1858. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



217 



For the New Ennland Farmer. 



irrrDERDRAiwiwa and ibrigatiojst. 



■ That underdraining is not needed on most of 

 our land in this country, I infer with much confi- 

 dence from the acknowledged beneficial effects of 

 mulching, — a process, by the way, 



"For which the speech of England hath no name ;" 



simply, I suppose, because M'here draining is real- 

 ly necessary, any such expedient as mulching is 

 not necessary. I do not speak of mulching as a 

 substitute for draining ; and, therefore, do not 

 care to inquii-e Avhether it is practicable in ordi- 

 nary farming. The principle of its operation 

 may be tested in the garden or orchard as satis- 

 factorily as on the whole farm. That principle I 

 rely upon as an argument against draining. My 

 own experience, and that of others who have 

 published the results of their trials, show that 

 mulching benefits vegetation chiefly by keeping 

 the surface of the earth moist and loose in our 

 hot and dry summers. As straws afloat in the 

 air show the direction of the wind, so "straws" 

 spread upon the ground may show the direction 

 farmers should take in their efforts to promote 

 the growth of their crops. The principle, then, 

 ■which I regard as conclusively demonstrated by 

 the effects of mulching is, that a deficiency of 

 moisture, not an excess, is what American farm- 

 ers have to fear and guard against ; and . the in- 

 ference, a very natural one, is that they should 

 "govern themselves accordinglj-." 



With these views, and in one of those "dry 

 spells" that occur almost every summer, when the 

 broad leaves of that salamander plant, our In- 

 dian corn, roll themselves into fiabby strings, 

 and when wells, twenty, thirty and forty feet 

 deep, "give out" entirely, is it not rather more re- 

 freshing than instructive to retire into a cool li- 

 brary, and read, as we may, from a portly volume, 

 backed in golden letters, "The American Farm- 

 er's ," the timely assurance that "The very 



first care of the farmer, that on which the success o f 

 his future crops almost eniirely depends, is the 

 removal of unnecessary supplies of water ?" 



As it is possible that some one may reply to 

 the argument drawn from the effects of mulching, 

 that it is superficial, — that, at best, it relates only 

 to the surface of the soil, while watery billows 

 I'oU below, I will now try to go a little deeper. 

 Though claiming the ability to see as far into a 

 mill-stone as most people can, I feel much satis- 

 faction in being able to take for my subterranean 

 guide so distinguished a gentleman as Dr. Hitch- 

 cock, and will let him, as spokesman, report : 



"It is well known to the chemist that most of 

 the salts, so useful upon lands, are dissolved by 

 rains, and carried downward through the soil till 

 they meet with a water-bearing stratum. There 

 they will accumulate ; and now let that stratum — 

 known by springs issuing from it — be dug up and 

 spread over the surface, and these salts will ex- 

 ert their appropriate influence upon the crops. 

 This very principle is the chief secret of the good 

 effects of subsoil plowing, and I doubt not but it 

 will yet lead to valuable results in the use of sub- 

 stances drawn from a still greater depth. In some 

 instances they certainly have produced astonish- 

 ing effects." — Uamp. Ag. Address, 1856. 



Now if the pot be not allowed to call the ket- 

 tle black, why should those who underdraiu their 



soil, and thus empty these valuable "salts" through 

 carefully laid tiles into the ocean, or some other 

 safe place, laugh at the folly of those old-fash- 

 ioned farmers who "underdrained" their cow- 

 yard, pig-pen and manure-heaps ? 



Whatever may be thought of the pertinency of 

 this question, I must confess that it is not origi- 

 nal with myself. Some time ago a stray number 

 of the Mark Lane Express, an English agricul- 

 tural journal, fell into my possession. It is lost 

 now, but I remember that the leading editorial 

 article was devoted to a discussion of the subject 

 of draining. In the course of his remarks, the 

 editor puts into the mouth of a regular old-style 

 John Bull farmer, whom he pretended to have 

 met at a certain fair, divers objections and argu- 

 ments against draining, among which was, in 

 substance, the above question. It appeared strange 

 to me that an agricultural paper in England 

 should venture to give so many suggestive hints 

 against draining, although it was done in the 

 words of a mere "clodhopper," I thought it clear- 

 ly indicated the existence of doubt, in the mind 

 of at least one able English agricultural editor, 

 of the infallibility of Thoi'ough Draining as a spe- 

 cific for every ill farming is heir to. From my 

 slight knowledge of English agriculture, I sup- 

 pose that draining, like the much vaunted Tip- 

 tree farming, is rather the plaything of capital- 

 ists than the w^ork of practical farmers — that, in 

 fact, drainage is the exception, not the rule, of 

 tillage land even in England, 



This digression has carried me so far from Dr. 

 Hitchcock's remarks, and I am so willing to leave 

 them to make their own impression, that I shall 

 not attempt to return to that branch of my subject. 



In the next place I oly'ect to tile draining, that 

 it is exhaustive. It adds nothing to the soil. It 

 is not a fertilizer. No one will dispute these po- 

 sitions. In a long list of the benefits ascribed to 

 thorough draining, on the last page of the month- 

 ly Farmer for 1850, is the following : "It hasten* 

 the decay of roots and other vegetable matter" 

 in the soil! A statement far more encouraging 

 to the race of farm-skinners than to those who 

 wish to improve the soil. This singular "benefit" 

 of draining suggests another thought. By "has- 

 tening the decay of vegetable matter in the soil," 

 an apparent improvement in crops may for a time 

 be ascribed to drainage, which should be credited 

 to the gradual impoverishment of the soil, conse- 

 quent on this very decay of its vegetable matter. 

 Especially in a highly manured and long cultiva- 

 ted country like that of England, a lowering o^ 

 the water-line froni within a few inches of the 

 surface to the depth of several feet, might be 

 followed for a time by results that could not be 

 anticipated in a poorer soil, or in one M'hose sat- 

 urated subsoil has always been much farther be- 

 low the surface of the earth. 



In conversation a few years since with a Con- 

 necticut River farmer, on the comparative merits 

 of the soil of that valley and the more heavy 

 soil of the Champlain valley, one remark was 

 made that I have not forgotten, and which I will 

 repeat in this connection. The Connecticut Riv- 

 er farmer said, "What we lack is a bottom to our 

 farms," I understood him to hold, with Dr. 

 Hitchcock, that on the porous subsoil of his farm 

 the salts of the manure were carried downward 

 thi'ough the soil beyond the reach of plants. 



