Chapter I: HAVE read the article headed "Sheep, Paular Merinos," over the

signature of Examiner, in the May number, page 52 of your paper, purporting to give us plain farmers an insight into sheep breeding, &c.; and what fine flocks used to be, when the "old fashioned Merino sheep" were in their "glory." What they were a quarter of a century ago, I cannot say, that was before I had any thing to do with sheep in this country; but I presume that _fine_ flocks were then not so numerous as they are now. I can not agree with the writer, "that the fine flocks of the United States are sadly deteriorated, indeed, nearly run out." Since 1825, I have been acquainted with fine sheep in this country, and I venture to say, that there are three, four, or five, and in this section, _ten_, fine flocks, where there was but one 18 years ago.

If Examiner will honor me with a visit, an invitation I herewith cordially tender to him, I will show him _fine_ flocks, consisting of more than a few individuals--a dozen or two, or may be a few scores, of picked sheep together, and kept in the very highest possible condition; no, but flocks from 500 to 1,000--even more--which might alter his judgment, if that is not swayed by prejudice. Many of these large flocks shear on an average 3 lbs. and over, of wool, well washed on the sheep's back, the quality of which is superior to the "Paular," and "old-fashioned Merinos;" and I doubt not, should Examiner make a comparison between the two kinds himself, he would pronounce it _superfine_; and besides the quality, he would also discover a great difference in the condition and cleanliness of the wool. These flocks are high-grade Saxons, and show a result not quite so "unfortunate" as Examiner would make us believe. My own flock of 240 ewes and lambs and a few bucks, pure, unmixed Saxons, whose pedigree can be traced back to the importations of the Elector of Saxony, from the royal flocks of Spain, sheared this year 2 lbs. 13 oz. per head; last year 2 lbs. 14 oz. clean wool. If I had had a proportionate number of weathers among them, the average would have been at _least_ 3 lbs. I repeat then, that the wool of the "Paular," or "old fashioned Merinos," does not compare with the Saxons and their crosses in quality and condition. If the fleeces from the former are heavier than from the latter, let it be borne in mind that they contain more _gum_, and _yolk_, dirt, &c.,; are not so fine, and that the sheep _consume a greater quantity of feed_. These are facts well known to every good judge of wool, and to every experienced, practical shepherd.

I would ask whether Examiner had his eyes closed against them when he was examining the fine-wooled flocks of the United States, and declared them "sadly deteriorated, indeed, nearly run out." I do not pretend, Mr. Editor, that I am acquainted with all "the fine flocks of the United States, but allow me to say, that my acquaintance among the wool-growers is pretty extensive. I am a purchaser, as well as a grower of wool, and handle no inconsiderable quantities yearly. My purchases this year amount to over 130,000 lbs., and I have examined at least 300,000 lbs., and a great variety of flocks of different grades and character, have come under my observation--sheep kept in the very lowest up to the very highest condition. I have always found, that where the blood of the "old fashioned Merinos, Paulars," or whatever their possessors are pleased to call them, predominated, there also I found _gum_, yolk, dirt, and other substances adhering to the wool, in great abundance, _unfit to make cloth_ of, which goes far to make up the greater weight of fleece over the Saxony. Indeed, sir, when gentlemen talk of fine fleeces weighing 8, 9, or 10 lbs. they forget to mention "_including gum, yolk, dirt, and other substances adhering to the fleece_."

Some years since, I saw a lot of "old fashioned Merino" wool at a factory in Massachusetts, which the manufacturer assured me would lose 55 per cent. in cleansing. "Indeed," said he, "we can never estimate the dirt in such wool correctly; it always exceeds our estimate, and we invariably suffer loss." And recently, a gentleman, a dealer in wool, told me that he sent this season, a large quantity to Boston to be sold, and that on making sale of some 36,000 lbs., the manufacturer who bought it, rejected all gummy, dirty fleeces, declaring that he would not have them, as such wool would lose more than 50 per cent. in cleansing. And to use the gentleman's own words, "there it lies, in a corner of the wool room, and I do not know what to do with it;" observing at the same time, that the manufacturers were "getting more cunning." There was a time when the supply fell short of the demand, and almost any wool, however gummy and dirty, found ready purchasers; for manufacturers were often compelled to buy it, in order to keep their machinery in operation; but that time has gone by, and they are now more choice in their selections, and when they come across a lot of such wool they pass it by, with observations like these: "I do not want it, it is too dirty, let him keep it for some body else"!

