THE CULTIVATOR 
129 
SHEEP HUSBANDRY. 
Editors of the Cultivator —Although this is a bu¬ 
sy season of the year for the farmer who devotes his time 
practically to the management of his farm, and he has 
but little time to write long essays, yet I cannot refrain 
from addressing you a few lines on a subject, which from 
early life, has drawn my attention more than any other 
branch of Agriculture, namely, the raising of domestic 
animals, but more especially that of sheep. And first, 
let me say that I experienced much pleasure in reading 
the remarks of Mr. L. A. Morrell, in the May number 
of the Cultivator, on the subject of crossing the fine wool 
with the coarse mutton sheep, and am glad he has invi¬ 
ted a discussion on the subject. I agree with him that 
the great mass of our farmers are lamentably ignorant on 
this point. There seems to be a fatal delusion to pro¬ 
duce too large carcases, not only in sheep but cattle al¬ 
so, at whatever cost; and that in proportion as you in¬ 
crease the weight or size of your sheep, is their profita¬ 
bleness enhanced, without taking into consideration cost 
of production. Is this the true principle of good hus¬ 
bandry? If it is, then have I been mistaken all my life. 
My motto is—and it was inculcated in me in early life— 
that to “produce, the greatest profit or amount of value at the 
least expense, is the most profitable husbandry; and it should 
be that of every farmer. Am I right or wrong? If I 
am wrong, I wish to be corrected. But in the various 
experiments that I have made in farming, I have always 
found when debit was larger than credit—however show y 
the result, and plausible the theory —it was a losing 
game, and I abandoned it as unprofitable husbandry. It 
convinced me that facts were much more valuable than 
mere show and theory. 
Much has been effected by crossing the fine with the 
coarse wool sheep : namely, thousands of fine flocks have 
been ruined by it, within the last half dozen years, and 
thousands more will be ruined before the delusion passes 
over. I can respond to Mr. Morrell’s sentiment, that 
were I to consult my individual interest, I would say, 
“go ahead” — go on crossing your fine flocks with coarse 
mutton sheep, until you have nearly ruined every fine flock in 
the country; my interest will thereby be promoted. But be¬ 
lieving it to be decidedly wrong, and having witnessed 
much of the different crosses, and knowing that it is much 
easier to ruin a fine fiock, than to build up one, I cannot 
remain silent longer, but raise my feeble voice to arrest 
the evil. 
It has been said that we must import the fine descrip¬ 
tions of wool and woolens, and admit them under a low 
duty; and doubtless the importing merchants and some 
farmers, favor the idea; but would this be for the inter¬ 
est of the country? I think not. What, a country like 
ours, possesing such diversified climate; having many 
advantages over Europe for growing wool; inhabited by 
an intelligent, energetic and industrious people, to be 
dependent on Europe for the better article of wool either 
in the raw or manufactured state! The idea is really hu¬ 
miliating! But I trust no such state of things will soon 
occur; and I would say therefore to my brother wool 
growers, persevere, keep improving your flocks, even if 
they are already highly improved; they are susceptible 
of still further improvement, until you bring them to 
perfection. It has been said to me, “You oppose their 
cross with a heavy mutton sheep, because it is for your 
interest.” My interest lies the other way, and my rea¬ 
sons therefor, have already been stated. And I em¬ 
phatically state that I am the owner of a flock of Saxony 
Merinos, and have not the most distant idea of shifting 
them. Nor am I inclined to adopt a cross with any coarse 
breed, however large their carcase, fat their mutton, 
“fine?” and heavy their fleeces are recommended to be, 
and however they may be extolled for other good pro¬ 
perties, (and that they possess good properties is unde¬ 
niable, but these may clearly be traced to high keeping.) 
Experience and many years observation admonish me, (I 
mean no disrepect or offence to any one,) to receive such 
recommendations with great caution—nay, even distrust 
—and to place but little reliance upon them unless they 
are accompanied by well authenticated facts. Quackery 
in agriculture—breeding of domestic animals—as in phy¬ 
sic, is on a par with humbugging in politics, and not 
worth the value of a straw to the farmer, but on the con¬ 
trary is an injury to him. Have we not had too much 
of it already? 
