338 



FARMER S' REGISTER. 



lf$o.6 



this year, 1838. Two hufshels were sown in Janu- 

 ary, and the balance in March, irom the 20th. It 

 is reaped and in sfaclis, and I do not believe that 

 I shall wet over 50 or 60 bushels of wheat from 

 the whole 17 seeded. It not only was attacked 

 by the rust, but had also scab or blast, and the 

 grain is so light that I am apprehensive that one- 

 third of it will be blown away by the fan. There 

 was a considerable difference in the growth ol'the 

 January from the March wheat. The January 

 growth was very fine, but the other so light and 

 indifferent, that the scythe, as it passed through 

 it, beat down a large proportion of if. I have se- 

 lected two parcels of the best of the growth of 

 each seeding, and herewith enclose them for your 

 inspection. I discover that the winter frosts killed 

 fully one-half of what 1 seeded, probably more. 

 The same ten acres would have yielded me this 

 year 150 or 200 bushels of the iall or winter-wheat, 

 (golden straw, such as we seed.) You can rea- 

 dily perceive the loss. I am done with it and all 

 ■other untried grains, at least so fiir as untried in 

 our climate. [ shall wait to see the experiment 

 made by others in my vicinity, so that I can " see 

 it, feel it, handle it." Should you ever come in 

 this part of our state again, it will afford me much 

 pleasure to see you ; not only as an old acquairit- 

 ance, but that you may set me to rights in some 

 of my odd notions. With sentiments of the high- 

 est respect, I remain yours, &c. 



P. S. I have made no corrections in this com- 

 munication, as it is for you alone. 



[The foregoing communication was signed by the 

 name of the writer, (and a very responsible name it 

 is) ; but the postscript placed us in doubt, whether to 

 be directed by its purport, and to suppose this letter, 

 (written, as it is, wholly on agricultural subjects of 

 public interest, and superscribed with our address, as 

 •"Editor of the Farmers' Register,") was intended 

 merely for our individual inspection and benefit — or, 

 judging from every thing but the postscript, that it was 

 designed as a communication to the Farmers' Register. 

 With considerable hesitation, because of our unwill- 

 ingness to place any correspondent in a position which 

 he does not desire to occupy, we have decided on a 

 middle course ; that is, to publish the letter, but sup- 

 press the signature, which we never presume to use, 

 without the writer's consent, expressed or implied. 



Our correspondent (like several others) has drawn 

 from our cautions against novelties which may (and 

 usually, in the end, do) prove to be humbugs, an in- 

 ference very different from our intention, and from the 

 expressed words, as well as the general context, of 

 our remarks. So far from advising to not try things 

 newly recommended as great improvements or proba- 

 ble benefits to agriculture, we urged then, as we would 

 now, the contrary. Every plausible suggestion of a 

 supposed or asserted improvement, or new source of 

 profit, should be submitted, fairly, to the test of expe- 

 riment. But, at first, merely of experiment, and on a 

 scale so small as not to cause much loss, in the very 

 probable event of disappointment. And in deciding 

 whether the recommendation of any new thing deserve 

 this respect, we should have due regard, not only to 

 thp apparent reasonableness of the recommendation, 



but also to the fact, whether the person recommending 

 is, or is not, a deeply interested salesman of the ar- 

 ticle in question. 



Further — we would pronounce it not only bad policy 

 for self-interest, but a failure in a moral obligation, for 

 a farmer to wait always for his neighbors to incur the 

 risk of failure in new experiments, and never to join 

 in bearing some share of the cost, until others had 

 borne that risk, and proved the benefit, by the visible 

 and tangible profits resulting. If all were to adopt 

 such a rule of conduct, (as is done, in fact, by the far 

 greater number,) then, indeed, all future agricultural 

 improvement would be hopeless. 



Our correspondent has also mistaken us as denoun- 

 cing the Maryland twin-corn as being inferior, in all 

 cases and situations. Not so, by any means. It may 

 well be, and doubtless is, (and so of any other variety,) 

 the most prolific, under some particidar circumstances. 

 But we meant to oppose the popular error — that this, or 

 any other supposed grain, can be most productive in 

 all, or in many different soils and climates ; and to de- 

 ny the truth of the principle of procuring more pro- 

 ductive kinds of grain, by the process of selecting for 

 seed the plants which bear the greatestnumber of ears, 

 or ears with the greatest number of grains, or of grains 

 of certain form and largest size, &c. 



As to spring-wheat, we have had but one opinion of 

 its valuesince the commencement of its culture in this 

 country ; and we cannot understand how an opposite 

 opinion could have been held by any person who had 

 read and attended to the European accounts of this 

 crop. This unfavorable opinion, so contrary to that 

 which has been disseminated so extensively in this 

 country, (for the profit of the northern tribe of Hatha- 

 ways,) has been frequently exposed in the Farmers' 

 Register; and if our correspondent had been prepaied 

 to profit by our advice, he would have avoided his 

 heavy loss, by borrowing and reading the numbers of 

 the Farmers' Register, some years earlier than he has 

 done. 



Of the two specimens of grain sent, that sown in 

 January, though small, is full and well made. The 

 grain from the March sowing is badly filled, and very 

 inferior in quality. And here an observation should be 

 made, which perhaps escaped our correspondent. It 

 is, that his partial success, in the early-sown crop, was 

 obtained by a wide deviation from the practice pro- 

 posed, and a total surrender of the advantage expected 

 from spring- wheat, to be found by sowing after winter 

 is over, and the danger of winter-killing passed. 

 Wheat sown in January, should, in fact, be considered 

 not as spring, but as ordinary or winter-wheat. Much 

 wheat, every season, (though without excuse,) is sown 

 in December, and often does not sprout sooner than it 

 would if sown a month later. But the difficulty, alone, 

 of sowing a crop of wheat in the usually severe wea- 

 ther of January, would be a sufficient objection to any 

 kind requiring such a time for sowing; which, howe- 

 ver, is not the case with any kind. 



Since writing the above, we have seen an extract 

 from a Staunton paper, which states that the trials of 

 spring-wheat, in that part of the country, have had 

 very favorable results ; and, thereupon, the more fuE 



