50 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER, 



AUG. IT, 1848. 



MR TURNER AGAINST ROTATION. | "It is true that I do practice a cliange of crops, 



Our readers will remember the articles in recent , ""t '^om choice but from necessity : and in a pre- 



numbers, in which Rev. J. H. Turner, (a very sue- i ceding par. of this paper I have stated the ertent 



cessful farmer near Richmond, Va.,) has maintain 



ed that nature does not resoit to rotation of crops 

 and those in which the editor of the Farmers' Re- 

 gister and we ourselves have maintained the oppo- 

 site. We give below, from the Farmers' Register, 

 parts of Mr Turner's rejoinder to the attacks that 

 have been made upon him. This we do as an act 

 of courtesy to him, partly — partly also because his 

 communication is in itself a spirited and interest- 

 ing description of what he has observed of nature's 

 operations — but especially because his views are 

 here seen to be, so far as they have any practical 

 bearing upon agriculture, quite accordant with 

 those held by his opposers. 



He does not call frequent changes of crops upon 

 the same soil — rotations. Strictly, they are not 

 such — but usage has made rotation signify very 

 nearly if not precisely tke same as change. 



Mr Turner linds it most profitable to change the 

 crop frequently upon liis land. Ho therefore has 

 learned the only lesson upon the subject that we 

 have any desire to inculcate. 



A few of his remarks — "not one of which," he 

 says, " I nm bold to say, can be controverted" — 

 we should be bold or rash enough to controvert, 

 were we in want of matter to fill our columns — but 

 being short of space for the week, we will merely 

 say, that with us, the assertion that "the whole ob- 

 ject of plowing, weeding, &c., is merely to destroy 

 nature's crop," is not orthodox. We plow and stir, 

 partly, to hflp man's crop to grow vigorously. We 

 should soon tire of farming, if our only object, and 

 especially our only success, were the destruction 

 of natnre's crop — Ed. N. E. F. 



Extracts from Mr Turner's Article. 

 " Having now shown that I am no rotatlonist, 

 either on the peculiar ingredients system, or for the 

 sake of increasing, or even maintaining, a present 

 fertility, which, by-the-by, as I still think, fairly 

 covers the whole ground, I will proceed to state, 

 that I advocate a change of crops, whenever I can 

 make a greater profit by so doing. The profit, 

 then, is the leading idea, by which I am governed 

 in this thing. In illustration of this, I will sup- 

 pose that there is a piece of ground just recovered 

 from the forest. I will not sow grass, or wheat, or 

 any other broadcast crop there, because it is cer- 

 tain that with the soil unbroken, and the large 

 quantities of litter on the ground, the seeds would 

 not vegetate, and therefore a crop could not be 

 reared. But I will plant corn, or tobacco, or some 

 other crop there, which I can cultivate on the plan 

 of drill husbandry, and in this manner may ultimate- 

 ly so cleanse and pulverize the land as to make it 

 more profitable in a baoadcast crop. Or, there is 

 afield which has borne several crops of grass: 

 this field is now so filthy that it does not yield a 

 profitable crop ; at least the crop in something else 

 would be more profitable, paying me at the same 

 time for the labor of changing the crop. As a 

 matter of good management, then, I would root up 

 the grass, and substitute its place with that other 

 crop. But this is not rotation. It is merely a 

 change, of the crop, not to effect any of the pur- 

 poses of a rotation, but to make the land with its 

 cropping ns profitable as possible. If the field 

 would yield a fairer profit in grass than in any other 

 crop, I would continue it in grass for ever — and so 

 of other crops." 



and the reasons tvhy I do so ; and the editor may 

 make the most of it. But the editor, using me as 

 his witness, says, that ' Mr Turner's statement of 

 his own herds grass giving way, after a few years, 

 to green-sward or weeds, is not only a proof of this 

 position, but of nature's urgent demand for a change 

 of crops.' Thus he brings both his arguments to 

 bear upon the main point at the same time ; and 

 this at once opens the wlmle field of controversy. 



" But before I enter upon the subject in hand, 

 it is necessary to promise a few things. I state, 

 then, in the most distinct manner, that I make no 

 pretensions whatever to any thing like a critical 

 acquaintance with vegetable physiology. With 

 the exception of a few short detached pieces, I 

 have read nothing on this subject. But I have 

 eyes, somewhat dimmed by age, it is true, and I 

 have thoughts, and I have tried to use them also. 

 A book has been constantly before me — ' the open 

 volume of nature ' — the pages of which I have 

 made it my habit to consult more or less every 

 day. From this book then, I Iiave learned some 

 strange things, which I propose now to detail. 



Among other things I have learned that nature 

 and art, in all their designs and in all their opera- 

 tions, are as completely and as thoroughly opposed 

 to each other, as any two things can possibly be. 

 By the term art, I here mean all the operations of 

 man in which cropping is concerned. Considered 

 in this respect, light and darkness are not more 

 really and truly at variance, than nature and ait. 

 They are not only opposed in their very being, but 

 also in the whole course of their operations. What- 

 ever, therefore, the one endeavors to do, the other 

 endeavors to undo. If man digs a ditch, nature 

 immediately begins to fill it up. If man erects an 

 enclosure around his field, nature at once begins 

 to pull it down ; and if man builds a house to 

 dwell in, nature directly begins the work of dilapi- 

 dation upon it. 



