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)

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.