110 



Agricultural Address. 



Vol. X. 



it was always the first in the course. After 

 the corn was cut off and cured, it was too 

 late to sow. In the spring following' the 

 stubs of the corn-stalk formed an impedi- 

 ment to any crop then thought of, excepting 

 oats, which was accordingly sown; and after 

 this a convenient season offered for putting 

 in the winter grain. Rye was then much 

 more commonly sown than wheat. Bad 

 farming could afford no more manure than 

 was sufficient for about three out of eight 

 acres, and, after oats, wheat stubbornly re- 

 fused to thrive without a supply. With this 

 limited stock of manure, no further cropping 

 could be supported by the land : it needed 

 rest; and as the rye and wheat afforded a 

 good opportunity, grass seed was sown. Pre- 

 cisely the same routine, which a poor soil 

 and limited resources in the way of manure 

 rendered necessary, is still in full practice, 

 and in repute, with all the benefits of en- 

 riched soil and ample manure. The fact, 

 however, that the soil is improved, would 

 seem to be good proof of the value of that 

 system under which it has become so: and 

 doubtless it is a good system as compared 

 with many others; but if there be a better, 

 if there can be shown any radical defect in 

 the present, the sooner we find it out and 

 make the requisite change, the sooner will 

 our fields become most fertile, and our crops 

 reach their highest limits. 



There are several most serious objections: 

 in the first place it is directly at variance 

 with one of the best settled rules of practi- 

 cal agriculture, ^/;«f two while grain crops 

 should not be taken in succession from the 

 same soil. Now, wheat after oats, is a com- 

 plete violation of this standard rule. We 

 all admit tliat oats is hard on the soil. We 

 know that without manure wheat can sel- 

 dom follow it and thrive, and that rye itself, 

 a far safer crop on exhausted land, is often a 

 failure. The reason of this is readily given: 

 grains of this kind — rye, barley, oats and 

 wheat — feed upon precisely the same ali- 

 ment, and one crop takes away so much, 

 that unless in some way replaced, a second 

 has little left to subsist upon. 



But while this is a sufficient objection, to 

 my mind, and is the plainest and most rea- 

 dily understood by all farmers, there is an- 

 otlier well worthy of examination, if not 

 satisfactory at first sight. 



There is a great difference in plants. 

 Some will grow, like the mushroom, on a 

 bed of ferii enting manure. The tomato 

 will flourish in the most rank heap of stable 

 litter. In this class are most, or all, of our 

 root crops. They are coarse broad-leaved 

 plants, requiring rank manure, and are called 

 coarse feeders. 



There is another class of plants, which 

 not only do not require, but seem to suffer 

 by the presence of such fermenting, or pu- 

 trescent manures. A load of stable dung 

 will as effectually eradicate grass as a load 

 of lime, if shot down upon the soil and left 

 there to ferment for a \'e\v weeks. Among 

 these plants may be reckoned almost all the 

 grasses, so called by the botanist, including 

 wheat. They are called delicate feeders ; 

 they require that the food upon which they 

 subsist shall not only be fully fermented and 

 no longer putrifying, but that it shall be tho- 

 roughly mixed with a finely divided soil. 

 In other words, wheat demands a rich, clean, 

 well-harrowed seed-bed, free from ferment- 

 ation. 



Now, what do we do ? We first exhaust 

 the seed-bed of its richness, by the oats crop, 

 and then plough in the contents of the barn- 

 yard. It is true, however, that our long 

 summers cause the fermentation of the mass 

 to proceed nearly to completion, and thus 

 better fit it for the purpose; add to which, 

 the fact that our best farmers turn the whole 

 over once or twice in the season, and thus 

 prepare the food for the winter crop. Whe- 

 ther by the introduction of root crops, or 

 otherwise, a better system can be devised, I 

 leave for experience to determine. 



The much discussed subject of lime is 

 still worthy of regard, and it is not wisdom 

 to grow weary of the investigation, because 

 so much has been said to so little purpose. 

 The attention which I have given to the 

 matter has satisfied me that there are many 

 important facts not generally taken into ac- 

 count. Very little, if any, pure carbonate 

 of lime is to be found in Chester county; it 

 is mixed with magnesia in all proportions 

 from five to forty per cent. One fact may 

 be considered as certain, that magnesian 

 lime makes the best cement, and the best 

 stucco or plaster. Magnesia is much lighter 

 than lime. Marble lime is often objected to, 

 because it is so much heavier to haul. But 

 the farmer gets 95 bushels of lime, at least, 

 out of 100 bushels measured ; while of the 

 strongest magnesian lime, he only has 60 

 bushels out of the 100 — 4^ being magnesia 

 and other impurities. 



But that is not the real question. If mag- 

 nesia is worth as much as lime to the farmer, 

 why he loses nothing by the mixture, and 

 he gains in the hauling. The difference 

 between them, and their respective qualities 

 may be stated in a few words. Lime unites 

 very closely with water, and does not easily 

 part with it. Magnesia unites with three 

 times as much water at first, but it soon 

 loses the whole. It is for this reason that it 

 is so valuable for cement. 



