320 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



think of the wisdom of the man having, say $4,0'J0, invested at interest, who, 

 in addition to using the interest yearly, should also use a part of his principal? 

 You would say at once, he will soon have neither interest nor principal ; he will 

 be bankrupt. A farmer has a farm worth 84,000. The farm is his principal. 

 The producing power of his farm is his interest. As the person havinsj the 

 money at interest will become bankrupt if he persists in using a part of his 

 principal yearly besides his interest, just so surely Avill the farmer become 

 bankrupt if he allows the producing power of his farm to become impaired. 

 The analogy between the capitalist and the farmer is in this respect perfect. 



This is not a fanciful idea nor an overdrawn picture. The commissioner of 

 agriculture of the United States in one of his annual reports says that in some 

 of the New England States thousands of acres have been literally abandoned 

 and are lying untilled and unoccupied. These lands were once occupied by a 

 virtuous, industrious, and 1 think in a certain sense, prodigal people. The 

 same is true of large areas in many of the southern States. Have you not 

 known farms to have been sold because they would no longer sustain their 

 owners? I have. 



There can be iio specific rules laid down for rotation of crops, or amount or 

 kinds of stock to be kept; all such rules must from the nature of the case be 

 general. Every one must deduce from general principles the rotation, kind, 

 amount of stock that will best suit his own case, assuming that it is necessary 

 to have stock he must decide for himself how much he can keep with profit, 

 always keeping the best within his reach and means. I will say, however, it 

 is best to plow only so much as can be kept in good condition, seeding to grass 

 the balance for pasture and hay. The great mistake is plowing too much. 

 The more hay and pasture the more milk, the more butter, the more wool, 

 the larger and better the manure pile, and then the more hay and grain again. 

 I believe in mixed farming, because it is surest to pay. The farmer who 

 raises a variety of crops is always sure to hit the market right somewhere. If 

 wheat is low perhaps the butter crop will bring a good price. If barley is 

 cheap beef may pay well, so that a ready sale and paying prices will be real- 

 ized. When a variety of crops are raised the season for putting them in and 

 harvesting is so lengthened that less help is required, and a saving effected in 

 that way. 



I like it, too, because it affords opportunities and leisure for mental improve- 

 ment. The season of our labor runs through the whole year without any 

 particular hurry at any time, giving us plenty of time for reading books and 

 papers, and enjoying social intercourse. 



I attribute a large share of the prosperity of this locality — for I think it 

 prosperous — to this very system of mixed farming. We have been forced by 

 circumstances to practice it. Our farms, as a rule, are*femall, thus forcing 

 us to loursue in some form the very system that is for our greatest advantage. 



Agriculture, like medicine, is not an exact science. It is made up of the 

 experience and observation of scientific and practical men, but the theories of 

 to-day may be disproved to-morrow. The practice of to-day may, on account 

 of further experience and observation, be changed to-morrow. Hence the 

 necessity of an agricultural literature, papers devoted to the interests of cul- 

 ture and agriculturists. This necessity is so generally admitted that all, or 

 nearly all, the weeklies published in the cities have their agricultural editor 

 and more or less space set apart exclusively for such subjects. Tliis is all 

 right so far as it goes, but I think papers published entirely in our interest, 

 making a specialty of farm interests, are a much more reliable aid and guide 



