166 



FARMERS REGISTER 



[No. 3 



teen pounds to the acre. But English writers 

 have Told. us of sixijMons to the acre. We be- 

 lieve that it requires a richer soil than ruta baga, 

 and more of a clavcy loam. Ilorrs are very ibnd 

 of them. We saw Mr. Haines of Hallovvell feed- 

 ing his swine wiih I lieni last full, raw, and the 

 manner in wjiich ihey took hold of them, and the 

 ■ good condiiion which they exhibited convinced us 

 That they were very profitable and nutritious to 

 them. See his communication in the last nuriiber 

 of the Maine Farmer. The more we see and learn 

 of the value ol' the several, root-crops in Maine, 

 the more convinced are we that it is the true poli- 

 cy of our Itirmers to cultivate them extensively ; 

 and we hojie that many vvho never have yet 

 paid particular attention lo this business, will be- 

 ilin this year. Manure high and plant close, and 

 we will insure you a good and a profitable crop.. 



In reply to yaur inquiries of tlic oats sown by 

 me,, and quaniiiy produced per acre, I take much 

 pleasure in inlbrming you. that in the year 1837, 

 I sowed 10^ acres in what is generally called the 

 Poland oats, and the produce" was 650^ bushels 

 well cleaned merchantable oats, and a small quan- 

 tity unmeasured, say 15 bushels light, that would 

 answer all the purposes for feed to my stock — I 

 am under the impression the yield would have 

 been larger had not they fallen about the time 

 they were maturing. 



In 1838, I sowed 13 acres of the same oats, the 

 produce 715 bushels. The mode of cultivation 

 was, to plough the ground deep in the preceding 

 autumn, and again in the spring, after it had been 

 well harrowed ; I am under the impression the 

 above is the general mode of cultivation, but of 

 that I am unable to form a correct opinion, having 

 never sown oats on my farm until theyear 1837. 



A Subscriber. 



From tilt; Farmer and Gardener. 

 INEFFICACY OF OYSTER-SHELL- LIME. 



January 25i/t, 1839. 

 Dear sir — Having expressed an opinion unfa- 

 vorable to the oyster-shcU-lime. as a manure, 

 which appeared to not coincide with yours, I will 

 proceed to state my reasons for this (it may be) 

 singular opinion. 



In the year 1832, I burnt about 2O00 bushels, 

 from which 1 made a compost, one-half at least of 

 which was compared of rich earth collected from 

 ience rows, which had remained mellowing and 

 enriching iiself f(>r at least twenty years. In the 

 autumn of the same year, I applied the composi 

 twoadcast on my wheat ground, and ploughed it 

 in with the wheat. The result was exceedingly 

 favorable, which I then attributed to the effects of 

 the lime. I have since been convinced, it was 

 partly the rich earth before mentioned, (as a large 

 proportion of the compost,) and of deep ploughing. 

 In the early part of the year 1834, I burnt about 

 4000 bushels, and spread it on a field of 24 acres, 

 tiiat had been ploughed in the preceding autumn, 

 la the spring it was harrowed with a heavy three- 

 tiorse harrow, and cultivated twice previous to 

 putting it in corn. The corn was carefully culti- 

 vated, and in the month of August sown in timo- 

 thy. There has been no benefit perceived from 

 ihe application in either the crop of corn or timothy. 

 In May, 1837, I gave the oyster-shell-lime a 

 enore distmct trial. In part of the field I spread 

 en a clover-lay 200 bushels barilla-ashes per acre ; 

 on the otlier part oi^ the same field, and all the 

 Jand equally good, was spread 100 bushels oys- 

 ter-shell-lime per acre. The whole was ploughed 

 in early in June, when the clover was in blossom. 

 The field was ploughed three times previous to 

 sowing the wheat. The result was, the wheat 

 on the ground ashed, yielded an abundant crop, 

 and that on the ground limed, scarcely paid the 

 expense of cultivation. In several other p-arts of 

 my farm, I have applied the oyster-shell-lime ex- 

 tensively, and have in no instance experienced 

 a«y beneficial result. 



One of our very intelligent Maryland farmers 

 assuied me he always doubted its efhcacy, and 

 had paid particular attention to its results for the 

 last fifteen years, and in no case has he discover- 

 ed any benefit from the application of the oyster- 

 shell-lime. 



IMPROVING -LAND BY LIBIING. 



To tlie Editor of the Fanners' Register. 



The communication in the inclosed number ol 

 the "Farmer and Gardener, [inserted above,] on 

 the inefiicacy of shelL-lime, seems to require some 

 notice. Su^'h an article, emanating, as it seems, 

 tiom a pracvical farmer, and referring to numerous 

 experiments to prove the utter worlhlessness of. 

 what has heretofore been regarded as "the basis 

 of good husbandry," is well calculated to encour- 

 age the indolence and incredulity that have so 

 long retarded theprogress of agricultural improve- 

 ment in our country. Having read, reflected, and 

 observed a good deal on the subject, we beg leave 

 respectfullyto express our dissent from the views 

 of the writer; and in the course of the following 

 observations, theoretical and practical, shall ap- 

 peal to science, authority, and experience, in sup- 

 port of an opposite conclusion. 



The objections of the writer seem to be confined 

 lo shell-lane ; and the first inquiry that suggests 

 itself is, whether chemically considered, there be 

 any difi'erence between this and stone-lime? And 

 if not, whether there be any virtue as a fertilizing 

 agent in the one which the other does not possess? 



"chemists inform us that pure or quick-lime is 

 the oxide of calcium, and is obtained by exposing 

 carbonate of lime to a heat, by which the carbo- 

 nic acid is expelled, and the pure or quick-lime re- 

 mains. The true calcareous element, carbonate 

 of lime, is uniformly the same, in nature, proper- 

 ties and efiects ; and chemically considered, lime 

 is the same, but in a less or greater degree of pu- 

 rity, whether obtained by burning common lime- 

 stone, oyster-shells, or the pure carborate of lime, 

 such as Iceland spar, or Carrara marble. Many 

 lime-stones are exceedingly impure, some of them 

 containing as much as 10 per cent, of magnesia 

 and other impurities, either inert or hurtful to ve- 

 getation. Oyster-shells, on the contrary, consist 

 almost entirely of corbonate of lime and animal 

 matter; which animal matter is expelled by cal- 

 cination, and if it were not, could not be injurious 

 to veo-etation. Upon principle, therefore, there 

 can be no reason assigned why shell-lime should 

 not be as beneficial in agriculture as that procured 

 from the stone. 



We do not know how we can better enforce our 

 theoretical views on this subject than by citing the 