In your July number, page 130 and 131, Mr. Editor, you have made a calculation of the number of sheep, and the quantity of wool obtained therefrom. The census of 1840 shows, say 20,000,000 in the United States. Of this number you estimate only 11,000,000 shorn sheep, yielding 24,500,000 lbs. of wool, and the lambs at 9,000,000.--With due deference to your superior opportunities for information, I beg leave to say that you are over estimating the number of lambs, for every practical wool-grower knows, that that proportion is too large--if you had said one third, you would have come nearer the truth. I think you are mistaken also that the census of 1840 included lambs, it was exclusive of lambs.(_a_) You are, however, perfectly safe in estimating the average weight of fleece in the United States at 21/4 lbs. This is certainly too low by one fourth of a pound.(_b_) In this region it exceeds 23/4 lbs. Then you say, that by producing a superior quality of wool, its value would be increased nine cents per pound; this certainly is attainable; but the way in which you propose to bring it about, namely, by crossing with the "Paular, or old-fashioned Merinos," you would not obtain that end, thousands of fine flocks would be reduced in quality.(_c_) In this section it would reduce the quality as much as you wish to improve it. Coarse sheep would be improved by the cross; but to apply it to all the sheep in the United States, as I understand you to say, you would find yourself very much mistaken in the result. I venture to say, that on the same quantity of feed, you can not increase the heft of fleece of a fine flock shearing from 23/4 to 3 lbs., by your cross up to 33/4 to 4 lbs. per head, and have the wool in equally good condition.(_d_) An increase of feed will do much toward increasing the heft of fleece. A few words more and I have done.

Examiner, page 52, says: "As to Paular Bucks, it strikes me that you might, for any practical purpose, just as well have advised a cross of the fabulous Unicorn, for it would be just as easy to find the one as the other at the present time in the United States; for depend upon it, there is no such thing now existing, as _a Paular Buck_, nor _any thing deserving the name_ in the whole country." And you say that "there are still large and valuable flocks scattered over the country."(_e_)

H. D. GROVE.

(_a_) Immediately upon the receipt of this letter of Mr. Grove's we wrote on to Washington to ascertain the facts in the case, but were answered that the census bureau was abolished, and they could not tell. We know that when the person for taking the census in the district in which we were then residing, called upon us, he required the number of colts, calves, lambs, and pigs, although some of them were only three days old at the time; and to our objection of rendering an account of such young stock, he remarked, "never mind, they will be grown when the census appears, and it is the law." Most of those to whom we have put the question about rendering an account of the lambs in their flocks, say they did so; others do not recollect. If there has been irregularity with sheep-owners in giving an account of their lambs, of course we are incorrect; and we think, upon reflection, we may have estimated the number of lambs too high; though, on the other hand, we are quite certain Mr. Grove has set them down as entirely too few; for we know flocks that produce within a fraction as many lambs annually as there are breeding ewes.

(_b_) Perhaps when Mr. Grove has travelled south and west more extensively, and seen in the months of March and April, as many half-bare sheep as we have, which shed their wool from disease, want of care, &c., he may come to a different conclusion. We have often seen flocks in the same condition at the north too, leaving many of our farmers little to boast of in this respect.

