M.MICH.] OATS. 115 



tbink, that oats \vill equal, and in many cases ex- 

 rrcd bailey. The superior quantity of the pro- 

 duce will ever be found to more than answer the 

 inferiority of the price ; which, however, some^ 

 times exceeds that of barley. 



What good reasons are to be offered, for sowing 

 oats on land in such bad order that barley is not 

 to be ventured in, I know not. The common ar- 

 gument is their hardiness, which will give a mid- 

 dling produce, about sufficient to pay expences, 

 and leave a trifling profit, when no other crop will 

 do the like. But this is only proving them to be 

 assistants of bad husbandry ; nor is such a paltry 

 profit, granting false premises (for I am well per- 

 suaded that common oat crops, among bad farmers, 

 are but so much loss), an objecl that ever ought to 

 influence good husbandmen. Why should a good 

 fanner be at all solicitous to gain 10s. an acre pro- 

 fit by oats after barley, &c. ? Suppose his course 

 to be, 1. Turnips; 2. Barley; 3. Oats: or, 1. Fal- 

 low ; 2. Wheat ; 3. Oats : in either of these courses, 

 or in any other, where the oats follow another crop 

 of corn, the profit of them must be small. What 

 comparison with sowing clover with the barley, 

 which will pay far more profit, and at the same 

 time prepare, in the best manner, for that most 

 beneficial crop, wheat ? What but a fallow, or a 

 fallow crop, can succeed the oats ? How unpro- 

 fitable, compared to the clover system ! 



For these reasons, I cannot but recommend that 

 oats should be considered in the same light as 



1 2 barley, 



