u 



THE GENESEE FARJ^IER. 



OQ tlie farm for botli purposes the two systems can 

 be combined with great advantage. Less laud will 

 be sown to grain, but this will prove an advantage 

 in the end, as the manure from ihe cows will cause 

 it to produce a greater yield per acre, "We have no 

 doubt that a properly kept dairy on our large grain 

 farmaiwould soon enable us to raise as much wheat 

 from 20 acres as we now do from 80 acres., And 

 few farmers realize how much more the pro/its are 

 from a good than a poor crop. The cost of ])lowing, 

 seeding and harvesting are nearly the same for the 

 poor crop as for the large, so that if he could 

 increase thei yield 10 bushels per acre, it would be 

 nearly all profit. If a field of wheat yields 15 

 bushels per acre, and the cost of tillage, seeding, 

 harvesting, &c., is 10 bushels, we have a profit of 

 5 bushels per acre. If the same field yields 25 

 bushels, the profits would be 15 bushels, or three 

 times as much. In other words, we should make as 

 much from one acre as from three. Can not this be 

 done ? N"o one will deny that a great portion of 

 our farmers do not get over 15 bushels of wheat 

 per acre on the average. Can we not just as easily 

 raise 25 bushels, or even 30 bushels? If this can 

 be done by keeping more stock and reducing the 

 area of land under tillage, the labor needed will be 

 greatly lessened, and this in these times is one of 

 the most important considerations which claim the 

 attention of farmers. 



ACnON OF UANUIIES. 



The Country Oentleman of November 13 al- 

 luded to the results of our experiments on the 

 Chinese Sugar Cane, published in the Genesee 

 Farmer for November, 1862, and remarked that 

 tliey seemed to support the theory of manuring 

 advocated by Mr. Robert Russeix, of Scotland. 

 The Scottish Farmer^ published at Edinburgh, 

 copied the article from the Country Gentleman^ 

 and Mr. Rdsskli. alludes to it as follows: 



From the extract you made iu the Parmer of 30th ult., 

 I ?ee that you exchanije papers with the Countri/ Gentle- 

 man, j)ubiished at Albany, New York State. In it, Jlr. 

 Tucker, the editor and proprietor of that influential paper, 

 has niarlo some observations on tlie views I put forward 

 years ago on the action of innnnres. Throujrh the me- 

 dium ot the pa^es of the Farmer, I will ofler some remarks 

 on the points which have been touched upon, and I hope 

 that the editor of the Cou-Un/ Gtnt/tman will l.iy them 

 before its numerous readers, lor the purpose of eliciting 

 nsefiil discus<iion, as well as of s»ibmittin;r any disputed 

 points to tield experiments carefullr uud intelligentlj con- 

 ducted. 



The editor of the Couniry Gfntlanan makes repeated 

 relerence to a criticism on some of my papers which ap- 

 peared in the Gentsee Farmer of December, Is.'jtj, from 

 the pen of its editor, Mr. Horris. I had well nich forgot- 

 ten a'.l about this sharply-written article till Mr. Tucker 

 again recalled it to memory*. For the benefit of Scotch 

 reader*, I may be allowed to inform them who Mr. Har- 

 riais. 



Mr. Harris has done no mean service to the cause o 

 agricultural science in America He has written largel 

 on all branches of rural economy, and |pas earned forliin: 

 self a high position in airricnltural literature The Gei. 

 eaee Farmer, published at Rochester, ^'ew York Slate, lia 

 a very wide circulation. I had the jdeasure of m'akin 

 Mr. Harris' acquaintance when at Rochester, in 1.8;'^, au 

 along with him visited some of the farms in the fine whe? 

 region surrounding that town. He is an Englishman, an 

 studied for several years in the fields and laboratory o 

 Mr. Lawes, at Kothanisted. It 'is not at all uniiatura 

 therefore, that Mr. Harris .should be a strict disciple in th 

 Rothamsted school of agricultural chemistry. 



