466 



FARMERS' REGISTER 



[No. 8 



ing the subject wholly to individual enterprise. 

 We pointed out upon a former occasion, the man- 

 ner of effecting the desired change. And we 

 referred to instances where it was effected with 

 signal success, both in this slate and in different 

 parts of the union. 



It seems that the editor admits the policy of 

 adopting the system of separate enclosures at cer- 

 tain periods in the history of agriculture, viz: when 

 the country is just emerging from a forest slate, 

 and when it has arrived at the highest slate ofihi- 

 provement. .With regard to the intermediate 

 space, he remarks: "But to arrive at this perfect 

 condition, embracing enclosures of every field, it 

 is necessary that the durable materials for fencing 

 should be sufficiently cheap — that the land marks 

 on which to build walls, or plant live hedges, 

 should not be changed in every generation, or of- 

 tener — and above all, that the profits derived from 

 grazing should be sufficient to compensate amply 

 the additional expense of enclosures. None of 

 these circumstances exist in our naked and poor 

 country — and the whole rent of the country, ta- 

 king rich and poor land together, would not pay 

 for keeping it enclosed in 20 acre lots, as may be 

 good policy in England, and even in some parte 

 of the northern states." — (Farm. Reg. Vol. III. 

 p. 50,) From feelings of courtesy towards us, and 

 an evident disposition to leave the discussion of 

 the subject to others, the editor has declined going 

 into the general question. But he has neverthe- 

 less thought proper to settle the whole subject in a 

 manner more remarkable for its brevity than its 

 accuracy. We never maintained that rock walls, 

 live hedges, or 20 acre lots, were necessary to the 

 proposed scheme of agricultural reform. They 

 were merely referred to in order to illustrate our 

 views of the subject, in the cases particularly ci- 

 ted as being worthy of imitation, the common pe- 

 rishable worm fence of the country was used. 

 And the size of the separate enclosures was regu- 

 lated according to the convenience of the individ- 

 ual. The editor certainly could not suppose that 

 we recommended the construction of 20 acre lots 

 upon an estate consisting of 500 acres of arable 

 land? The profits of such an arrangement could 

 under no possible circumstances, justify its adop- 

 tion. Upon an estate of this size these small lots 

 would not only be unnecessary for stock manage- 

 ment, but would interfere very seriously with the 

 other operations of the farm. The number of lots 

 should bo regulated principally by the rotation of 

 crops. For instance, the four, five, or six-field 

 system ought to have at least the same number 

 of separate enclosures. With this arrangement, 

 these separate fields can be gleaned or grazed, ac- 

 cording to circumstances. As to the perishable 

 nature of the fencing material, we could very pro- 

 perly remark, "sufficient for the day is the evil 

 thereof." Why indeed should we trouble our- 

 selves about the substitute until the period arrives 

 when we shall be compelled to adopt it? Dead 

 fences are certainly the best as long as they are 

 the cheapest — and moreover, being easily moved 

 from one place to another, are peculiarly suited to 

 our law of descents, which is constantly changing 

 our land marks. Perhaps the editor will object to 

 the cases referred to, as coming under the specified 

 exceptions. If so, he must exempt one-half of 

 the estates in Virginia. But Mr. Craven express 

 ly states that when he took possession of the pre 



mises in question, the soil was reduced to a state 

 of great exhaustion by the very system which has 

 impoverished other portions of the state. Yet 

 this gentleman has found the ways and means of 

 adopting, with success, the system of separate en- 

 closures upon the whole of this arable surface. 

 We are but little acquainted with the general con- 

 dition of the arable lands in other parts of the 

 state, but with regard to those of Prince George, 

 we have the following description, (we presume 

 from the pen of the editor:) "Much land is plant- 

 ed in corn which does not produce more than one 

 barrel of corn per acre; and about one-haif of the 

 arable land of the county falls short of two and a 

 half barrels, which has been stated as the least 

 product that will defray the expense of cultivation. 

 One-lialf of our land is not only cultivated with- 

 out profit, hit loith certain and increasing loss — 

 and to this purpose our labor is devoted ninety 

 days, the whole crop being supposed to require six 

 months. Every consideration of profit demands 

 that this portion of our soil should not be cultiva- 

 ted in its present condition." (Farm. Reg. Vol. I. 

 -p. 234.) Yet the editor makes us embrace in our 

 remarks, the whole of this unprofitable surface: 

 and what is still worse, we are made to build rock 

 walls, rear live hedges, and construct 20 acre lots, 

 upon lauds which do not pay the simple labor of 

 cultivation. Our remark's were never intended to 

 apply to soils so hopelessly impoverished, and we 

 shall dismiss them with the remark, that the soon- 

 er they are abandoned the better. But to the 

 owners of the small, but really valuable portion 

 of" the county, we point them to the neighboring 

 forest, and entreat them to make separate enclo- 

 sures, and rear the artificial m-asscs. This system 

 has led to wealth under circumstances not at. all 

 more favorable, and will do it again with the use 

 of capital ami enterprise. In the words of the 

 above report, "a farm which would yield a regular 

 annual profit of sGOO after paying all the expense 

 of cultivation, would bethought cheap at §10,000. 

 But certainly it would be equally profitable to lay 

 out 10,000 dollars on the improvement of land al- 

 ready in possession, if from that improvement, an 

 additional clear profit of 600 dollars could be de- 

 rived." Now we venture to affirm, that half of 

 this sum applied in the manner recommended, 

 would yield an additional income from stock alone, 

 independent of their immense value as agents in 

 fertilizing the soil. 



We assert, in the very face of the experiments 

 with which we have been favored by "Fence less," 

 that the proprietors of landed cstales in Virginia, 

 cannot afford to raise the stock necessary for do- 

 mestic uses, in pens and small enclosures. We 

 admit that where a few pigs only arc sufficient for 

 an entire family, as in New England, they may 

 be cheaply raised upon the otherwise useless ollal 

 of the farm. But when the numerous mouths of 

 a Virginia estate are to be filled, it is altogether a 

 different affair. A different system of stock man- 

 agement must be adopted, or the proprietor will 

 be ruined in his attempts to imitate practices un- 

 suited to the condition of the country. The New 

 England farmer derives no small portion of his 

 profits from his stock, and he is therefore amply 

 remunerated for the additional labor and expense 

 he bestows upon the subject. On the other hand, 

 we arc tillage farmers principally in Virginia, and 

 the most we ought to expect is a simple supply for 



