_Buskirk's Bridge, October, 1843._
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 2¼ lbs. This is
certainly too low by one fourth of a pound.(_b_) In this region it
exceeds 2¾ 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 2¾ to
3 lbs., by your cross up to 3¾ 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_)