No. 5. 



Some account of the green-sand earth in N. J. 



141 



proving (in ] 833,) was to plough 12 acres in 

 the spring, apply stone lime at 50 husbels 

 the acre, and cultivate in corn. The next 

 year oats. Both crops were very good for 

 the land. Again 50 bushels of lime were 

 applied to the acre ; and before the wheat, 

 which was the next crop, barn-yard manure 

 was given at the rate of 10 two-horse loads 

 to the acre. Timothy seed sown with the 

 wheat, and clover in the spring. The next 

 winter, after the wheat crop, applied green- 

 sand earth, 10 tons to the acre, hauled seven 

 miles from Woodstown. The crop of hay 

 was two and a half tons to the acre ; and its 

 value was enough to pay for the whole ex- 

 pense of all the lime applied, charged at the 

 cost when landed on the wharf, and that of 

 the purchase and wagoning, and spreading 

 of the green-sand earth. This year, a 

 neighbour offered Mr. Reeve $24 for the 

 grass then standing on a single acre, which 

 was refused ; and he sold the grass of half 

 an acre for $15, or at the rate of $30 the 

 acre. 



Mr. Reeve knows of no land where the 

 green-sand earth has been applied and found 

 useless. 



Among the many reports I had heard in 

 advance, were conflicting statements of the 

 effects of this earth on the naturally rich 

 and very productive lands around the town 

 of Salem. While some affirmed the benefit, 

 others stated that the use of green-sand 

 earth had been there discontinued. I had 

 but little time left for inquiry on this head; 

 but that little was enough to show that both 

 reports were true. Enough applications of 

 'this earth had been made on these good 

 lands, to show very good effects; but the dis- 

 tance to the nearest diggings was so great, 

 and the supply of water-borne lime and 

 drawn ashes so much cheaper and more 

 convenient, that the use of the latter ma- 

 nures had nearly or entirely superseded the 

 former. 



I have aimed throughout this inquiry, to 

 obtain and present the opinions of others, 

 rather than to give my own views most pro- 

 minency. And when the most experienced 

 and well informed practical improvers differ 

 so much on this subject, it could not be ex- 

 pected that my hasty digest of their opinions 

 should be entirely free from contradictions. 

 In truth, my own opinions have not remained 

 the same, at different scenes of this hasty 

 examination, nor even during the writing of 

 both the earlier and the latter part of this 

 account. While I have learned much as 

 to the effects and value of this manuring 

 earth, by my inquiries and personal exami- 

 nation, I have at the same time also learned 

 that I was before, and still am, profoundly 



ignorant of the cause and manner of the 

 action. I will not even presume to attempt 

 any explanation of what appears to me so 

 far inexplicable by any of the views yet set 

 forth. 



There seem to be important differences of 

 action between the green-sand of New Jer- 

 sey and that of James river. It is true that 

 the latter has been usually applied by myself 

 in very small doses, say 20 to 40 bushels the 

 acre, while in New Jersey the quantity is 

 usually 200 bushels, and often much more. 

 But even this great difference of quantity 

 does not at all serve to explain the differ- 

 ences of results — nor do the manifest differ- 

 ences of the different earths, or of the soils 

 of the different regions. So far as my prac- 

 tical experience has extended, the green- 

 sand earth of James river acts precisely as 

 does gypsum, though more strongly — is lim- 

 ited to the same soils, to the same crops, and 

 like gypsum, has but a temporary though 

 more extended limit of time of action. But 

 the green-sand earth of New Jersey, while 

 agreeing greatly with that of James river 

 in its visible effects, especially on clover, 

 seems to act on nearly all soils, on most 

 crops, and is counted as a very long endur- 

 ing, if not indeed a permanent fertilizer. 



All the best green-sand earths which I 

 saw, contain no carbonate of lime, or at most 

 and in very few cases, so small a proportion 

 as to be of no appreciable effect. They con- 

 tain — according to Professor H. D. Rogers' 

 statements of their contents — from 85 to 95 

 parts of green-sand in the 100 of earth ; and 

 the pure green-sand, or silicate of iron and 

 pot-ash, contains from 5 to 14 per cent., or 

 generally 9 or 10 per cent, of pot-ash. Since 

 the discovery of this latter ingredient was 

 made by Henry Seybert, Esq,, of Philadel- 

 phia, it has been generally supposed to be 

 the main if not the sole fertilizing ingredi- 

 ent. I deem that opinion extremely ques- 

 tionable ; and, as to the green-sand earth of 

 James river, altogether untenable. But I 

 will not here repeat the grounds of this 

 opinion. 



The gypsum, which is certainly present 

 in most if not all the green-sand earth of 

 New Jersey, has not been considered by the 

 highest authorities, as being an important 

 ingredient. Indeed it does not appear among 

 the contents in the many analyses stated in 

 Professor H. D. Rogers' Report. Without 

 claiming for it any very important agency, 

 still it seems to me that the gypsum cannot 

 be of so little amount or effect, as has thus 

 been assumed. And sulphate of iron (cop- 

 peras) and sulphate of alumine, (alum) which 

 are present in some cases, need only to meet 

 lime in the soil, or to have lime previously 