(_c_) We have turned to the article to which Mr. Grove alludes, but really, we do not find that we used the expressions attributed to us. We said "Spanish Merino," also, "unadulterated Merino;" meaning thereby, the Rambouillets more particularly. We also spoke in general terms, in recommending the use of these. Such a flock of Saxons as Mr. Grove's we would _especially except_; and if the accounts which we hear of them be correct, and we have no doubt they are, we would not cross them with anything less fine than themselves. They are unquestionably superior animals, as is proved by their superior weights of fleece, and the high price the wool commands; and we wish, since the name of Saxon has been so basely misused in this country by miserable counterfeits, that Mr. Grove would give his flock the name of Electoral; for they and their descendants are probably the only ones entitled to it in the United States. With this name, they would then fairly stand aloof from the common herd, as they deserve, and not be associated in idea hereafter, with the miserable riff-raff of the country, passing under the general name of Saxons. It is our intention next season to call and see Mr. Grove's flock.

(_d_) We meant to be understood as alluding to a cross on the coarser and more restiff sheep of the country, when we spoke of obtaining an increase of weight of wool on the same food, and we know that this can be done.

(_e_) True enough, but we did not say these valuable flocks were Paulars; nor did we go so far as to assert that they were pure Merinos of any distinct name. We wish it understood, that we do not endorse all the opinions of Examiner any more than we do other correspondents--he speaks for himself, and we for ourselves.

* * * * *

_For the American Agriculturist._

SEA-MUD AS A FERTILIZER.

_Flushing, L. I., November 8th, 1843._

CAN you inform me whether the sea-mud which is found on the shore, below high-water mark, is of any value to the farmer; and if it is, in what way would you advise that it should be applied? Do you think that it would answer in a compost heap, or would it be preferable to put it into the cattle-yard or hog-pen? I have thought that the only objection to using it would be on account of the great quantity of salt, which it contains; although Leibig and other celebrated writers, speak in very favorable terms upon the application of salt. And here arises another question. Are not those farms which are situated upon the sea-shore sufficiently supplied with salt by the winds which are constantly sweeping over them? Johnson remarks that this is the case, and if this is so, would not the application of this sea-mud be too strong? although I am inclined to believe that by drying the mud, much of the virtue of the salt would necessarily be destroyed, and as sea-water contains, as Leibig states, many very fertilizing qualities, this mud which perhaps has been accumulating for ages, must have imbibed a large quantity of all those properties, of which sea-water is composed. By answering these questions you will greatly oblige one of your subscribers.

R. B. C.

For an answer to the above see page 322.

* * * * *

The following communication was read before the New York Farmers' Club by the Hon. Henry Meigs at its meeting August 29, and is obligingly furnished us for publication.

_For the American Agriculturist._

FARM OF HUGH MAXWELL, Esq.

GOOD EFFECTS OF MARL.--In a conversation with Hugh Maxwell, Esq., some short time since, he stated some facts in relation to the fertilising power of a red marl abundantly existing at Nyack, which induced me to visit the spot. I found Mr. Maxwell's farm of 110 acres bounded by the Hudson, well worth a visit. The whole was in excellent fence, made of the loose stones found on the land, neatly piled about 41/2 feet high, forming fields of from 4 to 8 acres. The formation of these fences has used nearly all the stones which were on the surface of the lands. And in this it would seem as if Divine Providence had caused the rocks to be distributed of the proper size for fencing. Had the pieces been much larger or smaller they would not have answered the purpose so well as they now do. If they had been planted two feet under ground, or had been piled in larger masses, the labor of fencing would have been very greatly increased.

