total production of the 200 acres under cultivation, $3,018. Mr. B. is a scientific farmer, and avails 

 himself of every facility for conducting his farm economically. He has located under the shed of liis 

 barn one of Emery's Two-Hoi-se Eailroad Powers, which runs a cross-cut saw, for preparing fire-wood 

 at a saving of three-fourths the manual labor ; pumps the water for liis stock, which saves all the 

 labor, save that of leading the horse on the power ; runs his corn-sheller, by one horse, at the rate ol 

 500 bushels per day; and lie anticipates attaching a cornstalk-cutter and a corncob-crusher and 

 grinder. Underneath his granary may be seen his farming implements, consisting of an eight-horse 

 traveling threshing machine, which he takes into the field, passing from shock to shock, threshing 

 and cleaning the grain as the machine moves on, at the rate of 300 bushels per day, with the labor 

 of four hands, leaving the straw scattered upon the ground ; .also, drills, cultivators, &c., too numer- 

 ous to mention. He has Densmore's Self-Raking Grain Reaper, with which he cut all of his own 

 wheat and that of several of his neighbors, and performed (I use his language) to the entire satis 

 faction and admiration of all who witnessed it He also added that it would have been almost 

 impossible for him to liave got through his harvest without it, and that he saved by its use at least 

 one bushel of wheat per acre. J. 0. Willsea. — Indianapolis, Ind. 



P. S. — Jult as this was ready for the mail, Mr. Bacon happened in town, and the manuscript was 

 submitted for his criticism, and it was discovered that there was a slight discrepancy in a few of the 

 statements, viz : The poi'k was fattened, in part, from the corn, and the cows were fed a short time 

 in the spring from the same production. But to offset this, I would say that there is no account 

 made of the increase in the growth of young cattle, which was at least $100 ; the increase in sheep, 

 which was something ; the potato crop, which was $50 ; and many other smaller productions, of 

 which no account is m.ade. J. 0. W. 



^D 



CLi 



Rotation of Crops. — May it not be possible that, after all, the theory of rotation of crops is 

 founded in error ? Do we not see in nature a system entirely the reverse of rotation ? Do we not 

 observe that in nature the elements of which one particular species of plants are composed are 

 carried back by a simple process to the earth, to form a new crop of the same species ? To illustrate, 

 do we not observe that trees, whether oak, maple, pine, or any other of the almost endless variety of 

 trees, drop each one its own leaves at its own foot ? And if we analyze the vegetable mold found, 

 for instance, at the foot of a beech tree, may we not reasonably expect to find there the best beech 

 tree manure ? Admitting for a moment the theory of rotation to be true, ought we not to find in 

 nature a process by which the leaves of the maple, hemlock, or some other tree, may be conveyed to 

 the roots of the beech ? Do we see such a process ? Again : If certain elements, A, B, C, <fec, enter 

 into the composition of a stalk of wheat, and certain other elements, D, E, F, into the composition of 

 a stalk of oats ; and if the growth of wheat exhausts the earth of a part of the wheat-growing ele- 

 ments, may we not infer that the soil will be restored to its primitive condition by the restoration of 

 the elements A, B, C ; or if a crop of oats, by its corresponding elements, D, E, F ? In plain English, 

 ouffht we not to manure our wheat lands with wheat straw, bran, &c., and our oat fields with oat 

 straw ? Is not this nature's j^rocess ? Is not the whole system of rotation of crops a suicidal policy 

 — first exhausting tlie land for raising wheat, then oats, then barley, and so on ad infinitum — never 

 giving back to a crop its proper nutriment, and thus in fact impoverishing the whole country f Is 

 not the subject of sufficient importance to attract the notice of agriculturists, and institute experi- 

 ments extending through a .series of yeai-s, that the matter may be well understood ; and if correct, 

 adopted; if founded in error, rejected? C. B. Rider. — Pike, iV. Y. 



It certainly is quite possible that the theory of rotation of crops is founded in error. 

 It is hardly possible, however, that the practice of a rotation — as adopted by good prac- 

 tical agriculturists, and founded, not on theory at all, but on the results of close obser- 

 vation and long experience — is fundamentally wrong. Agriculture is not literally a 

 natural process. Any means used to increase the natural yield of the earth, is more or 

 less artificial. The art of agriculture may be wrong, but we necessarily must use art to 

 obtain any increase over the natural yield of the soil. Will our friend point out a better 

 system of culture — one that shall produce larger crops, and at the same time keep the 

 soil in its original fertility. 



The elements A, B, C, as well as D, E, F, enter into the composition of all our culti- 

 vated farm products. One crop does not require A, B, and C, and another crop D, E, 



e^ 



