ON TURNING IN CROPS AS A MANURE. 6 9 



Did the buried crop then really injure the soil ? Perhaps not. I 

 account for the last named loss to the fear I had of losing much of 

 the fertilizing quahtj of the rich mass, which I supposed was rotting 

 below, should I turn it up by the plough, and expose it to the sun 

 and air by so doing, and consequently planting the corn on manure 

 ill holes, withoi t ploughing the land at all, presuming, mistaken man 

 as I was, that the roots of the corn would find no difficulty in per- 

 meanting a soil so rich and sjjongy, as I supposed that must be. But 

 in reality the soil was neither rich nor spongy. The stalks, instead 

 o-f rotting, had fermented and been converted chiefly into Alcohol 

 and vinegar. The former flying off" by evaporation, and the latter 

 uniting with the alkaline or feruginous earths — forming salts less 

 fertilizing, perhaps, than their bases as they existed in the soil pre- 

 vious to their union with the acid. Whatever theory on this subject 

 we may adopt, I presume it will be generally admitted that alcohol 

 and vinegar are poor — very poor food for animals or vegetables. 

 And consequently, such vegetables as produce these most abundant- 

 ly, — those containing much sugar — such as corn stalks, especially 

 when green — are not the best article for the purpose under consider- 

 ation. Buck-wheat and clover are probably better. 



Hon. Daniel P. King, who a few years since obtained, I think, 

 the Society's premium, for an experiment with buck-wheat turned 

 in as manure, is decidedly of the opinion that it is not an economical 

 method of renovating lands, — this turning under green crops, — un- 

 less it be to thus use the weeds which grow often so luxuriantly on 

 stubles ; and the crop intended to be benefitted be sown — winter rye 

 for example — at the same time. 



The opininion which I would express, is, that it cannot be good 

 economy in the County of Essex, to endeavor to fertilize lands in 

 this manner. 



Some of the reasons for this opinion follow : 



1st. One year's rent of the land is lost. 



2d. The cost of seed and labor would procure and apply com- 

 post manure enough to insure a better crop the present season, and 

 benefit the land for a longer term than any crop raised on the ground 

 without manure and ploughed in, will ensure the next season. Com- 

 post^manurers will get their reward one year sooner than the turn- 

 ing-in-green-crop farmers. Let us suppose a case : A. buys a farm, 

 the soil naturally good, but run out by neglect and bad husbandry. 



