THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



301 



thrive in pure humus. The word Certility, as used 

 by Mr, Turner, is much more comprehensive. 

 Liebig states that, in many parte of Brazil, where 

 the soil is particularly rich in humus, wheat will 

 not thrive, and in many parts of Europe, where 

 they have formed soils of mouldered wood, [pure 

 humus,] it has been attended with the same re- 

 sult. The stalks attain no strength, and droop 

 prematurely. The cause assigned is, that the 

 strength ol the stalk is due to silicate of potash, 

 and that the grain requires phosphate of magne- 

 sia, neither of which substances a soil of humus 

 can afford. Liebig adds that wheat will not flou- 

 rish on a sandy soil or a pure calcareous soil, (c. g., 

 the bald, calcareous prairies of Alabama,) unless 

 it be mixed with a considerable quantity of clay. 

 These soils are deficient in the alkalies, which 

 are indispensable constituents of wheat, while 

 potash and soda are universally present in clay. 



But Professor Dana says, " if we can induce 

 the state of geine best fitted for each plant, then 

 we may bid adieu to the doctrine of the necessity 

 of a rotation of crops. This may be true, but the 

 very condition on which it is made to depend de- 

 stroys its applicability, as used by Mr. Turner. 

 " If we can induce the state of geine,'''' &c., is the 

 language of the author. But how induce it? 

 Geine or humus, or to be more specific, the de- 

 composed organic matter of the soil can only be 

 brought to the slate necessary to give vigor to the 

 growth of plants indiscriminately by the presence 

 ol alkalies. Humus is not soluble in any useful 

 degree in water, requiring as it does two thousand 

 five hundred parts of water for one of humus, 

 while it is readily soluble in alkalies. If then you 

 can always have the requisite supply of alkalies 

 present, you at once induce that stale of geine so 

 much desired by Prof. Dana. But can any prac- 

 tical mode be devised of effecting this, other than 

 a judicious rotation of crops, which will feed suc- 

 cessively on the diflferent constituents of the soil, 

 and give to the great laboratory of nature time to 

 restore what has been taken away? 



But Mr. Turner, feeling probably the weakness 

 of his argument, and the inconclusiveness of his 

 authority, endeavors to sustain himself by a few 

 isolated facts. It seems to me, however, that little 

 weight should be given to these ((iw straggling 

 examples, (^"rari nantes in gurgite vasto,'''') which 

 his industry has picked up over our extended coun- 

 try, against the proofs o( philosophical investiga- 

 tion, and the almost unanimous testimony of en- 

 hghtened farmers in every quarter of the world. 

 It is an old adage " that a single swallow does 

 not make a summer," and my Lord Coke says, 

 that exceptions to a general rule, instead of weak- 

 ening, prove it. The most striking example relied 

 upon by Mr. Turner is that recorded by Mr. Col- 

 man, the Massachusetts commissioner, who says, 

 that he saw a rich alluvion field on the Connecti- 

 cut river, the proprietor of whtch told him that 

 without any manure it had continued to produce 

 good crops of wheat for thirty years in succession. 

 This you will observe is a piece of intervale land 

 on the borders of a stream whose low grounds are 

 of remarkable fertility, and whose inundations an- 

 nually, or at intervals of several years, may have 

 deposited new soil, and thus maintained its capa- 

 city to produce the same crop. The Nile, the 

 Po of Italy, and many of the principal rivers of 

 France, have long been employed as fertilizers of 



their low lands, and wherever they have been 

 able to irrigate them, they exhibit the same capa- 

 city for production with the example cited by Mr. 

 Colman. The most important alkalies always 

 abound in such lands. The overflowing waters, 

 too, hold oxygen in solution, and are thus enabled 

 to act promptly and effectually in producing the 

 putrelaction of the excrementitious matters con- 

 tained in the soil. But, Mr. Editor, I did not 

 take up my pen with the view of discussing this 

 question with so skiKiil an antagonist as Mr. 

 Turner, but merely to draw your attention to the 

 subject, that you may enter the lists, and allow me 

 to retire. This letter has insensibly grown to so 

 inordinate a length, and so contrary to my inten- 

 tions, that I feel that I almost owe you an apology 

 for troubling you with it. When I had once em- 

 barked I found all my efforts to regain the shore 

 fruitless, until the present moment. 



Yours resi^ectfully, 



Wm. M. Peyton. 



P. S. Allow me to add by way of postscript. 

 In the same number of your Register, containing 

 the article commented on, I observe, in a very 

 sensible essay addressed to the Board of Agricul- 

 culture, by Mr. Noel of Essex, an allusion to a 

 universally conceded fact, which is in confirmation 

 of what I have written, and of course in conflict 

 with the theory of Mr. Turner, viz.: that a new 

 peach orchard will not flourish on the site of an 

 old one. He says, in his absence the holes which 

 he had dug for an orchard were filled with the rich 

 dirt taken from the sites of the decayed trees of an 

 old one; and he seems to have viewed it as so 

 palpable a blunder, that he goes out of his way to 

 exculpate himself from any agency in it. 1 will 

 here add, that I hope Mr. Turner will appreciate 

 the frank spirit in which these strictures are made, 

 when I add that I have read his agricultural es- 

 says with pleasure and profit, and that I hope he 

 will continue to shed his light among his brethren. 



W. M. P. 



Editorial remarks. 



We had supposed that, to so long continued 

 and attentive a reader of the Farmers' Register 

 as Mr. Peyton has been, it could not have been 

 a matter of doubt whether our silence, or omitting 

 to deijy or object to the opinions of correspondents, 

 implied assent and confirmation. We have had 

 frequently to reply to the like question ; and have 

 always answered that our correspondents were 

 Iree to present their opinions, however different 

 from our own ; and that we neither deemed it 

 incumbent on us, or requisite, or even proper and 

 justifiable, to offer editorial comments and objec- 

 tions to every opinion or statement in which we 

 did not concur. If such had been our duty and 

 usage, perhaps such comments and protests would 

 have amounted in bulk to half the size of the ar- 

 ticles commented on ; and, after all, our opinions 

 would have been worth no more than those which 

 very many or all other observant agriculturists 



