THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



Vol. III. 



MAY, 1835. 



No. 1. 



EDMUND RUFFIPT, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. 



DEFENCE OF THE FOUR-SHIFT ROTATION, IN 

 ANSWER TO W. B. II. 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



Westover, March \0th, 1835. 



It has been my intention for some time past, 

 to answer the objections to the four-field and fal- 

 low system, set forth in a communication under 

 the signature of W. B. H., in your January No.; 

 but have been prevented from doing so, at an 

 earlier period, from obstacles not altogether within 

 my control. I am prompted to such a course, 

 not for the mere sake of writing, (for there is 

 nothing that I abominate more) but in vindication 

 of practical opinions, advanced by myself in a 

 former essay — viz. the recommendation and jus- 

 tification of the four-field and fallow system. I 

 will not feign ignorance of the author of the com- 

 munication alluded to; no, I feel a pride in ac- 

 knowledging that it has sprung from so high a 

 source: tor it could not have originated from one 

 that I more highly respect and esteem, and whose 

 opinions would command more consideration — 

 and an admonition of my imprudence, in recom- 

 mending any particular system, comes with mighty 

 force from that respected writer. But he must 

 pardon me for entertaining such confidence in my 

 agricultural opinions, as have resulted from ex- 

 perience; and which have been countenanced and 

 approved by better heads than mine. The ob- 

 jections and arguments of my friend seem plausi- 

 ble enough, and if not properly considered, tested, 

 and refuted, must consign to oblivion all that I 

 have before said in vindication of the system I 

 have recommended to the public. My object in 

 the present essay, therefore, is to refute, as far as 

 it is in my power, the objections which have been 

 urged, and to place the system, if I can, upon 

 stronger grounds, by yet stronger testimony in its 

 favor. 



But before entering upon the main subject of 

 this essay, let me express my entire concurrence 

 with W. B. H. in the opinions he has expressed, 

 with regard to the four-field system of Arator. 

 Yes, and let me go a step farther, and say, that if 

 the theory and practice of that great agriculturist 

 and public benefactor had been persisted in, and 

 not received the frowns of prejudiced men, Vir- 

 ginia would long ago have been aroused and re- 

 suscitated from her impoverished condition, and 

 would now be ready to adopt the more rigid and 

 profitable system of three successive grain crops 

 in four years. There is a tendency in human 

 nature to mar and throw a shade over the enter- 

 prising and laudable intentions of some. Perhaps 

 this is a frailty inherent in us. But at the same 

 time that I agree with him in justifying the sys- 

 tem of Arator, I must express my astonishment 

 at his concurrence with that highly intelligent 

 gentleman, Mr. John Wickham, in condemning 

 the adoption, more generally, of the four-field and 

 fallow system. Yes, a system which I under- 

 stand one or both have adopted, and are now 

 practising. It does not appear either generous or 



Vol. Ill— 1 



consistent, for a farmer to denounce to others, a 

 system which he pursues with perseverance and 

 profit. Can it be that my learned friend design- 

 edly acts against his own precepts? Video melwra 

 probaque, deteriora sequur. It may be said that 

 this system has been tried, and that it will not do. 

 Let me tell W. B. H. that he has plucked it in 

 its bud, before it has unfurled itself lor him to reap 

 its full benefit. It is condemned before it has had 

 a fair trial, or one round of crops. I would ask, 

 has it not paid him well ? Has it not cleared his 

 land of all pests, and improved its fertility? And 

 is not his farm in a better state to afford him both 

 pleasure and profit than before he commenced it? 

 I must be vastly mistaken if it is not; and can 

 assure him, that it will carry with it both profit 

 and improvement as its rotation rolls around. 



As I am furnished with no written data, by 

 those who pursue the three-field course, (which 

 seems to me to be rather unkind,) I shall be go- 

 verned in the comparisons I may make, by my 

 own observations, and what information I have 

 been able to collect from many highly respectable 

 and intelligent gentlemen who have pursued it; 

 and therefore shall be regulated by their practices 

 and results, both on large and small estates. 



The first objection of W. B. H. which he 

 deems "insuperable, is its expensivencss, which 

 expense, consists in keeping a supernumerary 

 number of horses, which are only employed at 

 one season of the year, (and that the fallowing 

 season) and kept at a heavy expense the rest.' 1 ' 

 I will ask the gentleman what number of horses 

 would be necessary for the judicious cultivation of 

 a farm of 400 acres under the three-field course'? 

 I use twelve mules. With this team I fallowed 

 with ease this fall 100 acres, in five weeks; and 

 during the greater portion of this time the season 

 was excessively dry. Now, vice versa, let me ask 

 what this team would have been employed about 

 if they had not been fallowing? Why, I should 

 say idle; and consequently supported at a "heavy 

 expense." For, after the wheat is thrashed, and 

 the corn laid by, which is always accomplished by 

 the middle of August, the teams would have no- 

 thing to do until seeding time, were they not em- 

 ployed in this. I should therefore think the labor 

 much more equally distributed under the four 

 than the three-field course. I have never yet 

 seen the day that my teams had not as much as 

 they could do; and sincerely think the fallow sea- 

 son for wheat is the most leisure one we have. 

 The ploughs are kept running at their leisure, 

 having nothing to interrupt them, while the man- 

 ual labor is employed in gathering and securing 

 the fodder, &c. The fallow field is always ready, 

 and frequently (by the time the corn would admit 

 of being removed,) we have ploughed much of 

 our corn land before the season had arrived for 

 seeding. Many persons have been deterred from 

 fallowing, in consequence of the droughts. I have 

 never yet been compelled to stop a day from that 

 cause, and know I have as stiff land to encounter 

 as any one. It may be attributed in a great mea- 

 sure, to the peculiar advantages of our system, 