The cross of coarse upon fine sheep, has been tho¬ 
roughly tried in Germany, with great exactness— not by 
guessing —and conducted with intelligence, skill, and at 
much expense, for a series of years; the result was a 
failure; and though mutton—indeed meats of all descrip¬ 
tions, bears a much higher price in that country than it 
does in this, yet the increase of carcase did not compen¬ 
sate the loss of quality of wool and the increased expense 
of keeping. On a close investigation of the subject, the 
same results will make themselves manifest here, as wool 
is the primary and mutton the secondary object of the 
fiockmaster. If the flockmaster of Germany, who re¬ 
ceives as much again for his mutton as we do, cannot 
find his account in crossing with mutton sheep, I would 
ask what prospect of success is there for us in this coun¬ 
try? But this experimenting has had its good effects in 
Germany, (as I hope it will have here,) it has estab¬ 
lished the fact that to cross the Saxon Merino with the 
coarse mutton sheep of England, is incompatible with 
sound principles. The produce falls as much short of 
being “ equal to the Spanish Merino ,” as that of a Durham 
short horn Bull and our best native milkers, “ I should 
guess,” of being like the Ayrshire cattle. But instead of 
that, the Germans have steadily improved their fine 
Messrs. Editors— The enclosed drawing (fig. 73,) 
is a very true picture of one of my stock Bucks. It was 
taken the 13th day of last June, the day on which he was 
shorn of his fleece, by Dr. Saxe, a portrait painter. It 
represents him in his fleece at full length, which was se¬ 
ven days short of one year’s growth, and weighs fourteen 
pounds; his wool being of great length, gives him in the 
profile, a rather short appearance. 
It is my intention to exhibit some of my best stock at 
the Albany Fair in September. Not being a citizen of 
your state, I cannot enter stock for premiums, but the 
pleasure of exhibiting may fully remunerate me, espe¬ 
cially if I can show as handsome sheep as any one at 
your State Society. 
The wool from these Paular Merinos is not as fine as 
some other varieties, but I think they should be classed 
among the fine wooled sheep. At the last State Fair, at 
Syracuse, I was honored as one of the committee on fine 
wooled sheep. Immediately the question came up, and 
there was a difference of opinion, what should be termed 
fine wool; or whether the coarser merinos should be 
considered under Class III, “fine wooled?” It strikes 
me that the whole varieties of merinos, should come un¬ 
der that class, and the premiums should be awarded to 
the handsomest and most profitable variety—taking into 
consideration the greatest production of wool and mutton 
for his keep—the most hardy, best form, and best milk¬ 
ers, which is essential in rearing the lambs. 
There is no doubt in my mind, but this Paular variety 
can withstand our severe winters better than any other 
that has been introduced among us; their wool being ad¬ 
mirably adapted for protection, (not by tariff,) being so 
very thick, and filled with a natural oil that will repel 
the severest storms. Their form is also broad and stout; 
they always look full, if they can get any thing to eat, 
and are able to shift on very scanty keep. 
I put out my bucks the first of December, Stable them 
about twelve hours each day; give them hay and about 
one pint of corn, at the time of taking up, and letting out 
also. This sheep described, is now four years old; has 
tupped on an average, each year, 123 ewes. We raise 
about 95 lambs to each hundred ewes. The two years 
old buck, described in the March No. of the Cultivator, 
sheared 11 lb. 3 oz. washed wool. 
Yours truly, S. W. Jewett. 
Weybridge, Vt., July 12, 1842. 
flocks and brought them to a high degree of perfection; 
and so firmly are they convinced of their superiority over 
any other breed of sheep, that at this moment, breeders 
(stock rams) of superior excellence, are selling at 
higher prices than at any former period. I could give 
you extracts from letters on this subject confirmatory of 
this declaration, but must bring my communication to a 
close. I cannot however do so without expressing my 
thanks to “ Commentator,” for the able and impartial man¬ 
ner with which he comments on the contents of the co¬ 
lumns of the Cultivator. I sincerely hope he will con¬ 
tinue them in future, even if at times he touches a “ ten¬ 
der spot ” of some of your correspondents. Don’t be 
afraid Mr. Commentator, but give us your views without 
“fear or favor.” It’s just the thing we want; good will 
result from them—they are just after my own heart, and 
when I read them, old associations are brought to my 
mind, and I imagine myself in “ mein Vaterland.” 
I am yours, very respectfully, 
IJoosick, N. Y. H. D. GROVE. 
