710 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 12 



very considerable. In every system of cultivation, 

 crops productive of manure may be introduced, 

 [without altering the term, or the principal cha- 

 racters of >he existing rotation.] 



When, after a certain period of time, notwith- 

 standing the attention to good culture and abun- 

 dant manurings, the productiveness lessens — 

 when the doir-tooth, bent-grass, and the plants be- 

 longing to silicious soils re-appear — itistime then 

 to recur anew to marl, but to an extent of half, at 

 most, of the first dressing. By this means, with 

 good culture, the first fertility will be sustained, as 

 we have seen done in the countries where the sys- 

 tem of agriculture is the most perfect. 



Theory of they effects of marl on the soil. 



The theory which we have developed to explain 

 the action of lime upon soil, applies nearly entire 

 to marl:* the active principle is the same in both — 

 therefore the results are similar. It follows then, 

 that in marling, as before stated of lime, the cal- 

 careous principle gives to soils and to vegetables a 

 greater power of absorption from the atmosphere 

 — of drawing from it the volatile principles, hydro- 

 gen, oxygen, azote, and carbon. Marl, like lime, 

 increases then the faculty which both the soil and 

 vegetables have of forming the fixed principles of 

 plants — the salts and earths — whether it be that the 

 elements of these principles are taken in the at- 

 mosphere, in the soil itself, or in both. Once 

 being given, this power of absorption would be, 

 doubtless, one of the greatest means by which cal- 

 careous agents fertilize soils.t 



* See pp. 3S6 to 390, Vol. III. Farmers' Register. 



t The last pages have presented several opinions 

 which are opposed either in appearance, or reality, to 

 views maintained in the Essay on Calcareous Manures. 

 To the attentive readers of that work, itmay be unneces- 

 sary to add any thing in explanation: but to very many 

 others, these doctrines of M. Puvis, would seem to be 

 admitted as sound, if inserted here, without contradic- 

 tion or comment. But still we cannot for this purpose 

 occupy the space necessary for a full exposition, and 

 which indeed would be but to repeat, and at great 

 length, what has been stated in the work just referred 

 to. 



In addition to objecting to the amount of the first 

 dressings of marl, recommended by M. Puvis, we deny 

 the necessity of their being repeated, on his ground 

 of the dose being exhausted by the several causes which 

 he has named. Considering that a proper dose of lime 

 (in whatever form applied) becomes chemically com- 

 bined with the soil, we deny the power of rain water 

 to carry it off, or to sink it below the upper soil — or that 

 any thing else can take any portion of it from its com- 

 bination with the soil, except the power of vegetation, 

 which takes up the small portion necessary to form and 

 perfect plants. This one cause of waste was admitted 

 in the Essay on Calcareous Manures. M. Puvis esti- 

 mates its amount at half a hectolitre to the hectare, 

 which is a trifle more than half a bushel to an acre. 

 Dundonald estimated the same at 80 pounds of calca- 

 reous matter to the acre. Both estimates are no doubt 

 made on very uncertain grounds. But tomcthing cer- 



DESILTORY REMARKS ON THE MAKING OF 

 TOBACCO. 



Greenfield, JVottowav, } 

 Feb. 12, 1836. $ 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



As you have made considerable complaints of 

 late against your patrons for their neglect in send- 

 ing their original communications to your Regis- 

 ter, I have concluded this day to break the ice, as 

 the old saying is — (for there is enough in this county 



tainly is so lost, in all the vegetable products carried 

 from the land. Proceeding on M. Puvis' estimate, it 

 would require 300 crops to be entirely removed, to ex- 

 haust an acre of 150 bushels of the carbonate of lime 

 previously applied. But if all the offal product of the 

 field had been brought back, in the shape of manure, 

 half of this loss would have been replaced, so as to re- 

 quire 600 crops to take all away — and the addition of 

 one peck of carbonate of lime annually to each acre, 

 with this manure, or half a bushel without it, would 

 replace the whole actual waste. This admission (or 

 even on Dundonald's larger estimate.) is scarcely to be 

 considered as contradicting the position we have else- 

 where maintained, of the permanency of calcareous 

 manures. 



Our author's theory of the action of calcareous ma- 

 nures in general, is insufficient. His position that soils 

 and plants can form and produce a portion of the calca- 

 reous principle required, is contrary to all sound rea- 

 soning, as well as to his own views of the continual and 

 considerable waste of that principle in soils. 



Instead of the calcareous matter given to a soil (in 

 suitable proportion,) sinking below the access of the 

 roots of plants, and leaving the upper layer of earth 

 more destitute than the subsoil, the contrary result is 

 derivable from reasoning, and is sustained by the ac- 

 tual condition of natural soils. Even if the calcare- 

 ous matter (by possibility,) was actually below, and the 

 surface soil was nearly destitute of lime in every form, 

 the roots of the growing plants would continually 

 draw up what is so necessary for their healthy support. 

 The roots of grasses might not penetrate very deeply — 

 but those of trees would seek and draw up the lime 

 from 20 feet of depth. The greater part of this lime 

 would be carried by the sap to form part of the plants 

 above the ground — and their death and decay would 

 leave it on and near the surface. Thus, in soils scan- 

 tily, or but sufficiently, supplied with lime, nature is 

 continually working to keep the supply at and near the 

 surface. Hence the formation of what is called soil, 

 and its fertility — and also the general sterility of the 

 subsoil. 



But notwithstanding these and other objections to the 

 theory of M. Puvis, and to those of his opinions made 

 erroneous either by being deduced from his theory, or 

 by his relying on the incorrect statements of other per- 

 sons, his views and his facts are regarded as generally 

 and strongly sustaining such as we have before pre- 

 sented — and it is cause for much gratification that sup- 

 port should have been found to such extent, and pro- 

 ceeding from a source so much entitled to respect, 



