NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



115 



ground. A cane could be run down into it, its 

 whole length. A gentleman who recently visited 

 some of the prominent gardens in the vicinity of 

 London, writes that they are trenched four feet 

 deep and that 16 cords of manure are applied to 

 the acre. An English gentleman recently in this 

 country, stated that our farmers do not plow 

 enough — they manure higher than English farmers 

 do, but they don't plow deep enough. In regard 

 to subsoil plowing, there is a mistake prevalent 

 in the community. Some think if they plow once, 

 the work is all done. They should bear in mind 

 that they have but just moved the earth and not 

 brought it up. If it is on the sod it is best that 

 they should not bring up the subsoil the first year. 

 The next year they may bring up one or two inch- 

 es — and so on each year until they get down 18 or 

 20 inches. The most thorough mode of pulver- 

 izing the soil is by trenching. Of the expense of 

 this he had made a calculation, the result of which 

 was, that it would cost $100 an acre, to trench it 

 two feet deep, and this he believed would be in 

 the end more economical than the ordinary mode 

 of plowing. Persons would be surprised to see 

 to what depth the small fibrous roots of plants de- 

 scend. He believed that at 62 1-2 cents a rod, 

 (or $100 an acre) most any land might be 

 trenched, and that it would be a good investment. 

 In regard to the time of plowing — he thought the 

 land should be tolerably dry before plowing is com- 

 menced. If npt, the land becomes caked. The 

 best time he had found, was, to take off the hay 

 one day, and plough the land the next. This 

 would be sure death to all vegetable matter. Com- 

 post might then be applied with a little bone, and 

 salt to kill the worms, and then a good crop of 

 turnips for cattle might be gathered. In conclu- 

 sion, he spoke highly of the operations of the 

 Michigan subsoil plough. 



Mi\ Brown, editor of the New England Farmer,. 

 hoped that some gentleman thoroughly acquainted 

 with the practical operations of the farm, would 

 express an opinion upon the question of frequent 

 ploAving, whether it was advisable or otherwise. 

 A diversity of opinions exist on this point, and the 

 knowledge gained by those who have made exper- 

 iments, should be made public. If land can be 

 made fertile by frequent plowings, it may be better 

 to resort to this practice, than to purchase special 

 manures. 



Mr. Brooks, of Princeton, spoke of plowing as 

 a useful and necessary operation, and said the 

 question was, under what circumstances shall we 

 plow shallow or plow deep? His own opinion is 

 that the operation of plowing is one of exhaustion 

 — that the more frequently land is plowed, the 

 more it is exhausted. If he had a virgin soil 

 which produced a new crop, he should plow it 

 shallow, because if he threw up too much of the 

 fructifying substances, — more than was required 



by the crop, they would be lost. When that 

 was exhausted, he would plow deeper, but would 

 not descend too fast. It would be better to apply 

 a little more manure. He had no doubt a larger 

 crop might be got by deep plowing, but it would 

 be a money losing operation in the end. In regard 

 to the furrow-slice, no theory applicable to all cases 

 could be given. On dry land where he plowed shal- 

 low, he should lay it fiat, because the sod laying flat 

 upon the earth, would become more moist — the 

 water of attraction would rise up and the rain run 

 down more readily. 



In a moderately moist soil he would lay it at an 

 angle of 45 degrees ; in a very wet soil he would lay 

 it edgeways. The philosophy of subsoiling he un- 

 derstood to be that it deepens the soil, and allows 

 the rain to descend more easily; and also the water 

 of attraction to rise more readily. He did not un- 

 derstand how subsoiling could make land moist in 

 dry times, and dry in wet times. Subsoiling on 

 dry land he considered injurious. It may be use- 

 ful on some poor sandy plains, such as he had seen 

 in New Hampshire, where the soil was a sandy 

 loam based upon a hard pan. In such cases it 

 might be used. to advantage, as it would turn up 

 saline substances which are not in the soil. By 

 trenching, large crops might be raised, but it is a 

 forcing operation, and is it on the whole lasting 

 and profitable ? This is the main question. Can 

 it be done broadcast through the land ? He thought 

 not. He thought the Michigan plow might be 

 useful ; still it is not good policy to turn up too 

 much of the subsoil. He thought it would be a 

 better course to drain the land. The depth to 

 which land should be plowed, and also the kind of 

 plow and team to be used, would depend very 

 much upon the character of the soil to be operated 

 upon. 



Mr. Hubbard, of Sunderland, dissented from 

 some of the views of Mr. Brooks. There was noth- 

 ing incompatible in the theory that subsoiling 

 would aid a crop in a dry time, and at the same 

 time be beneficial in a wet time. When the soil 

 is loosened to the depth of two feet, the rain which, 

 after a shower, would stand upon the earth if it 

 was not thus stirred, is absorbed and sinks out of 

 the reach of the plants, while, if it remained on or 

 near the surface, it might damage them. And then 

 in a dry time by the same principle — that of capil- 

 lary attraction — it hastens to escape to the sur- 

 face. Before the hard pan was broken, the water 

 would have great difficulty to permeate through it. 

 It would operate like a cast iron floor, and might 

 detain the water so long as to injure the plant. 

 And so again, when the surface of the earth is 

 parched by the sun, the hard pan, if unbroken, 

 would prevent the roots of the plant from drawing- 

 moisture from the soil beneath. 



[Mr. Brooks here suggested, that if the water 

 descended into the earth it must come back by at- 