COMMENTS ON THE JUNE NUMBER OF THE 
CULTIVATOR. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —I like much your re¬ 
marks on the “Season and Prospects;” but fear that you 
expect more from the liberality of mother earth than she 
can possibly achieve. “ The breaking of banks—the 
repudiation of their debts by several of the states—the 
bankruptcy of governments—and the half distracted con¬ 
dition of our financiers”—all go to prove, with the most 
heart sickening conviction, that a moral cancer has eaten 
into the very vitals of the body politic, for which earth 
alone, amidst all her richest gifts, has no cure. It is a 
deadly malady that seems to have left hardly enough dis¬ 
infected individuals to manage either the public or pri¬ 
vate concerns of society. 
As to the “ National Agricultural Societ 3 ’,” I appre¬ 
hend with you, that “the enthusiasm—the espritducorps,” 
so essential to its beneficent existence, are spirits yet to 
be evoked from “ the vasty deep;” and I know none of 
its friends sufficiently trumpet-tongued to call them forth. 
But it is too soon to be faint hearted about the matter. 
Better times perhaps—so far as better crops can propuce 
them—may cause the Society to put on quite a different 
aspect at its next meeting. 
In regard to “ Sugar from the Maple,” I have never yet 
seen any of it, out of numerous samples of the best, which 
was entirely free from a taste of the sap. This circum¬ 
stance, I think, must in a few years, greatly lessen, if it 
does not entirely put an end to the making it, as the su¬ 
gar from corn stalks, which can be made abundantly in 
every state in the Union, so perfectly resembles the cane 
sugar, that no palate can detect any difference. 
Your review of Dr. Dana’s “ Muck Manual,” has ex¬ 
cited in me a strong desire to see it, which I hope soon 
to do, having talien means to procure a copy. This 
work, together with Prof. Johnston’s Lectures on Agri¬ 
cultural Chemistry, and Mr. Webster's second edition of 
Liebig, will surely entice very many of our brethren to 
study their profession as a science. Mr. Peters says, 
“ we only want a judicious and well digested system but 
we must first get the science necessary to form it, and to 
prepare the minds of the generality of our brethren for 
its adoption. We must learn to walk—which many of 
us are hardly yet doing—before we can run. 
Under the head, “Large yield of Corn,” the crop of 
39 barrels per acre, made by Mr. Young, of Jessamine 
co. Kentucky, greatly exceeds any account yet published 
of the productiveness of that most excellent grain. Mar¬ 
velous as the statement really is, it seems to be sufficient¬ 
ly well authenticated to be believed. If so, ought it not 
forever to put to rest the notion maintained by so many 
farmers, in the absence too of all proof, that the cutting 
of corn roots is very injurious to the crop? In.the cul¬ 
ture of Mr. Young’s crop, we are told that “ nothing but 
the plow was used after the harrow.” We are farther in¬ 
formed, that the corn grew four stalks in a hill, and only 
three feet each way! Now, if any man can believe it 
possible to plow corn thus thickly planted—without 
cutting great numbers of the roots, or, that such cutting 
could do any appreciable injury to a crop which pro¬ 
duced 195 bushels per acre,—he can believe that the 
moon is made out of green cheese, or any other absurdi¬ 
ty whatever. — 
I perceive that you call the Honey Locust, Robinia 
viscosa. Othei botanists call it Gleditschia tr.'acanthos, 
which is right—for I do not know? [G. triacanthos is 
right.] — 
Among the advantages of “ sub-soil plowing,” you 
say that it “ gradually converts the sterile sub-soil into fer¬ 
tile mold.” If you have not yourself seen this effect pro¬ 
duced by it, I should doubt whether the mere frequent 
separation of the particles of any sub-soil, without chang¬ 
ing their relative position, could possibly so change their 
nature. To convert them into “ fertile mold,” seems to 
require the addition of some other substances besides 
“ water and air,” which other substances are only to be 
obtained by gradually deepening the plowing, and 
mixing therewith those particular elements of fertility 
of which all sub-soils are destitute. 
Under the head “ Indian Corn,” you assert that “ it 
will flourish in no other than a rich, warm dry soil.” Al¬ 
though it is perfectly true that such a soil suits it best, I 
have seen many very large crops per acre, made upon 
land which was neither warm nor dry. In fact, one of 
the great advantages which Indian corn has over all oth¬ 
er cultivated plants, is, that it will grow well in a great¬ 
er variety of soils than any other. Richness, however, 
is indispensable in every soil to the production of very 
large crops; but this being imparted, even to cold, stiff, 
moist lands, properly drained, such crops may certainly 
be expected in seasons generally favorable. 
Your Georgia correspondent from Hancock county, in 
