is3r.j 



FARMERS' R E G r S T iC R. 



G53 



it enables us to live with much worse manage- 

 ment than would be iis?eil, were it of an inferior 

 (li'scriplion. If we were compelled to pav our la- 

 borers liioli waiies, in money, every year, and the 

 crop eultivated by ihem would not yield ihe means, 

 llie first year would close Ihe business. Cut we 

 frive only victuals and clothes. Our capital, the 

 soil, wastes so imperceptibly, we are scarcely 

 aware of it ; and finally when nothinn; more is to 

 be obtained from it, we lay the blame on every 

 thing but our ou'n neo-lect and iijnorance. 

 ( jTo be continued.) 



ON THE PRAIRIE I^ANDS OP AI.ARABtA, AND 

 THE CAUSE OF RUST IN COTTON, SO FRE- 

 QUENT ON THOSE LANDS. 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



Jan. 25, 1S37. 



Dear Sir : — I received day before yesterday the 

 earlier volumes of the Farmers' Register, ordered 

 to complete ni}^ set, together with the sheet con- 

 taining your essay on prairies, to which you have 

 asked my attention. 



Your tlieory of the formation of prairies* is, I 

 liave no doubt, the true one, and will claim the as- 

 sent of ever}^ intelligent man who knows any 

 thing of that interesting region. I live in Jjowndes 

 county, Alabama, the heart of the prairies — and 

 I have always been convinced that they were 

 produced by some original ditfi^rence in the soil, 

 and not li'om burning>:, as has been idly suiigested. 

 That ditierence in soil 3-ou have doubtless pointed 

 out, and if I had time, I could support j-our theory 

 l)y a great number of facts, coming within my 

 own knowledge ; and I could show that the ex- 

 ceptions appearing to disprove your positions, are 

 the strongest confirmations. The subject is of 

 great importance to my section of conntr}', and its 

 investigation will, I have no doubt, lead to the dis- 

 covery of the cause, and to the prevention of the 

 rust in cotton, the most serious drawback on the 

 value of that kind of land. I think 3^00 are wrong 

 as to its being for want of sand. It is excess of 

 both lime and vegetable matter, forming a chemical 

 combination, and when that excess is overcome 

 either bj' clay or sand, I have no doubt a cure 

 would be efit^cted ; by clay, however, sooner than 

 by sand. I believe the same result woidd be ob- 

 tained by an increase of vegetable matter, which 

 Avould neutralize the excess of lime. Lime, how- 

 ever, without a considerable amount of vegetable 

 matter, cannot form that chemical combination 

 which, in my opinion, rusts cotton, llence on 

 the peaks of prairie hills, where the lime exists 

 almost alone, in a white chalky state, and where 

 the soil is so poor as to produce scarcely anytliing, 

 the land, by a slight application of vegetable mat- 

 ter, quickly improves, but never gets that pecu- 

 liar loose, black, friable, and rich state which rusts 

 cotton. This is the kind described in analysis No. 

 20, of your Essay on Prairies, (p. 332, vol. iii. 

 Farmeis' Register,) and though from poverty it 

 produces but little cotton, it never rusts. 



I can, by merely riding over prairie land, tell 

 where it will rust. Tlie rusting soil is always 



* Published iii vol. iii. Farmers' Register, pp. 321 

 to 336. 



rich, deep, porous, and dry for a considerable 

 depth below the surflice, say five inches. It can 

 be ploughed by a wooden plough, and is exceed- 

 ingly fine lor corn. The cotton plant requires a 

 firmer and more compact subsoil for ils taj) root to 

 enter, than can be found in this loose rich soil 

 which rusts cotton, llence on pulling up the 

 plant which is much rusted, it will be found to 

 Itave either no tap root at all, and to be supported 

 entit'ely by lateral roots, which being small are 

 very numerous — or the tap root, if it exists at all, 

 is of a diminished size. 



In coming to the conclusion that rust is produc- 

 ed by the too loose and porous state of the soil, 

 arising as I think, out of the chcmieal combination 

 of lime (in some form or other) and vegetable 

 matter, when both of these sulistances are in ex- 

 cess, as compared with the other constituents of 

 the soil, I am governed by the f()!lowing facts. 



1st. Excess of lime alone, cannot ijroduce that 

 loose soil which makes rust, because the greatest 

 excess of lime is found on the summit of our open 

 prairie hills, which are white and poor, but not 

 as loose and porous as the blacker and richer land 

 further down the hills, where the open prairie joins 

 the " slues," or limbered land ; and while the 

 white and poor land on and near the summit, 

 though producing smaller cotton, does not rust, 

 the black, rich, and looser land, on the side of the 

 hill, having less lime, but more vegetable matter, 

 will certainly rust. The first, or white prairie, is 

 the variety described in No. 20 of your analyses. 

 For the first year or two, it produces very little ; 

 but after four or five years' cultivation, fi-om the 

 vegetable matter of the stalks left on it, and from 

 exposure to the sun, it grows darker, and produces 

 better. It is precisely like, and I think, nothing 

 more than, the usual subsoil of prairie land, in 

 high places showing itself on the surfiice. The 

 black, loose, rusting land, where the open prairie, 

 joins the woodland, is described in many speci- 

 mens of your analyses, but is best described in Nos. 

 11 and 12, as the outskirts of the open prairie 

 where it joins the hammock, (p. 332 vol. iii.) It 

 is said in the statement of the analyses, that Nos. 

 11 and 12 contain no carbonate of lime ; but I am 

 convinced that they contain a large quantity of 

 lime, in some form — or possibly magnesia. Those 

 who are acquainted with prairies, can detect lime 

 by the eye, but cannot determine whether it is 

 carbonate of lime, or lime in some other state. 

 The reason why 1 suppose that Nos. 11 and 12 

 have a great quantity of lime in some state, 

 though not, as appears by your experiments, in 

 the form of car bo at e of lime, is, that I have seen 

 such lands as they are described to be, and know, 

 from the eye, that they have a large quantity of 

 what is considered, by us, as lime, and besides, 

 they are described as loose and porous ; and every 

 other experiment you recite, proves that these 

 qualities of looseness and porosity are, on rich 

 soils, in the precise ratio of the quantity of lime in 

 them. From my acquaintance with the several 

 specimens analyzed, by their description, except 

 on the poor soils, and on Nos. 11 and 12, I should 

 say that the measure of lime in them is an exact 

 exponent of their looseness or want of adhessive- 

 ness; wherefore I conclude, if Nos. 11 and 12 

 have no carbonate of lime, ihey have a great 

 quantity of the sulphate of lime, or lime in some 

 other state — or otherwise, it may be magnesia. 



