©rigiual papers front Contributors. 
“NATIVE” AND OTHER CATTLE. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker—I have read, with 
great interest, the first volume of the Transactions of the 
New-York State Agricultural Society; and with none of 
the papers therein contained have I been more pleased 
than with the one on “Neat Cattle,” by Henry S. Ran¬ 
dall, in which are many useful suggestions in regard to 
the improvement of our cattle, and the production of a 
breed, or breeds, suited to our climate and purposes. 
Mr. R. fears that many are “ too prone to underrate 
our native stock,” which he thinks “ has produced ani¬ 
mals that would suffer little by comparison with those 
of any other breed.” In some remarks on Mr. Randall’s 
ideas by Mr. Wm. H. Sotham, in the Sept. No. of the 
Cultivator, is the following rather ultra expression: 
“He [Mr. R.] may select the best [of the native stock] 
if he chooses, and breed them until he is of the age of 
man, and my word for it, he will never breed a beast 
that a good judge would condescend to put his hand 
upon.” 
There may be a difficulty, I confess, in deciding such 
a proposition. In the first place, the premises should be 
understood and admitted by the parties. What, then, is 
“ native stock ?” Here is the grand point; and they may 
as well dispute about the merits of British sheep, or any 
other species of animal which embraces varieties very 
widely different in their characters, as to attempt to de¬ 
cide that matter until this point is settled. 
If Mr. Randall is to be allowed, (and this is obviously 
his intention,) to take such animals as Mr. Rust’s fat ox 
as specimens of the scrub or “ native breed,” it appears 
to me he would be under no necessity of breeding till 
he is three score years and ten, before he could “ pro¬ 
duce an animal that a good judge would condescend to 
put his hand upon.” While on my late trip to the East, 
I saw this ox of Mr. Rust’s. He is truly a most superb 
animal. His portrait in the “Transactions” does not 
do him full justice. He is finer in the neck, and every 
way move finished than the picture represents. He has, 
both in shape and color, all the leading characteristics 
of a Hereford; his shoulders are well set, his chime full, 
back short, loin and hips very wide, rump long, legs 
clean and sinewy, and he is considerably heavier than 
any other animal I ever saw of so little bone and offal. 
At the time I saw him, Mr. Rust thought his weight 
could not be less than 3,700 pounds; and it had been as¬ 
certained by repeated weighing, that his gain was at 
least three pounds per day. Notwithstanding his im¬ 
mense weight, he was, from the justness of his propor¬ 
tions, very active. When lying down, he would get up 
as quick as a sucking calf. 
I saw the man who said he raised this ox; and the 
history which he g-ave of him was, that the bull which 
sired him was “ part Hereford.” In this, both he and 
Mr. Rust agreed. I cannot see why this statement need 
be doubted; for according to an account which Mr. Be- 
ment has published, some Herefords were introduced 
into this part of the country several years ago. But his¬ 
tory and tradition out of the question, it appears to me 
there would be as much propriety in taking an animal 
which should show all the principal points in shape and 
color of an improved Short Horn, as a specimen of the 
“native stock,” as there is in taking this ox as such. 
An example of this kind would probably be regarded by 
the advocates of the Short Horns as not altogether fair. 
Your reviewer, Commentator, in the Oct. No. of the 
Cultivator, in his remarks on Mr. Sotham’s expression, 
given above, says Mr. Bakewell made a similar experi¬ 
ment in England to that proposed by Mr. Randall, “ and 
it is presumable with no better cattle to begin with than 
Mr. Randall might probably find of what is called the 
“native breed in New-York.” Now it may be pretty 
near true that Bakewell began to breed with cattle which 
were not better than those which some have called native 
in this country; but from the best evidence to be had, 
it seems to me certain, that the animals with which 
Bakewell began to breed, were not only very good in 
themselves, but belonged to a race whose superior ex¬ 
cellence had been long acknowledged. That under the 
direction of his master mind they attained still higher 
improvement, is neither denied nor doubted; but that 
the originals were altogether superior to our common 
cattle, is plain, if we admit testimony on this subject. 
