. Such 
farmers might call themselves corn planters, if they fan¬ 
cied the title, but “ I guess” they never would be corn 
gatherers of much more than their seed for another year. 
Under the head “ Privet for Hedges,” a second in¬ 
stance occurs in your paper, wfflerein it is confounded 
with the Pyracantha, to which Privet has no botanical 
relationship whatever. This may be easily seen by con¬ 
sulting Loudon, or the work of any other botanist, in all 
which they will find the Privet called a Ligustrum, and 
the Pyracantha a Crafiegus. 
Under the head “Culture of Melons,” yo. have omit¬ 
ted to state whether your directions for the. treatment 
were intended for musk melons or water me ons. If for 
the former, the distance of eight feet is too far for our 
climate, but not far enough for the latter. 
Your garden hints are very good, but I beg leave to 
remark that the shading of transplanted plants is unne¬ 
cessary, if the operation be so carefully made with a 
transplanting trowel, (which every gardener ought to 
have,) as to take up with the plant, a ball of unbroken 
earth, as large as the trowel will conveniently hold, and 
deposit it without breaking, in a hole previously made 
large enough to receive it. I have often thus removed 
plants in very hot, and even very dry weather, and found 
them to grow perfectly well without shading, although 
this is best, unless the operation be carefully performed. 
I infer from Mr. Ellsworth’s letter, as well as from 
what I have heard elsewhere, that some of his highly 
meritorious labors in behalf of American Husbandry, 
have met with sarcasms instead of thanks. This conduct, 
I must say, on the part of any farmer, is as unbecoming 
as it is unjust. If Mr. Ellsworth has published any er¬ 
rors, it cannot, for a moment, be justly supposed that he 
did it designedly; argument therefore, or a simple state¬ 
ment of facts, would have been a much more suitable re¬ 
futation of them. But I confidently trust that he is not so 
sensitive as to be checked in the slightest degree, by such 
undeserved attacks, in his very useful and praiseworthy 
efforts to serve our cause. Onward let him go, and he 
will find thousands of other agriculturists always grateful 
to him for them, besides his and your friend, 
May 18, 1842. Commentator. 
CULTURE OF WHEAT. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —I lately read a report 
made by a member of an English Agricultural Society, 
that “a farmer of his acquaintance had raised wheat in 
the same field several years in succession, and that the 
last crop was nearly double the weight of the first.” He 
stated also, “ that the material used was very abundant 
and very cheap,” but did not mention what it was. As 
this is an object of the highest importance to our farming 
interest, I have examined the component parts of wheat 
as obtained by analysis, and flatter myself that I have as¬ 
certained by what means our agriculturists may attain the 
same result. 
It will be admitted by every one capable of reflecting 
on the subject, that all the properties found in wheat must 
be supplied by the soil, manures, rain or snow-water, or 
by the atmosphere. How is it then, that land which 
once furnished large crops of wheat, will no longer pro¬ 
duce it, even when the soil has been enriched by the best 
known modes of cultivation? The defect has evidently 
to be looked for in the earthy parts of wheat, as all the 
elementary portions can be obtained from the usual modes 
pursued in good farming. 
In examining the properties of wheat as given by analy¬ 
sis, I can discover only one portion that is not supplied 
by the best routine of farming, and that is silicate of pot¬ 
ash. Now as a given portion of this earth is absolutely 
necessary to the formation of wheat, and as our best soils 
and manures do not usually furnish an ample supply, it at 
once occurred to me that this was the one thing needful; 
and that if an adequate supply be added by our farmers to 
their wheat lands, their crops will be always good, and a 
succession of crops be obtained from the same fields, in¬ 
creasing annually in quantity, until it arrives at itsbnaxi- 
