1 82 Proore.f.9 of Agricvltural Knotvledg e 



whether there was lime in the shale, probably not ; but here is 

 an answer to a question sometimes asked when the admixture of 

 soils is proposed — Is clay better than dung ? The answer is Yes. 

 For on very light land even dung will not produce wheat, but clay 

 will ; and I may now give a case in point, which happened this 

 year on my own land, a piece of barley, containing 12 acres, 

 the soil a poor, loose, peaty sand. When the blade appeared, 

 one-half of the piece looked green and healthy, the other half, 

 yellow and sickly. On inquiry I found that to the thriving 

 portion there had been applied two slight dressings of strong clay 

 (not marl, for it had been examined), amounting only to 50 loads on 

 the acre. The boundary was distinct. But in the middle of the 

 sickly portion was also a square patch of vigorous growth. Here 

 there had been a dunghill one year before. The result at har- 

 vest was this, that on the clayed portion there was a thick crop of 

 good colour up to the boundary, and even v/here a detached 

 heap of clay had been laid ; on the unclayed portion the crop v/as 

 thin, many of the plants having perished. An acre of each was 

 fairly selected and threshed separately. The unclayed acre 

 yielded 34i- bushels of barley, the clayed acre 46 bushels : so 

 that this lasting improvement of the soil was paid in the first year. 

 Where the dunghill had been, the barley ripened prematurely, 

 was of a dark-brown colour, and the seed was shrivelled. It is 

 commonly said by farmers on our burning land that the better a 

 field has been dressed in the previous winter the worse will the 

 barley be in a hot summer ; and I see that they are right. This 

 amounts to the remark of Mr. Handley, that dung will not benefit 

 land beyond a certain point — will produce not wheat, but straw. 

 It is, I believe, a fundamental principle of agriculture, that each 

 soil has a limit beyond which manure cannot force it, and the 

 principle should never be left out of sight. I would add another 

 rule. Strengthen the soil itself where you are able, and you raise 

 that limit permanently. Corn, especially wheat, requires solidity 

 in the soil. A principal cause of barrenness,''' as Mr. Rham has 

 shown us, is coarseness of its particles — I suppose because the 

 rootlets are not in contact with such soil. Marl, I believe, does 

 not act merely by its lime, but corrects this defect by interposing 

 finer particles in the soil. Clay certainly acts in this way. But 

 on this important subject I hope that our practical members 

 will send statements of their experience, and specimens for 

 examination. It is remarkable that, among the many analyses of 

 soils reported by Dr. Liebig, all the fine close sands are fertile, 

 and the coarse loose sands, with one exception only, are barren. 



But though clay may act which is not marl, and does not con- 

 tain lime, there is no doubt that the lime contained in marl is also 



'•= Mr. Rham on the Analysis of Soils.— Journal, vol. i. p. 47. 