The first great advantage which Mr. Bakewell possess¬ 
ed over one who might attempt a similar experiment, 
confining himself to the common cattle of this country, 
was the.fixed character of his stock. Their leading points 
had been the same, without admixture, as far as we 
learn, for ages. Hence he might calculate on a certain 
transmission of the qualities possessed by those he first 
selected, hereditarily, to their offspring. The originals 
of our common cattle have been brought from almost 
ev ery country and district from which this country has 
ever received emigrants. These animals, so heteroge¬ 
neous in their character, have generally been bred in an 
indiscriminate, haphazard manner, until they have, in 
most eases, lost all marked resemblance to any distinct 
breed. 
Youatt, in the work on British Cattle, gives a very in¬ 
teresting account of the stock from which Mr. Bakewell 
made his original selections. Under the head of the 
“ Long Horns,” he says, “ in the district of Craven, a 
fertile corner of the West Riding of Yorkshire, border¬ 
ing on Lancashire, and separated from Westmoreland 
chiefly by the western moor lands, there has been from 
the earliest records of British agriculture a peculiar and 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
valuable breed of cattle.” At page 189 is given a por¬ 
trait of a Craven bull, “ supposed to bear about him many 
of the characters of the old breed.” The portrait con¬ 
veys an idea of a most excellent animal; one of the best 
in the book; the body and limbs indicating surprising 
strength, with a rich mellow coat of hair. 
In 1720, it is stated that a blacksmith by the name of 
Wilby commenced the work of improving the Craven 
cattle, with some cows which he procured from Sir 
Thomas Gresley. “ Soon after this,” says Mr. Youatt, 
“Mr. Webster of Canley, near Coventry, distinguished 
himself as a breeder. He too worked upon Sir Thomas 
Gresley’s stock. He was at considerable trouble in 
procuring bulls from Lancashire and Westmoreland; and 
he is said to have had the best stock of cattle then 
known.” At pages 191, 192, it is said, “ improvement 
had hitherto been attempted to be produced by selecting 
females from the native stock of the country, and cross¬ 
ing them with males of an alien breed. Mr. Bakewell’s 
good sense led him to imagine that the object might be 
better accomplished by uniting the superior branches 
of the same breed, than by any mixture of foreign ones.” 
“ On this new and judicious principle he started. He 
purchased two Long Horned heifers from Mr. Webster, 
and he procured a promising Long Horned bull from 
Westmoreland. To these and their progeny he confined 
himself.” * * * «Many years did not pass before 
his stock was unrivalled for the roundness of its form, 
and the smallness of its bone, and its aptitude to acquire 
external fat, while they were small consumers of food in 
proportion to their size.” 
The object in making these quotations is to show that 
the ancestors of Mr. Bak*ewell’s stock had been consider¬ 
ed excellent long before he began his career as a breeder. 
In what I have said, I disclaim any intention to “ un¬ 
derrate the native stock,” but have been influenced only 
by a wish that the public may be set right in matters of 
fact. Sanford Howard. 
Zanesville, Ohio, Oct. 8, 1842. 
THE WILD TURKEY. 
P. S. In your answer to “ poultry inquiries,” you say 
you “ are not aware that the wild turkey has ever been 
crossed with the domestic one, or that a successful at¬ 
tempt has ever been made to domesticate them.” 
