1835.] 



F A II M E R S » REGISTER. 



259 



name, and would have served his purpose better as 

 proofs of the positions maintained.] 



For the Farmers' Register. 

 A WORD TO "FEXCEMORE," 



Who in the May No. of the Register, Vol. III. 

 page 47, "insists that agricultural reform calls lor 

 no legislative enactment — that the existing legal 

 policy" (as regards fences) "throws no obstruc- 

 tion whatever in the way of the individual who 

 sincerely wishes to place his stock management 

 upon a profitable footing, and that he feels con- 

 strained to condemn all such attempts on the part 

 of the legislature as gratuitous and uncalled for, 

 and as oppressive in the extreme to the whole 

 body of small farmers, who constitute so large a 

 portion of the agricultural community." 



"Agricultural reform calls for no legislative en- 

 actment" — and Fencemore seems to think that 

 he has satislactorily established this proposition, 

 because he has adjudged that he would do better 

 with just double the quantity of fencing now used 

 — and as we are now compelled by law to have a 

 certain extent of fencing, he would by no means 

 remove this compulsory enactment, least, as it 

 would seem, we should attempt to do with less, 

 when it is his opinion we ought to have more. It 

 matters not what other honest farmers may think, 

 or to what conclusions their arithmetic may lead 

 them. The true interest of the farmer, and his 

 sagacity in pursuing it, is not enough to direct him 

 in the management of his own private affairs — he 

 must he made to keep up his fencing about his 

 arable lands at all events, by "legislative enact- 

 ment.'''' Fencemore has demonstrated arithmeti- 

 cally (if indeed he has demonstrated any thing) 

 that it will take as great an extent of fencing to 

 enclose a proper number of lots for standing pas- 

 ture and other purposes, upon an improving sys- 

 tem, as is now used for the outside enclosure of 

 our arable lands — and thus as nothing could be 

 gained in the actual amount of fencing, supposing 

 the present law of enclosures modified, (which by 

 the by we do not believe) he concludes that no- 

 thing can be gained in any way — or because we 

 should have to make fences around a iexv lots for 

 pasture and improvement, we had as well make 

 them around our whole plantations! Thus doubling 

 our amount of fencing, and lor what? Why, ac- 

 cording to Fencemore, to keep "the country from 

 being thrown into consternation and dismay by a 

 drove of hogs or bullocks!!" Or at another place, 

 because "it would be oppressive, in the extreme to 

 the whole body of small farmers," for the legisla- 

 ture to take away from them the power to turn 

 their hogs and cows on their neighbors' fenceless 

 crops. Or again, because "the annual clearings 

 of the tobacco planter are utterly inadequate to his 

 immediate demands," this tobacco planter must 

 therefore be permitted to use the woods as a range 

 for his stock, having no open land; thus entailing 

 upon his neighbor, perhaps a cotton planter, with 

 an abundance of pasture of his own, the enor- 

 mous expense of keeping up double as much fen- 

 cing as he ought to have, solely for the benefit of 

 the tobacco planter's half-starved hogs and cows. 

 This argument of Fencemore seems to us to af- 

 ford but a poor "defence of the law of enclosures" 

 — and we think it will be found to weigh still 

 lighter against a few stubborn facts which we are 



now going to state, and which we think ought to 

 go farther than arithmetic with the "whole body 

 of small farmers," and that of the big ones too, to 

 prove that it would be best for every man to live 

 upon his own land, and within his own fences. 



First. A k\v years past an ox was put into an 

 old barn about the first of December — kept well 

 littered and fed till the first of March following. 

 U pon hauling out the manure, it was found that that 

 taken from the barn was equal to that made by 

 six of the out cattle at the pens; and it is believed 

 to have possessed twice the strength that the pen 

 manure did. 



Second. Several winters past, six cows were 

 milked — fed in the usual way with dry shucks 

 scattered over the pen. The next winter two only 

 were milked — fed throughout the winter upon one 

 quart of meal each, morning and night, mixed 

 with cut shucks, and wet with salt water. These 

 last two gave more milk, and that richer, than the 

 six gave the winter before. The next winter, but 

 one cow was kept to milk, which was well fed 

 with meal, cut shucks, and a few cotton seed. Her 

 calf was killed, and she was milked three times 

 each day. She gave nearly or quite as much 

 milk as the two, or the six before kept gave, and 

 was ti#ncd out in the spring quite fat. 



Third. In the spring of 1834, ten shoats were 

 put into a small pen, and fed through the summer 

 upon clover cut from half an acreofiand, together 

 with one ear of corn each every day. They kept 

 in good order, and at fattening time in the fail, 

 were found in better order, and fattened upon less 

 corn, than those that ran at large; although these 

 had the same quantity of corn each day whilst 

 out — one-eighth of these last having died from 

 the time the ten shoats were put. up. When 

 killed and weighed, the ten hogs which had been 

 put up in the spring as shoats, of the same size 

 and age as these which were running at large, 

 weighed from 27 to 35 pounds, each, more than the 

 hogs which these last made, although fattened in 

 the same manner. It was moreover observed, 

 that at least six times as much time was required 

 to look after the out hogs, as was required to feed 

 and water those in thejoen. 



By these experiments then it would seem that 

 we in fact gain nothing by permitting our stock 

 to run at large, even as regards their benefit, to 

 say nothing of the enormous expense which the 

 present ad libitum system, as regards stock, en- 

 tails upon the whole agricultural community. We 

 have just seen that one cow tolerably well kept 

 upon a man's own land, and within his own fences, 

 is worth six runningat large — that it will make him 

 more manure than six — will be a finer animal than 

 any of the others, and will bring him better calves. 

 That his hogs may be kept up upon the same 

 amount of corn; and with the addition of a little 

 clover, will keep fatter, grow larger, be less apt to 

 die; to be killed or stolen, and will give him more 

 meat, and be fattened upon less corn than the 

 same number running at large. And above all 

 that time which, with industry, is a poor man's 

 capital, is saved to him in the ratio of six to one, 

 when he keeps up his hogs. 



FENCE EESS. 



June 30//;, 1S35. 



