1835.] 



ARMERS' REdSfER, 



243 



loss from the, practice that I know of; and I can in 

 no wise account Tor so great a loss, but by sup- 

 posing some delect, in the corn itself. When the 

 corn is perfectly made, and not prematurely cut 

 down, I am confident that my loss does not exceed 

 two per cent, from exposure in the shocks. 



We are told that land which will produce four 

 barrels of corn, may be relied on to give twenty 

 bushels of wheat on good clover fallow, well pre- 

 pared, and seeded; and that 25 or 30 bushels may 

 be expected under like circumstances, from such 

 as will yield eight barrels per acre. In this 

 par!, of the state, my opinion is that land thai 

 would bring four barrels of corn, will not generally, 

 without the use of calcareous manures, bring good 

 clover at all. It might be asked, too, if the kind 

 be equally well adapted to both crops, why the ra- 

 tio of increase is not more nearly equal? I have 

 always thought that there is no land, except, per- 

 haps pipe clay, to be found in this part of Virgin- 

 ia, that will yield as many bushels of wheat as of 

 corn, which Mr. S's. first proposition assumes. 



Under the four-field system there is only one- 

 ninth more in cultivation than under the three, 

 and admitting that the crops are equally heavy, 

 (which is going far enough in all conscience,) 

 there would be only one-ninth more offal to con- 

 vert into manure. What becomes then of the su- 

 periority of the new system in this respect? For if 

 there is one-ninth more manure made and applied, 

 there is also one-ninth more land in cultivation, 

 and that ninth is moreover deprived of the advan- 

 tage of clover. I am willing to admit that the 

 manure made from wheat straw ie somewhat su- 

 perior to that produced from the offal of corn. 



The crop of corn made by Mr. S.'s predecessor 

 at Wesiover, was but seven barrels per acre, 

 f hough with very imperfect cultivation. Only a 

 email part of the crop followed clover, as that gen- 

 tleman informs me, and of course any calculation, 

 based on the supposition that the whole had that 

 advantage, can prove nothing. 



Does Mr. S, regard as inconsiderable the ex- 

 pense incurred annually by wheat growers in 

 fseed 1 If I were at all happy at numbers, it 

 would give me pleasure to calculate, as nearly as 

 possible, the cost to the state of Virginia every 

 year of this single article. It must be a pretty 

 round sum, as one-tenth or more of all the wheat 

 made in the state is reserved for the purpose; and 

 from the noise made about the tythes in Great 

 Britain, this would seem to be something consider- 

 able. 



As I have crossed the Atlantic, I will now try to 

 fortify the objection against the new system, de- 

 rived from the universal practice of the best. Eng- 

 lish farmers, which Mr. S. regards so lightly. He 

 tells us that he does not read books on English 

 agriculture, but knows there may be a great dif- 

 ference between the soil and climate there and 

 here. This no one will deny, but I take it, the 

 difference is decidedly against us, except that we 

 can here cultivate that noble plant Indian corn, 

 about the value of which Mr. S. and 1 seem to 

 differ so widely. The climate there is very humid, 

 anil is accordingly admirably suited to grass, as 

 well as small grain, which is partially protected 

 from many casualties, to which it, is liable here, 

 by the coolness and equability of the temperature. 

 In such a climate, one would suppose that se- 

 verer culture might be admissible, than in a com- 



paratively arid and variable one like ours. Allow me 

 to advert, too, to the great abundance of lime and 

 other manures, foreign and domestic, which are 

 used there, and to the skill with which they are 

 applied. Now if in such a country, with an over- 

 flowing population, where land is high and rents 

 of course correspondingly so, labor is very low, 

 and produce hardly ever fails to command a good 

 price; three grain crops in succession are found to 

 make too great a draught upon the fertility of the 

 soil to be profitable; it would seem to follow afor- 

 tiori that they cannot answer here — where the 

 reverse of all this is true. It is considered there 

 an established rule, founded on long experience 

 and profound observation, that the more rarely 

 any crop occurs in a rotation, the heavier it will be 

 lbund to be; and the reason is, that the specific 

 food of the plants constituting the crop, will there 

 be found in sufficient quantities in the soil to nour- 

 ish them to perfection. 



In answering this objection, my friend Mr. S. 

 says that, the corn crop, a summer and hoe crop, 

 intervening between the two crops of wheat, pre- 

 pares the earth with a pabulum the better suited to 

 the last crop of wheat. I can very readily conceive 

 that the corn crop will diminish the pabulum that 

 tlte succeeding crop of wheat ought to find in the 

 soil; but can in no way discover how it can add to 

 the quantity, until the plants. themselves revert to 

 the earth in the shape of manure. 



Mr. S. accuses me of inconsistency for approv- 

 ing the five-field system, and objecting to the new 

 system, that it gives too little corn for sale. With 

 regard to the farm-on which I practised this sys- 

 tem myself I always had a sufficient corn crop; 

 having a light field cultivated altogether in corn. 

 We have, too, a large marsh, which answers for 

 a standing pasture. As for my recommendation 

 of it to others, it was only conditional, (as any' 

 body may see by referring to the passage,) viz: 

 when the fallow system lias already been deter- 

 mined upon; and I assigned as a reason why I 

 should prefer it to the new system, that, as at least 

 one-fifth of the farm would be required as a stand- 

 ing pasture, the same surface would be, in cultiva- 

 tion, and the worst feature of the new system, the 

 three successive grain crops, would lie avoided. I 

 never thought, and no where said that it was free 

 from all the objections that may be urged against 

 the new system. Indeed the lair inference from 

 what I did say is, that I considered both systems 

 liable to the same objections, with the very im- 

 portant exception above mentioned. 



It is a little remarkable that Mr. S. in his ac- 

 count of the improvement at Woods' farm, (in 

 page 324 Vol. I, of the Register,) where the crop 

 Was astonishingly increased, should inform us that 

 this great improvement was effected without a 

 standing pasture, and the cattle, of course, deriving 

 their sustenance from the clover field, (as he ex- 

 pressly says,) and only one-fourth of the farm in 

 clover; and should yet think it other than an im- 

 proving system to have two-fifths in clover, with 

 np greater disadvantage on the score of pasture 

 land, and without the excessive draught upon the 

 soil from three successive grain crops. In other 

 words, Mr. S. would seem to think it better (other 

 things being equal, for there is no standing pas- 

 ture in either case,) to .have one-fourth than two- 

 fifths in clover, and three-fourths than three-fifths 

 in cultivation, on the score of improvement. 