The cross you speak of has often been made here; and 
attempts at domesticating the wild turkey are not unfre¬ 
quent, and are sometimes successful. They are much 
disposed to ramble, and their wild nature often leads 
them to take to the woods from whence they never re¬ 
turn. Could they be restrained in their rambles, there 
is no doubt that their wildness would leave them after 
several generations, and they would become as tame as 
other turkeys. According to the principles of phrenolo¬ 
gy, the organ (perhaps it is “ cautiousness ,”) which gives 
them their wildness, from being constantly called into 
action, becomes very strong and developed in a remarka¬ 
ble degree. In a state of domestication, where there are 
few or no enemies to be guarded against, they have lit¬ 
tle use for this organ. From the circumstances in which 
they are placed, it is not enlarged and strengthened by 
excitement and action; consequently, this organ is not 
developed as it is in the wild state, but becomes weaker 
with every succeeding generation produced in the do¬ 
mestic state, until at last it is exactly adapted to the con¬ 
dition of the bird. 
An advantage is thought to result from crossing the 
wild with the domestic turkey; as the latter thereby ac¬ 
quires hardiness, and freedom from those diseases which 
frequently destroy the young. 
Col. Jaques of Charlestown, Mass., has the wild turkey 
in a fine state of domestication. S. H. 
SHEEP HUSBANDRY. 
2d P. S. I have read the article of Mr. J. McD. Mc¬ 
Intyre, in the Oct. No. of the Cultivator, on the “Win¬ 
tering of Sheep.” It is a useful document. I also read 
the article of Mr. Grove in the “ Transactions,” to 
which Mr. McIntyre refers. I wish Mr. Grove would 
now give us the average weight of his fleeces, together 
with the price per pound which they have brought or 
will bring this year; and that Mr. McIntyre will state 
the same in regard to the price of his fleeces. We can 
then see which is most profitable for wool. There can 
be no doubt of the fattening propensity of Mr. McIntyre’s 
sheep. I saw them when I was at your city in July last, 
and I have never seen sheep in better condition than 
most of his were on such short pasture. His wethers, a 
cross of the Cotswold and South Down, are noble fel¬ 
lows. When he kills them, I want to hear from him 
the particulars of feeding, weight, &c. &c. 
It is, in my opinion, a mistaken idea, that we should 
encourage but one variety of sheep. The different va¬ 
rieties are adapted to different localities. Our country 
possesses a vast extent of territory well adapted to the 
production of sheep and wool; and our true policy would 
be to offer such encouragement as would lead to the pro¬ 
duction of all the various sorts of wool, excepting, per¬ 
haps, those of the very lowest price. This would open 
the way for the different breeds of sheep. Those most 
valuable for the carcass might be kept near market, and 
those valued chiefly for the wool, in the interior. In 
this way new channels of labor and capital would be 
opened, and additional stimulus given to enterprise. 
S.H. 
A German farmer in Pennsylvania, has given 200 bush¬ 
els of wheat to the poor, as a thank-offering for his 
abundant harvest. 
191 
THE IMPROVED CULTURE OF COTTON—No. I. 
Gathered 5-S89 lbs. per Acre. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Permit me to remark 
in opening a correspondence with you and the planting 
interest of our country, through the medium of your in¬ 
valuable agricultural journal, upon the subject of the 
« proposed improvement in the culture of the Cotton Plant,” 
—that had I not tendered you such promise, since re-ex¬ 
amining the extent of the work, I should most assuredly, 
for the present at least, shrink from the arduous task. 
Such communication must necessarily, that we may ar¬ 
rive at the true merits of the improved system, embrace 
an extended rationale, setting forth in the first place, a 
faithful expose of the present kill and cripple, and in eve¬ 
ry way injurious system of culture, by which the Cotton 
plant is now grown. Secondly, the principles upon 
which the proposed improvement is predicated; its rea¬ 
sonable and perfect adaptation to the best interests of the 
planter and the country. In doing which, I propose in¬ 
stituting a series of argumentation and comparative ana¬ 
lysis, as drawn from actual experiments and careful ob¬ 
servation,—by which to show most conclusively, that the 
innate character of the cotton plant has been entirely 
misconceived, and consequently the plant subjected to 
the present contracted and ruinous system of culture,— 
singularly inadequate to that copious development in the 
perfection of staple and great production of which the 
plant is capable. And in the third and last place, to ren¬ 
der the subject clear and intelligible to all, it will be ne¬ 
cessary to give in detail, the “ modus operandi,” by 
which my experiments have been conducted, together 
with the character and quality of the soil, &c. 