This farm, as well as all those about Nyack, lies on the singular mass of sandstone included by a front of about five miles on the river. All the surrounding rocks are of other materials. This sandstone, when quarried, exhibits strata of a kind of red marl of many feet in thickness, lying between strata of the sandstone. The quarry-men throw it out of their way, and millions of loads are lying near the water's edge, so that in many places vessels can lie alongside a bed of it, and slide it on board. On Mr. Maxwell's farm, the former proprietor, desirous of making extensive hard walks through his garden, caused this marl to be put upon them about one foot deep. Soon after this was finished, the walks began to produce clover; the white in such profusion and persevering succession, that all prospect of using the paths in that condition was abandoned: they could not be kept in order by the hoe. Mr. Maxwell being strongly impressed by this occurrence, determined on applying it to the surface of his farm. I saw a field of corn of several acres which had been top-dressed this year with the red marl, now bearing not less than 80 bushels of shelled corn to the acre--as great a product as is obtained from the best city manure, costing at Nyack nearly 37 cents per load. I saw an upland field of wheat, on which, as an experiment, Mr. Maxwell had top-dressed with this marl a space of three rods by two, from which I pulled an average bunch of straw-stubble, that is more than double the size and weight of any like parcel of stubble, to be found in the whole field of several acres. Unfortunately the husbandman had cradled all the wheat indiscriminately, which prevented Mr. Maxwell from examining the separate product of the wheat. I should not hesitate to pronounce it a double product. Mr. M. top-dressed a field of oats with this marl, and the yield was 70 bushels per acre. He top-dressed a field of clover with it the third year from the seeding, and the product is heavier than the crop of the _second year_. This field was dressed with ten loads of marl per acre. The corn is large 12-row yellow, and the stalks are about 10 feet high. The corn-blades never curled during the late drought, while other fields all curled. The corn was worked with the hand-harrow once, with the cultivator twice, and was hoed twice. No plowing between the hills. Mr. M. thinks that in dry weather it is very injurious to run the plow through, for it cuts the smaller roots of the corn. He has tried 25 bushels of hickory ashes, against 25 of anthracite coal ashes, and found no perceptible difference in the result.

The general effect of this red marl is perceptible in almost every plant and tree in that vicinity. Fruit-trees are especially vigorous and free from disease. Flowering shrubs, roses particularly, seem not to have been touched by any insect. I pulled up a mullein stalk growing on a naked mound of this marl, which measures nine feet in height, and the flower stem, which is covered with buds, is four feet in extent. The trees, excepting peach alone, are more thriving than those I have anywhere seen. The peach-trees have the yellows. Moss roses growing in rich grass are remarkably strong; Mr. M. finds that they do better closely surrounded by grass than in clear ground. He has ten kinds of healthy cherry-trees, including the red and white ox-heart, and the bull's eye. He has freely given, and wishes to distribute buds and grafts to all those who ask for them. Mr. M. has very healthy apricots, which have yielded fine fruit. _He smoked the blossoms with sulphur and pitch_, and all the fruit was perfect. _This smoking was done in the evening._

Some of the fields had never been but partially cultivated, on account of being so swamped that cattle mired in them. He made in one four-acre field a drain ten rods long, and three feet deep, filled in with coarse stone. This drain formed a _perpetual spring for his cattle_, and this barren field has now buckwheat of at least _thirty bushels per acre_. _One and a half bushels_ of seed was sowed per acre. No manure needed. This drain cost $1.75. Twelve acres were drained in the same style at a cost of $150; this field is now fine, and asks for no manure from New York, or Nyack marl. He prefers the same amount of marl to best New York city manure for all grains and grapes.

Mr. M. has the old English yew thriving in open air in winter. The European mountain ash, white and red linden, red maple, weeping ash, weeping beech, weeping elm, Madeira nut, (one five years old bearing fruit,) Spanish chestnut now in fruit, (this tree has also some blossoms on it at this time.) Apricots grafted on plum stock are very thrifty.

A REMARKABLE HORSE.--In passing through Mr. Maxwell's barn-yard, I noticed a couple of horses, one of which was hoppled with a strong iron chain. What mischievous young horse have you there? He replied, it is my old family mare Kate, who has carried me, and my wife and children, safely for the last one and twenty years! I bought her when she was about four years old, but she will break fences now (wooden ones) with her irons on, she is so active and cunning.

