PASTURE CULTURE 25 



But notwithstanding the pasture improvement recommendations of the agri- 

 cultural leaders and the success achieved by some of the best farmers, pasture 

 improvement practices were never generally adopted. Secretary Flint reported 

 in 1853 that "In some places some real and positive improvement has been 

 made — in others no pains have been taken even to prevent deterioration. "*6 And 

 Secretary Russell, in a spirit of resignation, some years later reported that "These 

 pastures are the constant topic of agricultural discussion. 'How to improve the 

 fertility of our pasture,' is a standing question of clubs and inoiicutes, only an- 

 swered in theory."*^ 



Why Pasture Improvement Failed 



It would appear that one of the most important reasons for the failure of ail 

 attempts to prevent a general deterioration of pasture lands during the nine- 

 teenth century was the great scarcity of manures of all kinds. As has already been 

 pointed out, most of the available supply of barnyard manure was used on the 

 arable land to maintain satisfactory- yields of tilled crops. Since most of this 

 manure was made on the individual farms by feeding the grass crop of the farm 

 to livestock, it was obvious that enough manure could not be made available 

 to supply both the grass and the cultivated crops. The farming system was one 

 of a slow transfer of the fertility of the grassland over to the tilled land. Until 

 some outside source of fertility could be tapped either to maintain the fertility 

 of the grasslands or to provide the fertility for the tilled lands, a gradual de- 

 terioration of the grasslands was inevitable. To a limited extent outside sources 

 of fertility did exist, but the supplies were limited and the materials were usually 

 expensive. Wood ashes, gypsum, guano, bone meal, muck, composts, and various 

 mill wastes were all used, but the quantity of plant food material which either 

 was available or could be profitably used was wholly inadequate to meet the 

 needs. 



Another important factor was the existence of large areas of cheap grasslands. 

 Farmers discovered that it was much cheaper to clear or buy and exploit new 

 lands than it was to renovate old land. Land was relatively abundant and 

 values were low. For example, in 1865 pasture lands could be bought for as low 

 as two dollars an acre, and seldom was the price more than twenty-five dollars 

 per acre.^^ Together with cheapness of the land were low standards of productivity 

 for both land and livestock. In 1841, a pasture of thirty acres which would keep 

 twelve cattle was considered an "excellent" pasture.*' A cow which produced 

 two or three thousand pounds of milk in a year was a satisfactory producer. 

 These standards of production are less than half present-da^^ standards. 



Still another important consideration was the widespread belief among farmers 

 that, since pastures would produce something even on poor lands and would also 

 withstand a great deal of abuse in their management, this, then, was the most 

 profitable way to handle them. F. H. Storer wrote that "one fundamental con- 

 ception in the mind of many New England farmers is, that the land devoted to 

 pasturage upon any given farm should either be poor land or rocky land or land 

 so inaccessible that it could hardly be used for any other purpose. . . . "^ 

 Unfortunately this conception has continued in the minds of many farmers all 

 o\"er the country' down to the present day. 



A final factor which undoubtedly played some role in earlier as well as in recent 



^^Mass. State Bd. Agric. 1st Annual Report (1853), Pt. I, p. 70. 



''■'Ibid., 29th Annual Report (1881), Pt. I, p. 17. 



^^Ibid.. 13th Annual Report (1865). Pt. I. p. 122. 



^^Agriculture of Massachusetts. 4th Report (1841), p. 79. 



'"Agriculture in Some of Its Relations with Chemistry (7th ed.. New York, 1910), III, 593. 



