FARMERS" REGISTER— ON THE ROTATION OF CROPS. 



465 



Another objection of importance, is, that the 

 corn crop is not sulficient to cmjjloy, advantage- 

 ously, all the hands necessary in j)reparing ibr 

 s.-eding and .secunng such an undue proporlion of 

 wheat— or, in other words, the labor to be per- 

 formed is overu-hclniingly accumulated at one or 

 two seasons, instead of being pro;,prly distributed 

 throughout the year, which should be the constant 

 aim of every farmer. 



It is worthy of consideration too, that an income 

 depending on two crops will, for obvious reasons, 

 fluctuate less than one derived from a single croj;; 

 ibr I take it for granted, that this system will give 

 little or no corn tor sale, as more will be consumed 

 and less made, than under the three-field course. 

 So fleeting too, is the nature of money, especially 

 in my hands, that I had rather have an income 

 coming in at two periods of the year than all at 

 once: with more prudent persons, however, this 

 would be immaterial. 



There is another objection that seems to me to 

 be entitled to so much weight, as of itself almost 

 to condemn this system, viz: that the succession 

 of three grain crops is opposed to the universal 

 practice and experience of all good cultivators of I 

 the soil, as well at the North, as in Great Britain, j 

 In England, it is very rare that even two white 

 (or grain) crops follow in succession. Of a great 

 number of rotations. I observe but one in which 

 the practice is introduced, except in the neighbor- 

 hood of towns, where manure can be obtained at 

 will. This objection too, is strongly fortified by 

 the acknowledged fact, that the second crop of 

 v.'heat in the rotation hardly ever exceeds one- 

 half of the product of the falknved field per a.'re. 



All the comparisons between this and the three- 

 field system that I have seen, an; based on the 

 Bupposition that clover must be abandoned under 

 that system, or if sown, be depastured. Cannot 

 a standing pasture (which, b)^ the by, is necessary 



subjecting one field each year to the hoof; and as 

 at least one-fifth of the farm would be required 

 Ibr a standing pastnre, there would still be the 

 same surlixce in cultivation, and the worst fiiature 

 in the new system, the three successive grain 

 crops, would be avoided. Yet a small pasture, 

 even upon tfiis plan, would be ibund to be of great 

 advantage, particularly in wet weather. 



On thin lands I know of no system comparable 

 to that recommended by Orator; on better lands, 

 where fallowing is not desirable, I sjiould prefer 

 the three-field course; where the fallow system is 

 to be pursued, I should general!}' j)ieier five-fields, 

 and under cerlain circumstances, I should adopt 

 the new system — but certainly, in no case where 

 the clover husbandry would not succeed without 

 tlie fear of failure. I am, indeed, now tr3'ing it on 

 a fiirm that has been under the five-field system 

 lor ten years, and has become somewhat fbul from 

 that cause, and from having been but very moderate- 

 ly grazed; but it is my intention to continue it only 

 lor a single round of crop-s, and then cultivate it as 

 heretofore, in five-fields. There is, besides, at- 

 tached to this liirm, a light field, which is exclu- 

 sively devoted to corn, and I am thereby furnished 

 with a sutTicient lioe crop — the vv^ant of v/hich is 

 one great objection with me to the new system. 



Perhaps it may be thought, by the admission 

 that my lands have beco.^le fbuf under the five- 

 field course, that I have fiarnished an argument 

 against it; but it matters not, as 1 am in quest of 

 the best system, and not an especial advocate of 

 an}-. Besides, it is more than doubtf iil, whether 

 there is any fiillow system not liable to the same 

 objection in a greater or less degree. 



After all, much more will be lound to depend on 

 good general management, than on any rotation of 

 crops whatever. It was long ago remarked of go- 

 vernments, that "that whicli is best administered, 

 is best;" and certainly, however open to discussion 



on every fltrm where improvement is aimed at,) j that proposition may be, it may yet be affirmed, 

 be combined with this system as well as any other.^ j vvithout the fear of contradiction, that the most 

 And if so, and if a heavy crop of clover be equal j profitable system of agriculture will always be 

 10 either one or two manurings, (both of which | Ibund to be that which is best executed, 

 opinions have been maintained^) I would ask, if it This system, I understand, v.-as practised f 



is not better to improve in this way one-third than 

 one-fourth of the same farm.^ It can hardly be 

 contended that the clover would be less heavy 

 afier two, than after three grain crops. If this 

 could be satisfactorily established, I should really 

 think that a great discovery had been made in 

 agriculture. 



It is not fair to presume, because under this _ „ , 



system the last crop of v.-heat in the rotation j in regard to the condition of the estate at the time 



at 

 Dover in Goochland, long belbre it was tried in 

 Curl's Neck, by a Mr. Harding, who then leased 

 the estate. The gentleman who succeeded him, 

 infbrms me that he found it in a very impoverished 

 condition, though it is admitted that Mr. Harding 

 was a capital manager. Now, from the we.l 

 known f(?rtility of that estate, and from Mr. Hard- 

 ing's skill in agriculture, and trom the liict stated 



hardly ever exceeds one-half the product of the 

 fallowed field, that the crop of wheat all cr corn, 

 as a first crop, would be equallj' short. My own 

 experience is decidedly opposed to such a conclu- 

 sion. I have never found such, or anything like 

 such a difl'erence between the product of fallowed 

 and corn land; and the reason is obvious enough, 

 viz: because the land had been exhausted by only 

 one previous crop, instead of two. Still it is not 

 to be doubted, from the success of several gentle- 

 men who have tried it, that there are some situa- 

 tions peculiarl}' fi.ivorab!e to the adoption of this 

 system, from their great natural iertilily, and from 

 the ad\'an!ages they possess for grazing, witiioat 

 having recourse to the fields. When a part of 

 the arable land is to be cut ofl' for a standing jj^as- 

 ture, I should m\ self gi-eatly prefer five fields, 



he left it, it is very difficult to escape the conclu- 

 sion, that it is quite an exhausting course. It 

 must not be fbrgotten, however, that iSir. H. held 

 it on lease, and no doubt less attention was paid to 

 improvement, than il" he had been the jjroprictor. 



Before taking leave of the subject, I have only 

 further to say, that this seems to me to be fully as 

 much a two as o. four-fidd system, for it is in- 

 disputably compounded of both; and perhaps it 

 h[id better be called so, for though quite an easy 

 two-field course, it is certainly a very hard fbur- 

 fiekl system. 



The Ibregoing remarks are submitted rather in 

 the hope of eliciting light fiom others, than under 

 the expectation ofthrowing much on the subject 

 mysell ; being fully aware, as well on account of 

 my limited experience, as for other reasons, that it 



