10 



Laying Out of Farm Lands. 



Vol. II. 



liaylng Out of Farm liondsi 



A variety of considerations present them- 

 selves in the arrangement of farm lands. No 

 instructions, applicable to every case, can be 

 given. The best mode of dividing or laying 

 out a farm, will depcind upon the nature and 

 situation of the land, its water, its proximity 

 to roads, the kind of fences about to be adopt- 

 ed, and especially the objects to which the 

 grounds are to be appropriated. As a gene- 

 ral rule, admitting indeed of but few excep- 

 tions, fields of a large size will be found more 

 advantageous than small ones. The larger 

 the divisions of a farm, the less fencing is re- 

 quired. This is a point not likely to be over- 

 looked by those who have had some experi- 

 ence of the perplexities and oppressive cost 

 of keeping up the necessary enclosures upon 

 their farms. A few small fields, particularly 

 on grazing farms, are convenient, and in the 

 winter, will be profitable, if enclosed by 

 hedges, on account of the shelter which thev 

 aflt)rd to the pastures. Beyond this, but little 

 can be said in their favor. Large fields are 

 more easily supplied with water than small 

 ones, and where they are regularly laid out, 

 and of proper size, " five ploughs may do as 

 much work as six ploughs in fields of a small 

 size and of an irregular shape; while every 

 other branch of labor (such as dunging, sow- 

 ing, harrowing, reaping, and carrying in the 

 harvest,) can bo executed, though not alto- 

 gether, yet nearly in the same proportion." 

 It is to be observed, however, that the size of 

 the fields must, in a great measure, depend 

 on the extent of the farm, the character of 

 the soil, and the object to which it is to be 

 appropriated. Where the soil differs mate- 

 rially, it will often be advisable to separate 

 the light from the heavy, the wet from the 

 dry. As a general rule, a farm should be di- 

 vided with a reference to the course of crops 

 to be pursued in it ; " that is to say, a farm 

 with a rotation of six crops should have six 

 fields, or twelve, according to circumstances." 

 Again, the size of the fields must in some 

 degree depend upon the flat or hilly shape of 

 the ground, for even on dry land, if there be 

 a rise on the ground, twenty cliains is suffi- 

 cient length: If the ridge be longer, the 

 horses, in ploughing, are apt to become fa- 

 tigued. When the system alternates with 

 grazing and tillage, fields of from fifteen to 

 twenty-five acres will perhaps be found to 

 combine more advantages than those of any 

 other dimensions. They should be either 

 square or oblong. There is great advantage 

 in having the fencesof fields in straight lines, 

 and when the fields are large, the square 

 form should have preference: If they be 

 small, the oblong shape has superior advan- 

 tages. On a large farm, in a bleak situation, 



and on which it is proper to keep a numer- 

 ous stock, it may often be found requisite to 

 subdivide the arable divisions, not only for the 

 sake of shelter, while the lands lie m a state 

 of herbage, but for the convenience of sepa- 

 rating and shifting the stock. Hence it is in- 

 cumbent on the planner of a farm, to weigh 

 well the various circumstances that belong to 

 it, as on tliese only the true size and number 

 of arable fields can be calculated. Even the 

 shape of an arable field is not a matter of 

 choice. It ought to be regulated by the 

 shape of the farm, and by tiie roads and wa- 

 ter courses running through it, as well as by 

 the nature of its lands, the form of its surface, 

 and its aspect or exposure. A perfect square 

 or a long square, is a desirable shape, when 

 circumstances will admit of it. Crooked 

 lines and irregular fences are inconvenient 

 in the operations of tillage, and should of 

 course be avoided. Two sides at least ought 

 to run parallel to each other: and it is equal- 

 ly, or more desirable, that each field should 

 have a uniformity of soil and subsoil, as on 

 these depend the uses to which it is applica- 

 ble ; and it is at once unpleasant and unpro- 

 fitable to have different parts of the same 

 field under separate courses of management. 

 Yet where the natural line of division is very 

 irregular, it is improper to follow implicitly 

 all its windings. The planner ought rather 

 to draw a judicious line between the two, and 

 the cultivator to alter the qualities of the 

 lands, which happen to be unnaturally sev- 

 ered, by draining, manuring, and other ne- 

 cessary means. 



The direction of the fields should be the 

 same as that in which the land ought to be 

 ploughed for a crop, provided it be compatible 

 with the given lines of the farm. On a level 

 surface, or on one which is gently inclining, 

 the direction of the beds of retentive lands 

 that require to be laid up in round ridges 

 ought to be nearly north and south ; in order 

 that tiie crops on either side of them, may 

 receive equal sun, and ripen evenly : conse- 

 quently, in this case, the fences which form 

 the two longer sides of the quadrangle should 

 take that direction. But where the surface 

 is steep, this principle of direction must give 

 way to another of greater utility. If the 

 land is retentive, and the soil requires to be 

 aid up into rough beds, across the slope, the 

 direction of the ridges must be guided by the 

 face of the slope ; and the fences, on the 

 general principle, ought to take the same di- 

 rection; observing, in this case, when cir- 

 cumstances will permit, to let the fences 

 wind to the right of a person standing on the 

 brink of the slope, and facing towards it ; as 

 the beds ought to take that direction for the 

 greater ease in ploughing them. And when 

 the face of a hill is steep, and the land ab- 