Nature and man are also directly at variance in 

 regard to their wants. The wants of man are as 

 numerous as the ' stars of heaven or the sands on 

 the seashore.' JVature, on the other hand, has but 

 one want, and that is rich fertile lands. This ob- 

 ject she constantly pursues with the most untiring 

 and patient perseverance. If a weed springs up, 

 and nature is not counteracted in her course, slie 

 uses it to enrich the spot on which it grew. If a 

 /eq/" falls to the ground, nature makes use of it to 

 nourish the tree, that produced it; or if a limb or 

 even a twig is broken ofl^, nature, with the most 

 admirable economy, changes it into nutriment. 

 Thus nature with her trees, her shrubs, her weeds, 

 her grasses, and in fact with every thing else which 

 she has under her exclusive control, is constantly, 

 is steadily employed in enriching her lands. But 

 what is the case in regard to art ? It is well known 

 that the whole policy of cultivation is not to enrich, 

 but to impoverish tlie land. Instead, therefore, of 

 giving our artificial crops to the land, as nature 

 does the whole of her natural crops, man takes 

 them all off. And instead of enriching our lands 

 as nature does, man constantly impoverishes them. 

 I observe further, that the crops which nature 

 and art cultivate, are just as distinct as the objects 

 are for which they are cultivated. Nature has her 

 crops, and man has his also ; and they are as dis- 

 dislinct as the objects are to which they arc to be 



applied. Nature rears her mosses, her lichens, h( 

 shrubs, her grasses, called natural or indigenou 

 but the crop in which she seems to take cspecii 

 delight, is her own forest tree. Man, on the othi 

 hand, cultivates his corn, his wheat, those grassE 

 which are called artificial, and the fruit tree 

 Nature never cultivates the artificial grasses, bt 

 cause weeds and natural grasses answer her pui 

 pose better. If, therefore, the artificial grassf 

 are made to grow, it is only at the expense of lubi 

 and trouble, and nature is trying all the time t 

 destroy them. The whole system of cultivatio 

 thereforo, is a counteraction of nature, and it is 

 counteraction which she continually opposes. 



In accordance with this we see, that when w 

 fell the forest, nature immediately makes a stron 

 effort to restore it. Sprouts spring up, and youn 

 trees make their appearance, so that if we fail 1 

 remove them, nature will soon erect a forest in th 

 same place again. In the same manner, whe 

 man plants any of his crops, nature abhors then 

 and does every thing in her power to destroy then 

 Her great object is to put her own crops in the sam 

 place. Hence it is that a war is constantly ws, 

 ging between them, and this war is of the mo; 

 deadly character, amounting to nothing short ( 

 actual extermination. Man tries to destroy nature 

 crop, and nature tries to destroy man's crop. Tl 

 lohole object of plowing, weeding, Sfc, is merely • 

 destroy nature's crop — and nature, with her weei 

 and grasses, tries to destroy man's crop. Now, tl 

 editor knew all these strange things very we 

 when he was a practical farmer. But since he lu 

 laid aside the plow, and taken the pen in its stea< 

 he has perhaps forgotten them. I therefore ta!- 

 the liberty of bringing them to his remembrance. 

 With these remarks — not one of which, I a 

 bold to say, can be controverted — I feel, as tl 

 witness cited in the case, no difficulty in tellir 

 why 'Mr Turner's herds-grass gives place in a fe 

 years to green sward or to weeds.' It is not b' 

 cause the land is tired of the herds-grass and n 

 quires a rotation ; but it is pimply and truly bi 

 cause herds-grass is an artificial grass. It is oi 

 of man's crops. Nature, therefore, abhors it, u\ 

 does every thing in her power, from the beginni:i 

 to destroy it. If herds-grass had been less hard 

 less tenacious of its hold, nature would have c 

 fected its destruction at an earlier period. As 

 is, it required three years to accomplish it. Bi 

 what are three years or three thousand years in tl 

 account of nature ? Green-sward, on the olln 

 hand, is a natural grass. It is one of nature 

 crops, and one of the uses which she makes of 

 is, to destroy man's artificial crop. 



But this argument, to be worth any thing, mu 

 go a step further. If herds-grass yields to greet 

 sward because the land is tired of it, or becaus 

 it has taken up all the peculiar ingredients in th 

 soil which are fitted for it — as the editor and hi 

 correspondent contend* — and therefore requires a 

 alternation, then, for the same reason, in thre 

 more years, the land ought to be tired of the greer, 

 sward, and the green-sward ought in its turn t 

 yield to the herds-grass. But this I utterly den] 

 and the editor dare not avow it. Nature has he 

 various grasses, but this seems to be her favoriti 

 When, therefore, I see my herds-grass yieldin 

 to green-sward or weeds, (which unfortunately i 

 too frequently for my comfort or profit,) I ascrib 



*This is a mistake, as to the editor. The doctrin 

 may be sohd, or it may be groundless ; but we neitht 

 assumed it, nnr referred to it. — Ed. Fab. Reg. 



