1835.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



I have been thus particular that I may be put 

 right, if I have taken a wrong view of the rotation. 

 Now, W. B. H. objects to the four-field rotation, 

 because only one-fourth is apportioned for his favo- 

 rite and more valuable crop, corn. How he can 

 reconcile this system to himself, when one-fifth 

 only comes in that crop, (and that not after clover) 

 I cannot imagine: lor the consequence must be 

 that his more profitable crop, corn, will be greatly 

 lessened in quantity. Again he objects to the ibur- 

 field system, because, says he, "is it not better to 

 improve in this way one-third than one-fourth of 

 the same farm'" with clover? Under this five-field 

 course there will only be one-fifth improved with 

 clover. And I would ask if it is not better to im- 

 prove with clover one-fourth than one-fifth'? No 

 one can doubt but that the field allotted to be gra- 

 zed will be cropped harder than any. My im- 

 pression is that it will be the greatest sufferer of 

 the five fields. The idea of appropriating one- 

 fifth annually of arable surface as a pasture, will 

 never do. The clover if sown on the pasture field 

 will soon be destroyed by the stock, for you must 

 commence on it, grazing belbreit can have gotten 

 much start in the spring in growing; and it is ea- 

 sily destroyed at that season, and if not seeded in 

 clover lands which are regularly cultivated, throw 

 up but little grass from which to nourish stock. 

 The advantage of a standing pasture is, that it 

 forms a sod of blue or other grasses, which is not 

 killed, but increased by being trod by stock; but 

 where you cultivate lands regularly, this sod is 

 destroyed, and therefore your fields will be left 

 bare and exposed the whole summer to the hoof 

 and the sun. But there are other objections 

 which are of too "formidable" a character to be 

 overlooked, and which I should imagine would 

 be serious ones with him, viz. that the field grazed 

 would come in corn the succeeding year, and con- 

 sequently that crop greatly shortened for the want 

 of the clover. There would not only be three 

 grain crops in succession, but what would be much 

 worse, there would be four, or what might be con- 

 sidered equivalent to it — and they may be counted 

 in this way. 1st. Wheat. 2nd. Grazing — 3rd. 

 Com — and 4th. Wheat. So that the two latter 

 crops will not have received any benefits from the 

 clover whatever: on the contrary will be preceded 

 by a bare crop, (for I know not what else to call 

 it.) This must be the case; for the usual number 

 of stock of all kinds kept on an estate, will leave 

 not a vestige of vegetable matter on one-fifih of a 

 farm, when it is kept under regular tillage, and 

 only remains out one year. It is true you will 

 have the stick weed, &c, which we had better be 

 without. Again; under this system you would 

 have less materials from which to make manure. 

 Also, you will have more fencing to keep up; as 

 your wheat fields must be divided from each other 

 occasionally. The fact stated by W. B. H of his 

 having to abandon it in consequence of its be- 

 coming too foul, is alone sufficient to condemn it 

 with me. I am opposed to these odd rotations — 

 for to me they appear odd, indeed. If I were to 

 cultivate lands which would not bear the four- 

 field and fallow system, (and I think there is but 

 little with us that will not) I should adopt the sys- 

 tem of Arator — and which is the system I spoke 

 of in allusion to Mr. Lewis. Or, i should adopt 

 the six-field until my land was in a condition to 

 pursue the more rigid and profitable one of four- 



field, and fallow: but none without a standing pas- 

 ture. If our lands lie out too long (which is an 

 objection to all fallow systems with us, except the 

 four-field,) they become too foul with blue grass, 

 &c. &c. Once in four years in a hoe crop is 

 almost indispensable, and therefore the five or six- 

 field systems will not answer. If W. B. H. ima- 

 gines that I recommended the four-field and fallow 

 system for "universal adoption," he is certainly 

 mistaken. I did so for our James River lands, 

 and now take pleasure not only in recommending 

 it to James River farmers, but for all farms which 

 can be made to produce clover — as it combines 

 the two desiderata of profit and improvement 

 in an eminent degree, above all others. 



In my allusion to the four-field and fallow sys- 

 tem having originated with Mr. James M. Selden 

 in Curle 1 s Neck, on James River, I was not aware 

 of its having been practised by any one but himself, 

 prior to the time referred to, but have since learnt, 

 from a conversation with him, that Mr. Harding 

 practised it about the same time, which he was 

 not then aware of at the time he commenced it. 

 Nor had he ever heard of its being practised by 

 any one else, until Major Heth brought Mr. Har- 

 ding down to Curie's with him, for the purpose of 

 obtaining his advice with regard to its manage- 

 ment, being then thought one of the best farmers 

 in the state. It was at this time Mr. J. M. Sel- 

 den first learnt that M r. Harding was pursuing the 

 same system with himself. And Mr. H. advised 

 it as the best system for Major H. at Carle's. He 

 (Mr. Harding) told Mr. J. M. S. that he was 

 practising it on an estate which he had purchased, 

 and which was in a very impoverished condition, 

 but under this system, expected in a short time to 

 resuscitate it. I believe there is not a question 

 about his having done so; whether he continued 

 it to his last, or not, I cannot say — but ever since 

 I can recollect, or took any interest in agriculture, 

 Mr. Harding has been held up as a model, and as 

 being the very best farmer in the state. Believe 

 me, sir, when I say that I did not intend to de- 

 prive Mr. Harding of one iota of his reputation as 

 the father of this system. No, none — on the con- 

 trary let me add to it, by calling it Harding's sys- 

 tem; and hope it will be handed down to posterity 

 as immortalizing his name. 



But before dismissing this subject, let me say a 

 word in support and justification of this system, 

 as practised by Mr. Harding at Dover. Mr. Har- 

 ding did not pursue the system there, with the in- 

 tention of improvement, having had it on lease; 

 and I will state a few facts, as I am credibly in- 

 formed, which should go to prove it. He had no 

 standing pasture; used none, or but little plaster; 

 sowed clover not with the view of improvement, 

 but for grazing — had a smaller force than was ne- 

 cessary for the cultivation of the estate — kept a 

 large head of cattle, and from them derived a 

 great portion of his profits. For I am told he 

 kept fifty or sixty milch cows, and from butter 

 alone sold from $'1000 to $1500 annually. Now, 

 is it expected, or could it be expected, that an es- 

 tate would improve under these circumstances'? I 

 wonder W. B. H. should not. have incmired more 

 particularly into the mode of its cultivation, and 

 the assistance given to it, before pronouncing con- 

 demnation upon the system. I have never yet 

 seen an estate under this system that has not im- 

 proved, where it has been fully carried out; and 