Thus you perceive, to treat the subject with that jus¬ 
tice, which its grand importance demands, each position 
in the above prodrome, will require a paper of as great 
length, at least, as will occupy all the space in any one 
number of the Cultivator, which you can spare from oth¬ 
er matter of general interest to your numerous readers. 
But gentlemen, if you shall esteem these papers as me¬ 
riting sufficient attention, from the all-absorbing interest 
being excited in the subject discussed, to engage in their 
publication; surely, after devising the improvement, in¬ 
stituting the experiments, and directing the labor, and 
last, though not least, having witnessed the triumphant 
success, equaling my most sanguine expectations, attend¬ 
ing the operation, I may spend a few leisure evenings, 
during the fall and winter-, “ with my grey goose quill,” 
in communicating the result. With one other sentiment, 
I shall have closed the exordium; by remarking that 
the warmest and most enthusiastic aspiration glowing 
within my bosom, is to see the science of agriculture,— 
like the ark of the covenant, in the Jewish ceremonial 
economy, occupying not only the high places in the land, 
but as a fixed and governing, principle in the hearts of 
the industrious and intelligent farmer and planter-citi¬ 
zens of our blessed republic,—shedding abroad upon eve¬ 
ry other science and profession, as it necessarily must, 
its thousand benign influences, of encouragement and 
support, riches and honors, together with peace and per¬ 
fect happiness, “in tempore,” the sure rewards of a great 
and good people. 
It may not be improper, before entering immediately 
upon the discussion of the subject, simply to state some 
of the inducements, which the proposed improvement in 
the culture of cotton, holds out to the intelligence and 
industry of the planter. Its prime object is not so much 
to augment the number of bags, or multiply the number 
of pounds already equaling the consumption, as to curtail 
the enormous expense attending its production; thereby 
enhancing its value to the planter, in precisely the same 
ratio. In other words, I propose not only to show, but 
most satisfactorily to prove, that it is perfectly practica¬ 
ble to produce the 2,000,000 bags—the cotton crop of the 
United States—with one-third the capital engaged, under 
the present system of culture, in its production. Now if 
my premises be conect, my conclusions will appear not 
more fascinating and encouraging to the practical man, 
than axiomatic. To satisfactorily establish the fact, that 
the high grounds which I here assume, are not only 
founded in sound reason, but are tenable in practice, en¬ 
tertained and frequently expx-essed during the last two 
years, I have perseveringly devoted, with unceasing en¬ 
ergy, the labor of the present season; assisted by careful 
observations drawn from experiments, as commenced by 
me last year. A faithful and detailed description of the 
two systems of culture, essaying neither to prejudice the 
one, nor accord undue consequence to the other, for the 
good of the country and the best interests of my fellow 
citizens engaged in planting,—shall be the single and ex¬ 
press object with me, in preparing these papers for pub¬ 
lication. 
My first object then, as above specified—the work of 
this number—will be to furnish you, and all interested, 
with a “faithful expose” of the present, as I term, and 
shall prove it to be such, “ kill and cripple, and in every 
way injurious system,” by which the Cotton plant is now 
grown. To some persons, this course may appear at first 
view of the subject, as supererogatory and quite irrele¬ 
vant to my purpose; yet I am convinced, that you, gen¬ 
tlemen, and the experienced planter, will view it wide¬ 
ly different; since it would be perfectly idle to attempt 
the refutation of error, until its existence and baneful 
tendency, be first shown. And here let me congratulate 
the good cause of reform and improvement, that in the 
discharge of this very delicate task, I shall be able most 
fortunately, to bring- to my assistance, an article written 
“ on the Culture of Cotton,” which has given universal 
and acknowledged satisfaction. To the attentive pern- 
