26 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 1. 



teemed with life, luxuriance antf comfort. But, 

 alas! this was but the day-dream of a too san- 

 guine imagination! A sad reality, in bitter mock- 

 ery, every where meets the eye. 



Among the advocates of the three-field rota- 

 tion, I regret to find my friend and neighbor, 

 Wm. H. -Hoy, Esq., a gentleman whose sound 

 and practical views, on all subjects, and whose 

 success as a farmer, justly entitle his opinions to 

 much weight and deference. I cannot better 

 effect the object of this communication, than by 

 glancing at a few of the arguments urged by him, 

 in the article above referred to. 



The first position assumed is, "that ours is not 

 a wheat growing country;" and the inference 

 thence deduced, that Indian corn should be our 

 primary crop. When the major proposition is 

 established, I will admit the minor. But by what 

 process of reasoning docs he arrive at this con- 

 clusion? By "observation, and the experience of 

 years, which have convinced him, that the wheat 

 crop is precarious, and subject to numerous casu- 

 alties, which no skill or industry can remedy." 

 Let us not, however, take the fact, without inves- 

 tigating the cause. He proceeds, "it not unfre- 

 quently happens in the spring, when the wheat is 

 in bloom and promises an abundant yield, that the 

 hopes of the farmer are blasted by an easterly 

 storm. Indian corn is the only crop on which he 

 can with safety rely." Would it be right then, 

 he asks, "to adopt a system which would render 

 wheat our primary crop?" Would it be right, (if 

 I may be permitted to answer this question by 

 asking another,) to persist in a system, which 

 yearafter year, but mocks us with disappointment? 

 1 do not maintain that ours is a wheat growing 

 country — nor, consequently, that wheat should be 

 made our primary crop. But I do maintain, that 

 the converse has not been established — that our 

 entire system is opposed to its success — that its 

 cultivation should either be abandoned, or that, to 

 the extent cultivated, recourse should be had to 

 some more ameliorating system, and that the very 

 admission of the fact or "uncertainty," is the 

 strongest possible argument in support of this. 

 Nor is the conclusion drawn from our want of 

 success, a legitimate one. By parity of reasoning 

 it might be shown, that James River, and other 

 sections of country, (for there this system has been 

 repeatedly tried, and with no better success,) were 

 not wheat growing regions. Can it then be ex- 

 pected, that a system which lias entirely failed in 

 a location naturally adapted, both by soil and cli- 

 mate, to the production of wheat, should not fail in 

 one acknowledged to be defective in both? And 

 does not the fact of its "being uncertain and sub- 

 ject to numerous casualties," give it an additional 

 claim to the fostering care of the most judicious 

 and approved cultivation? But it is "by the eas- 

 terly storms that the hopes of our farmers are so 

 frequently blasted." Here we join issue — now I 

 do not imagine, that clover fallow is to afford an 

 effectual protection against this evil; but I do sup- 

 pose, that it would go very far in counteracting its 

 effects. I take it for granted, that whatever con- 

 tributes most to the health and strength of a plant, 

 contributes at the same lime most to the proba- 

 bilities of its success. No one I suppose would 

 hesitate to admit, that a healthy and vigorous 

 crop is, in the first place, much less liable to dis- 

 ease of any kind, than a feeble half starved one; 



and that if attacked, it would successfully resist 

 disasters, to which the latter would fall a ready 

 victim. As well might we compare the ability of 

 the nursed up invalid to resist the winter's blast, 

 with that of the hardy nursling of the storm. 



"I will concede," says the writer, "that land 

 will improve faster under the four-field system, 

 &c." An important concession, truly — involv- 

 ing, I conceive, the whole matter in controversy. 

 Land constitutes the principal capital, and its im- 

 provement I had supposed the principal object of 

 every farmer. To this end are all our efforts di- 

 rected, and by its subserviency to this purpose, do 

 we pronounce upon the value of every system. 

 Of what importance are a few abundant crops, 

 provided they leave us in return, an impoverished 

 and worn out soil? Let us but make our land rich 

 — adopt that system as the best which most readily 

 effects it, and we may then cultivate as either 

 taste, interest, or pleasure dictates. 



"Indian ccm," again proceeds our author, "is 

 the only crop on which w r e can with safety rely. 

 In a country not well adapted to hay, it furnishes 

 us with the means of supporting stock, and of 

 manuring extensively." I admit the justice of 

 the eulogium, and have certainly no disposition to 

 quarrel with our best friend. With us it does indeed 

 constitute the staff of life. It is with the system 

 alone that I am at war; and to that I cannot con- 

 cede the superiority claimed. That loss in the 

 corn crop will be sustained for a year or two, is 

 probable; but that as soon as in full operation, and 

 the effects of the system are fully left, that that 

 loss will be more than compensated, and that one- 

 fourth of the same farm, will produce as much as 

 one-third had previously done, there can be but 

 little question. Upon this hypothesis, (and it is 

 one which may be sustained by a reference to the 

 actual results of farms under the two different 

 systems,) no diminution of the corn crop being sus- 

 tained, it follows of course, that there can be no 

 diminution of material, either for manure, or the 

 support of stock. On the contrary, from the in- 

 crease, (say the three-fold production of the wheat 

 crop) the material for both purposes is greatly 

 augmented, in the articles of wheat straw, clover 

 hay, pasturage, &c; and these, together with the 

 increase of product, may be struck, as a fair bal- 

 ance, in favor of the fallow system. It is thus 

 under this system that wheat becomes the pri- 

 mary crop, not by any actual diminution of the 

 corn crop, but by the increased production of the 

 former; and surely to its priority on such terms, 

 none of us can object. 



"But," says the writer under consideration, 

 "after all. facts afford the best, arguments." "I 

 have noticed with minuteness and attention, the 

 experiments of several of my neighbors, and will 

 give you the results. One divided his farm into 

 four-fields, and cultivated them successively in 

 corn. His land, judging from the growth of ve- 

 getable matter, evidently improved — yet, his corn 

 crops declined, and his wheat crops were generally 

 destroyed by insects. He was compelled to return 

 to the three-field system." The instance here re- 

 ferred to, affords a fair specimen, and the results 

 a fair commentary on the four-field system, as pur- 

 sued among us, I beg leave to state, that it was 

 not the four-field fallow system now in vogue, 

 as known and practised on James River and else- 

 where, but that introduced by the late Col. John 