LOCUST EGGS.--I remarked at Nyack the work of the locust, and Mr. M. and Thomas Addis Emmet, Esq., examined with a good microscope, a twig worked by the little insect. The twig being split in the line of the work, exhibited the whole process of the egg deposite. The twig is pierced nearly to its centre at every three quarters of an inch, or nearly so; the wood is rendered fibrous, it is then lifted up, and the eggs, which are of a long, oval form, are deposited side by side at an angle of about 45 degrees to the grain of the twig, and the fibrous tuft of wood placed over them, with its end sticking out; these incisions being repeated every inch on a line for some few inches in each twig. With the microscope, we saw the eyes of the young locusts always heads to the centre. The general outline of the young animal was perceptible through its delicate membranous cover. They moved slightly on being disturbed. Almost every twig so operated on by the locust was entirely dead. The magnifying power of the microscope was perhaps 40 or 50.

VALUE OF AN ORCHARD.--I visited an apple orchard at Nyack, which arrested my attention by its regular and healthy appearance. I found young Van Houton at home, who, with perfect good feeling and true politeness, gave me the account of the orchard which I desired. When his father was about fifty years of age, he undertook to plant 150 winter pippin-trees on that spot. His neighbors thought him an old fool to plant twigs of apple at his time of day. Young Van Houton, then about 16 years of age, held the little nurslings in the holes while his father filled in the soil. The old gentleman continued to prune them, so that they are widely branched and open for air and sun within the mass of branches. For twenty or twenty-two years past, the old gentleman has often received $1,000 a year for his apples. Sometimes $6 per barrel; sometimes sold in the orchard for $1 per barrel. That old gentleman and his wife are now, between them, 174 years old. Let no man be afraid to plant winter pippins because he is fifty or sixty years of age.

I have been highly pleased with my excursion. When gentlemen of high rank in learned professions are found turning that intellectual force which has influenced the most wealthy and intelligent portion of mankind, from law, politics, &c., to that greatest, best of all arts--agriculture, I look for good results and I find them. The old world is hard at work in this direction, and I hope that we shall watch her operations with the eye of our own bird, and see to it, that we be not excelled in any good thing.

* * * * *

_For the American Agriculturist._

MEDITERRANEAN WHEAT.

_Wheatland, Va., November 2, 1843._

I have noticed your remarks in the October No. of your paper, on the Mediterranean wheat. Your views coincided with mine when I first sowed this variety of wheat; but I have sown it now for two seasons, and the change has been so great in the color, as to convince me that by cultivating it here, it will lose its dark color, and become as good in that respect, and yield as much flour as any wheat we have. The two seasons I have raised it, it has been the best wheat I had. I have doubts whether it will tiller as much as some other varieties, and therefore sow it much thicker.

ROBERT L. WRIGHT.

* * * * *

_For the American Agriculturist._

TOPPING COTTON--MARL.

_Sumpter District, S. C., Nov. 4th, 1843._

IN those excellent matter-of-fact articles on the cultivation of cotton, which have appeared in the late numbers of your paper, by Dr. Philips of Miss., and which, by the way, are the best I have ever seen on the subject, I do not recollect that he has touched upon the subject of topping cotton. I have made one experiment in this, and was pleased with the result. Some planters north of us, I understand, have also tried this method, and find the cotton is not so apt to shed, as when it is not topped, especially in wet seasons. Ordinarily we reckon the first week in August the best time for topping; but this, of course, will depend upon the season, and the forwardness of the crop--for sometimes it must be earlier, and sometimes later.

I tried the effects of what I suppose to be marl, on a small spot in one of my fields, say about one acre. The marl I judge to be of poor quality, yet can not say, positively, as I have no analysis of it. I dug it out in January last, and spread it broad-cast, at the rate of 30 loads to the acre, as large as an ordinary pair of mules would carry. It seemed to pulverize well, exposed to the severe frost of last winter, and I plowed it in deeper than I usually plow, and harrowed the land well. The result is, I shall get full one third if not one half more cotton off of this piece than any other part of the field, which more than pays me for the trouble.

I need not say that we read the articles on manures in the Agriculturist with much interest; for many of us are beginning to learn that it is not only easier and better, but even _cheaper_ to renovate our old lands, than emigrate to a new country and bring new lands into cultivation.