190 



Lime. — Farmer^s Magazine. 



Vol. VIII. 



rest, and cost of hauling and spreading, in 

 two years from the time I bought and spread 

 the lime on my lands. In some case-, I have 

 been fully paid in one crop of corn or oats. 



I have known Andrew Eliason, John 

 McCracken, Charles Boulden, George Boul- 

 den, Robert M. Black, Esqrs., to be fully re- 

 paid in the first corn crop, for the entire cost 

 of the first liming, hauling and spreading 

 included, so that the lime did not cost the 

 purchaser one cent at the end of the first 

 year, as the extra grain more than paid for 

 the lime, over -what the land would have 

 produced without the lime; no manure of 

 any kind being used with the lime. I took 

 different fields myself and tried the experi- 

 ment, and I found that two crops — one of 

 corn and one of oats — did in every instance, 

 repay the outlay for the lime, and sometimes 

 one crop paid the whole cost of the lime : 

 the difference was owing, of course, to a va- 

 riety of causes; on some soils lime acts more 

 powerfully at first, and sometimes it is put 

 on more evenly and in a finer state, and 

 sometimes the seasons are better adapted to 

 the powerful action of lime; and the prices 

 also of produce, we know often vary. I 

 would recommend the Schuylkill lime, sold 

 in the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, by 

 Jeremiah Zelly, of Mount Holly, New Jer 

 sey, as the best burnt and purest stone lime 

 I have ever used from the Schuylkill. All 

 the Schuylkill lime is very good, but some 

 is of course inferior to other lime. I would 

 recommend that the lime intended for corn, 

 should be spread next May or June, on a 

 pasture field intended for corn the following 

 spring, as the lime spread on the old lea 

 field would have time to act more power- 

 fully on the first crop, and pay as well, and 

 perhaps better than if put on in the spring 

 that the corn is planted ; of this, however, 

 there are different opinions. Lime may be 

 put on at any time, and in quantities of 25 

 to 35 bushels per acre, and should be evenly 

 and carefully spread, and not suffered to 

 cake, for that is injurious. 



Yon can publish this, if you consider it 

 worth a place in your valuable paper. I 

 consider lime will justify any prudent man 

 to hire money at six per cent., and he will 

 get twenty-five per cent, clear or more. 



Henrv Cazier. 



Mount Vernon Farm, Summit-bridge, 

 Del., Dec. 18th, 1843. 



In a conversation a few days ago with John Jones, 

 a near neighbour to Henry Cazier, he informed the 

 editor, that in 1841, ho cut thirteen busliels of wheat 

 to tlie acre from a field of thirty-two acres, which had 

 hitherto been so poor as to produce only about three 

 bushels. The field had received a dressing of forty 

 bushels of lime to the acre, in 1838, and a crop of oats 



which had been injured on the 17th of sixth month, 

 1840, by a hail-storm, was ploughed down pretty soon 

 afterwards. Wheat in the ninth month, 1841, was 

 worth $1 50;— the lime cost 20 cents per bushel, and 

 the first cost of the land was $10 per acre. So that 

 if the extra ten bushels of wheat be set down to the 

 credit of the lime, it will within $3 an acre, pay for 

 both land and lime ; to say nothing of the superior con- 

 dition in which tlie.land was left after the wheat was 

 taken ofi". — Ed. 



Farmer's Encyclopedia. 



The editor of this work has requested the republica- 

 tion of the following note, originally addressed to the 

 Cultivator. We use the occasion to say, that on 

 looking over the article afresh, which appeared at page 

 347, of our last volume, and which has been the cause 

 of considerable uneasiness to some of our very sensi- 

 tive friends, we remain of the opinion then expressed, 

 that it is a beautifully written speculation upon a very 

 curious and interesting subject, and need by^no moans, 

 have given rise to those "thunders of indignation," 

 which some of our Southern friends have thought ne- 

 cessary for its annihilation, and with which they have 

 thought proper to frighten their readers. No one has 

 contemplated injustice to the South. We have not 

 said, nor do we mean to say, that all the author's po- 

 sitions are sustained, or that they are all tenable; but 

 the subject is particularly curious, and the assumptions 

 of the writer are philosophically argued. What is 

 wanted for the South that is not yielded to her? lias 

 she not her orange groves, her rice fields, and her su- 

 gar plantations, in all tlieir e.xuherance, and in all 

 their capacity to enrich their cultivators? And from 

 these and other similar privileges, are we not continu- 

 ally feeling, and are we not ever ready to acknowledge, 

 that the rigidness of our climate cuts us off? Why 

 should we fight with our own shadows, or with wind- 

 mills, conjuring up difficulties to vex ourselves with, 

 which are in reality only the floating phantoms of our 

 imaginings? The remarks of some of our cotempora- 

 ries in relation to this subject, lead us to the belief 

 that they not only think that nature has meant to do 

 every thing exclusively for them, but are vexed if every 

 one else does not assent to their assumptions. We 

 have been reminded of the man who was so grasping 

 as a landholder, that he sighed /or all the farms west qf 

 him! 



The article was transferred to the Encj'clopedia from 

 Featherstonhaugh's American Journal of Geology and 

 Natural Science. But it was not written by Feather, 

 haugh. It wag written by a thorough Southern man, 

 now holding, if wefare rightly advised, large interests 

 in Alabama. It probably never entered his mind— he 

 never dreamed that he was writing any thing deroga- 

 tory in the least, to his own "sunny South;" he could 

 have no possible inducement to do so : neither have 

 those any such feeling, who have read with pleasure, 

 and who still claim the privilege to admire, the article 

 in question.— Ed. F. Cabinet. 



Messrs. Editors, — We regret to find 

 that an article upon the Influence of Cli- 

 mate on the Productiveness of Plants, in- 

 troduced into the Farmer's Encyclopedia, 

 has caused us to be denounced as entertain- 



