302 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



was only when particular circumstances made it 

 eeem necessary and proper, that euch editorial 

 comments and objections were made — and then 

 to no greater extent that was deemed requisite. 

 But, independent of offering opinions thus par- 

 ticularly applied, there certainly has been no lack 

 in the Farmers' Register of the expression ofour 

 own views, on every disputed and important 

 question on which we supposed it in our power 

 to throw light. And among such questions, there 

 is scarcely one on which our opinions have been 

 more frequently and decidedly given, than in 

 favor of the propriety and necessity of changes 

 and rotations of crops on proper principles. There- 

 fore, as well as on the more general grounds 

 above stated, it was not deemed necessary to 

 reply editorially, to what we certainly deemed the 

 " heterodox" doctrines of Mr, Turner, in opposi- 

 te the necessity of changes in the succession of 

 crops. Moreover, we had no doubt that some other 

 would come forward, to oppose the views of IVI r. 

 Turner on this head, as Mr, Peyton has done, 

 whose experience and ability would leave nothing 

 to regret, because of our silence. 



There was another reason for our being silent 

 in this particular case, Mr, Turner came into the 

 lists like a knightchallengerof ancient times, slow- 

 ly and sluggishly indeed as Le Noir Faineant, 

 but also like him armed cap-a-pie, and seeming 

 even to court the blows of opponents. His de- 

 iSance was universal, and his ready lance seemed to 

 threaten every quarter. Believing that he could 

 not fail to arouse plenty o( opponents on various 

 grounds of contest, we were therefore the more 

 .willing to keep out of the melee j and more es- 

 pecially as being already engaged to oppose him 

 upon one particular ground of controversy which 

 could not be avoided, and in which we had en- 

 deavored to maintain our ground just before re- 

 ceiving Mr. Peyton'tj implied rebuke for our 

 backwardness in the present question. . 



Howevc, having been now thus called on to 

 speak, we will add a kw views on a different 

 ground from that which Mr. Peyton has taken. 

 He has occupied, and maintained well, (though 

 we could not sustain him in every position,) the 

 theoretical and scientific argument for rotations 

 of crops. We will merely advert to a few de- 

 tached facts, and matters of practice, without 

 regard to theory, or to scientific reasoning, 



Mr, Turner has quoted, as proof to sustain his 

 opinions, the facts reported to him by several per- 

 sona, that they had cultivated some one or 

 other particular crop for several or many years 

 in continued succession on the same ground, 



without deterioration of product, or only euch 

 deterioration as was caused by the decrease of 

 fertility, caused by such exhausting tillage. The 

 fact that any person had persevered in so inju- 

 dicious a course lor any length of time, and with- 

 out learning his error from experience, would 

 show iiim to be so injudicious a farmer as would 

 alone bring his testimony into doubt. We are 

 very sure that Mr, Turner will never have euch 

 proofs to ofl'er from his own practice. But admit 

 all the facts alleged by his informants of their 

 success, and what do they amount to? Why, 

 merely that, as in thousands of other cases, par- 

 ticular facts have contradicted, or have appeared 

 to form exceptions to general rules. And if such 

 apparent exceptions are to be admitted as serving 

 to discredit general rules, then there is no one rule 

 of good farming that cannot be so opposed, and 

 its utility or necessity put down by the authority 

 of facts. We have heard of cases as well esta- 

 blished by testimony as those stated by Mr. Tur- 

 ner, which, if deemed conclusive, would as clearly 

 prove that manuring land did no good to the crop — 

 that purchasing and applying rich town manures 

 brought the neighboring fiarmer to loss — that 

 marling was injurious to land, &c. In short, there 

 is scarcely any one agricultural opinion, however 

 false and even ridiculous, that has not been sus- 

 tained by one or more facts alleged by honest and 

 veracious though certainly mistaken witnesses. 

 And these particular exceptions referred to by 

 Mr. Turner, however apparently successful and 

 profitable, have never been considerable enough, 

 or long enough continued, to cause any general 

 practice to be founded on their example. No 

 farmer, good or bad, has adopted, as a system of 

 cultivation, the continuing the same crop on the 

 same ground every year. There are many diffe- 

 rent rotations of crops pursued in Virginia, some 

 lew of which are good, or established on sound 

 principles, and very many are decidedly bad and 

 very objectionable. But, whether the rotation 

 be right or wrong, every cultivator aims at some 

 rotation, or change of crops, instead of continuing 

 one alone in perpetual succession on the same 

 ground. But universally as is rotation thus ap- 

 proved by practical cultivators, perhaps such tes- 

 timony may be objected to, (as might many other 

 general practices,) become of the ignorance of 

 most practical cultivators, and the theoretical and 

 visionary views of the more learned. Therefore, 

 we are content to put aside all such authority, and 

 to abide by the practice and experience of only 

 one intelligent, observant, practical and successlul 

 farmer ; and the credibility of that witness shall 



