24 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



QUERIES (repeated FROBI PAGE 489) TO ASCERTAIIV THE ACTION AND EFFECTS OF SHELL, 

 MARL AS MANURE, IN GENERAL, AND ANSWERS AS TO THE (ORIGINALLY POOR) HIGH- 

 LANDS OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY. 



1. When vvas the use of marl as manure commenced on your farm? 



2. Whose property was the farm, and under whose direction was its general management, (it" not 

 j'our own,") then, and since'? 



3. What vvas the quantity of cleared land on the farm then ready for and subjected in its turn to 

 cuhivation of any iiind, ejxiusive of all waste ground? 



4. What is the quantity since added, by new clearings of wood-land, or other waste spots brought 

 into tillage"? And, generally, was the land thus added richer or poorer than ihe present average qua- 

 lity of Ihe farm? 



5. What was the rate of progress in extending the marling — and, altogether, how many acres have 

 been now marled 1 



6. What vvas the usual strength of the mar! used, or its proportion per cent, of carbonate of lime, 

 or pure shelly matter? 



7. Was there any peculiar quality or ingredient, besides the carbonate of lime, that served to give 

 addilional value to the manure — as "green sand," or gypsum, or a large proportion of fine clay, &c.? 



8. Or was there any thing that served more than usually to lessen the value, as stony hardness of 

 many shells, or of masses of marl, &c. ? 



9. What have been the usual quantities of marl applied to the acre? 



10. Have there been made trials of any much lighter dressings of marl than the usual quantities — 

 and if so, what were the results, compared to the usual quantities? 



11. Have there been made trials of any much heavier dressings than the usual quantities — and 

 with what comparative results? 



12. Was the cropping and general management of the land,ybr a few years immediately previous 

 ■to its being marled, such as might be considered meliorating or improving, (or at least as preserving 

 its degree of fertility,) or was it impoverishing, and wasting of fijrtility in general? State the rota- 

 tion of crops, if known. 



13. The same question as to the few years immediately after marling, and since. 



14. What have been the usual and general results of the applications of marl, on the increase of the 

 crop next following, on land in different conditions — and afterwards to the present time? 



15. Have the earliest fertilizing effects of marl (or the increased product of the first crop, or first 

 course of crops in the rotation,) been subsequently increased or diminished by lapse of time — and in 

 either case, under, and in proportion to, what circumstances? 



16. Is it your opinion, whether founded on experience or observation, that the early increased pro- 

 duct of your marled land (say for the first three or four crops, or of any number you have yet made 

 thereon,) will be subsequently diminished, under any rotation of crops, or course of cultivation, that 

 would not have been decidedly exhausting and injurious to the land, if marl had not been applied ? 



17. Has sterility, or other damage, been caused on any part of the land, by applying marl too 

 heavily, or in any other manner — and under what circumstances of soil, tillage, &c. ? 



18. Has it been found that any other manures, either vegetable and putrescent, or mineral, are 

 more efiicacious, or durable, on poor natural soils after marling them ? 



19. What do you suppose was the average productive power, in corn, per acre, of all your now 

 arable and cultivated land, before marling? 



20. What do you suppose is the present average productive power of the same in corn? 



21. What was the usual or average quantity of the crops of wheat made annually on the farm be- 

 fore marling, and recently? 



22. Taking such general grounds for the estimate as may be satisfactory to your own judgment, 

 etate what you suppose to be the annual value o\' {he present general or average gross product oi' grain, 

 or other marketable products of the fields in cultivation, of the land marled, caused by, and owing to 

 marling — per acre, and also in tola! amount annually from the whole farm? 



23. Does your experience or observation serve to contradict any of the important theoretical opi- 

 nions in regard to the action of marl, or statements of actual results in practice, as presented in the 

 " recapitulation" embraced in pages 53 to 56 of 'Essay on Calcareous Manures' — and if so contra- 

 dicting, in what particulars ? 



I. Answers of Richard Hill, in regard to the 

 Rumford Academy farm. 



Ashfield, near Richmond, ) 

 JVov. 27, 1840. \ 

 I received a few days past your letter of the 

 17th instant, and take the earliest moment to an- 

 swer it. I fear that I shall not be able to give you 

 the satisfaction you expect, on account of the great 

 length of time that has elapsed since I left Rum- 

 ford Academy, (18 years,) and not having com- 

 mitted to paper any thing relating to the experi- 

 ments made by me in marling, besides beino- en- 



tirelyout of the habit of writing, except on matters 

 of business. In the year 1811 I purchased of Mr. 

 J no. Koane, sen., Rumford Academy, vviih about 

 300 acres of land attached thereto ; all of which, 

 except about 20 acres just around the buildings, 

 lay on the west side of the main road as you go 

 up the country, known for a great number of years 

 back as the Burnt Ordinary field, and proverbial in 

 all that time for its extreme poverty. In 1814, I 

 commenced building a mill, and, in digging out the 

 foundation, in a few feet of the surface struck upon 

 a bed of marl, of which I thought but little, being 

 more intent on the mill at that time than the im- 