The heading in the article in the Genesee Farmer o 

 December, ls.56, is: "Do Late Crops require Less An 

 mouia in the Soil than Early Crops V". I bad auswere 

 that query long ago in the affirmative, but now, for th 

 first time, Mr. Harris attemj>ted to do so in the negativi 

 Almost at the very moment that Mr. Harris was stoutly di 

 nyiug the truth of the principle, Messrs. Lawes andGi 

 bert were giving their adherence to it. These ijcntleme 

 have sought too eagerly after the reasons of things not I 

 recognize a truth when fully presented to them. Mr. H» 

 ris made his attack on the principles invol'-ecl in tlie que 

 tion by appealing to the culture of Indian corn, and crit 

 cising some observations of mine on the effect of manun 

 ou this plant. I think that both Mr. Tucker and Mr. Han- 

 have somewhat »iisunderstood the application of my viet^ 

 with regard to the action of inanures on Indian cor; 

 and a few observations on my part are thus rendert 

 necessary. 



I have hardly any objections to offer to the gener 

 tenor of the remarks of Mr. Tucker, as they almost ei 

 tirely coincide with my own view.s. On some points. ; 

 indicated above, however, he has slightly nii.>under.-;i" 

 them. This may possibly have arisen from Mr. Harris, i 

 the article referred to, stiitiuj; that I admitted along wit 

 Mr. Lawes, "that wheat required in the soil much nioi 

 ammonia for its maximum growth tluui turnips." Ni.\ 

 I have over and over again taken occasion to point <m 

 that the reverse is nearer the truth. In Scotland, cioj 

 of common turnips and swedes sometime exceed thin 

 tons to the statute acre. Such great crops, however, ai 

 only obtained by manures containing larger quantities ( 

 ammonia than could safely.be apjilied to wheat. Tl 

 "Genesee flats" are too rich tor wheat, but they are ni 

 so, I imagine, for turnips. 



The advocates of the Rothamsted school of agncu 

 tural chemistry always seemed to me to err in attemptin 

 to make out asort of antithetical theory of Diaiiurini;. 1 

 a plant is largely benefited by phr>.<iihates, it was tacitl 

 taken for granted that it could not be so with ammoniac 

 manures ; and, vice versa, if with ammonia, not with pho 

 phates. The confusion which this system led to is m 

 where better exhibited than in the article on snperjiho; 



Rhate of lime by Jlr. Harris in the " Truusaclions of tl 

 ew York State Agricultural Society" for 1S5,3. Thei 

 we find Mr. Harris declaring, what" no doubt had bee 

 often declared in Britain, that "ammonia is not essentii 

 in n manure for turnips," but at the same time confessin 

 that this theory of manuring waa little else than 

 " paradox. "+ 



It ought always to be kept in mind that, though turnij- 

 are usually far more largely benefitted by the lipplicaiio 

 o< phosphates than wheat, there are no irrounds wliatuv( 

 for assuming that they are less benefited by nitrogenou 

 manures. As with turnips, so with Indian corn. India 

 corn is usually benefited by sulphate and ]»hosphate o 

 lime to a far greater extent than wheat, but this jieculiayit 

 does not unfit it from being lar-jely benefited by nitroiiei 

 ous manures. On the contrary, an artificial dressinsf o 

 phosjdiafes merely enables turnips and Indian corn t 

 take up and assimilate nitrogen more freely than they ca 

 otherwise do. 



*We were not aware that ttie article was"»harpfy written. 

 We liave always spoken of Mr. EuBSELL'a views aa worlby c 

 Con.sifieratioD. 



+ Tlie " paradox" we alluded to was not that wheat reqnire. 

 more ammonia than tamlps, but that turnips, which «ontnin » 

 lilllo p!u>yi/i(ttfs, should be so benefllted by a dres»ii^ of super 

 phosphate, while wheat, which contains so much phosphates 

 should bo so little benefltted by an application of pboepbate* t> 

 Iho aoU. 



