.' XX l.hiZl„JJjl.Va 



the seed witlioot again plowing. Some sow witli 

 the drill, and follow witli a light liarrow ; others 

 cover the seed with a gang-plow or two-horse cul- 

 tivator. 



It has been a query with us for some time 

 whether we cau not adopt the English method of 

 iowing wheat on a clover sod turned over imme- 

 diately before seeding. The olgection urged to the 

 practice is that the grass is not sufficiectly subdued, 

 and that it grows to such an extent the next sea- 

 son as to smother the wheat. This is undoubtedly 

 true, if the land is foul ; but if the land is clean 

 and rich, with little on it but clover, we do not 

 see why the wheat would not succeed as well with 

 us, sown on the furrow, as it does in England. 

 Perhaps some of our Canadian readers can give us 

 information on this point. 



At a recent meeting of the Chester County (Pa.) 

 Farmers' Club, the question was asked : " Does the 

 wheat repay the expense of a second plowing?" 

 Several members objected to this form of the ques- 

 tion, and it was altered to read: " Does the second 

 plowing for wheat pay ?" 



One of the oldest members stated that he had, 

 with one exception, for the last eight years plowed 

 his oat-stubble twice, but as the question was at 

 first proposed would have answered it in the nega- 

 tive, though as it now stood he would, without the 

 least hesitation, answer in the affirmative, for he 

 fully believed that it paid the expenses four or five 

 times over. He did not think that the increase of 

 the wheat crop would pay the expenses, but he 

 was very certain that the yearly increase of the 

 grass crops would more than pay them. His plan 

 was to plow up his oat- stubble deep as soon as the 

 oats were . removed, and after rolling it with a 

 heavy roller, spread the manure and tnrn it under. 

 to the depth of six or seven inches, and then drill 

 in the seed. He said tliat even if he received no 

 actual benefit from an increase in the crop, he 

 would still follow the plan, because he had found 

 that if, after the oats were off, he wanted to haul 

 out and spread the manure, the ground very often 

 became too dry to plow well, whereas, if he plow- 

 ed it up immediately, the dry weather whidi of 

 late years usually followed was an advantage "in 

 hauling out the manure. 



Another member stated that for the last tliree 

 years it had been his plan to haul out the manure 

 as soon as the oats were off, and turn it under as 

 Boon as possible, and then, if time was afforded, he 

 usually plowed again, just before seeding time. He 

 bad noticed in two cases when he did not get all 



the field plowed the second time, tliat the artificial 

 grasses, dover and timothy, were soonest crowded 

 out by the natuial ones where the ground had been 

 plowed the second time. 



It was tiien resolved, by vote, tliat the second 

 plowing was more beneficial to the ensuing grass 

 cro[)S than to that of wheat. 



It will bo observed that the usual practice among 

 the farmers in Chester county, Penn., is to sow 

 wheat after oats ; and the remarks, though quit© 

 interesting in them.selves, are not applicable to the 

 system of rotation alluded to above — sowing wheat 

 immediately on clover sod. 



CULTIVATION OF WHEAT IN PENNSYLVANIA. 



In tlie Oenexee Farmer' for August, 18C1, we 

 made some i-emarks on an article in Evans' Hural 

 Economist^ published in Chester county, Penn., 

 in regard to the best rotation on wheat farms. 

 The following communication from a farmer in 

 tliat county in relation to the matter, was received 

 a short time afterward, but as the season was past 

 it was laid aside and forgotten. The subject is of 

 so much importance that we present it entire at 

 this time : . 



Messks. Editors: In an editorial reviewing an 

 article t^keii from Evans' Chester County Econo- 

 mist^ you disjtose of our system of rotation of 

 crops in this county in a very summary and con- 

 demnatory manner. You say it is liardly worth 

 while to di.^cuss the policy of sowing uiieat im- 

 medintely ufier oats, as all good farmers unite in 

 deciding that such a course will eventually prove 

 ruinious to the land, {a) 



If we admit the trtith of this assertion, we, 

 around here, must acknowledge ourselves poor 

 farmers, for I think I may safely say that this is 

 the general practice here, and in much of Lancas- 

 ter likewise. 



In order tliat you may be assisted in properly 

 understanding our mode of farming, and arriving 

 at a correct decision of its results, I will give you 

 a brief outline of -our system: 



First, beginning with corn. We generally plow 

 up an old sod, limed the year before; follow this 

 with oats; then put on our barn-yard manure ; 

 plow down and seed to wheat, sowing timothy at 

 the satne time and clover the following spring. 

 The field is then mown two years or so, and pas- 

 tured from one to three, nccording to size of farm, 

 nund)er of fields, &c. 



TIence you perceive that onrs is a mixed hus- 

 bandry — in fact, more than half, sometimes two- 

 thirds, of the land is devoted to hay and pasture; 

 oonnequently the great object is to keep our grass 

 lands well set and productive. Timothy and clo- 

 ver make tlie best hay, and wheat does not do well 

 on old tinK)thysod: hence our rotation. {!>) But 

 you say seed the oats down with clover a year or 

 two. (>) The objections to this are : First. Clo- 

 ver is uncertain to take in oats. Second. Itmakea 

 but little pa:9ture, and nearly a year is lost. Third. 



