20 MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURE. 



But whether land is tilled after being ploughed, or laid down 

 upon the newly turned furrow, thorough seeding and generous 

 manuring are essential to a perfectly satisfactory result. The 

 " barn chaff " with which farmers sometimes seed their pastures 

 may be preferable to an entire absence of seed ; but pastures as 

 well as meadows will well repay the cost of the best seed -which 

 can be obtained. He who sows chaff should not complain, if, 

 in return, he gets nothing but foul grasses and weeds. 



Much of the land used for pasturage is rendered almost 

 worthless by a superabundance of water. If the surface of such 

 land is at all inclined and suitable for the plough, it may be 

 cheaply and tolerably well drained by being ploughed in narrow 

 lands, parallel with the plane of inclination, deepening the middle 

 furrows with the spade if necessary. This process involves a 

 loss of productive area, equal to the space occupied by the 

 ditches ; but the increased value of the products on the residue 

 will more than compensate for such loss. 



At the farmer's meeting, on the last day of the annual exhibi- 

 tion of the society, an interesting discussion took place, mainly 

 on the question : " What the Plymouth County farmer should 

 raise." It can hardly be supposed that the subject was 

 exhausted in the hour devoted to its consideration. It may be 

 doubted whether any reliable conclusion was reached by any 

 one whose opinions were not already fixed. The question is 

 susceptible of, and demands a division. The answer to the 

 question, What should the Plymouth County farmer raise as 

 food for his stock ? may depend upon considerations different 

 from the answer to the question, What should he raise for 

 market ? Probably no answer, applicable to all farms, can be 

 given to either. Notwithstanding their facilities for ascertaining 

 the results of other men's experience, farmers may still be 

 supposed competent to learn something from their own. When, 

 therefore, w r e hear one experienced farmer, who is capable of 

 observing facts and deducing conclusions, commend turnips as 

 superior to all other roots for neat stock, and another, equally 

 capable and equally experienced, characterize them as nearly 

 worthless, arc we to infer that one is wholly right and the other 

 wholly and necessarily wrong ? May it not be true, rather, 

 that each is right, as to his own experience, and only wrong in 

 attempting to deduce from that experience a rule of universal 



