202 



FARMERS' REGISTER— FALLOW. 



For the Farmers' Register. 



FALLOW ITS VAUIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY 



SIGNIFICATIONS. 



One of the many requisites for advancin<i; the 

 improvement of agriculture, is a correct 7i07nencla- 

 iure, in Avhich respect, no other science or art is 

 so deficient. There are few terms used in agri- 

 culture which are of universal acceptation, and 

 many of them are used in senses so dilferent, as 

 to cause the written instructions given by one 

 farmer to be unintelligible to most others. And 

 these objections do not apply merely to the hun- 

 dreds (if not thousands) of provincial terms used 

 by unlettered cultivators ; for they are found more 

 or less to apply to the most correct and well in- 

 formed authors. Indeed it cannot well be other- 

 wise. Almost every term used in agriculture 

 was at first provincial, or limited in its applica- 

 tion to the practice of some particular district — 

 and but few have been so extended as to be uni- 

 versally recognized in a single sense. If there 

 should ever exist a general system of correspon- 

 dence and concert among the agriculturists of the 

 United States, one of the first operations ought 

 certainly to be the adoption of some common sig- 

 nification of common agricultural terms. 



But great as is this evil in our country, it is 

 much worse when Ave take a view of British agri- 

 cultural books, and compare their terms with our 

 own. Many j)assages (from the use of terms to 

 us unknown,) are as unintelligible to us as if 

 written in some foreign language. 



The word fallow is remarkable for its various 

 meanings, which is the more remarkable, because 

 much controversy has been carried on in Eng- 

 land, and also in this country, as to the good and 

 evil tendency of lallows. Some have continued to 

 dispute on this question, after they had lost com- 

 pletely its original meaning : and have adduced 

 the authority of some preceding and older parti- 

 zan, as of their side, Avhen if opinions had been 

 considered instead of names, they would have 

 been found entirely opposed. As in questions of 

 party politics, the terms, however perverted, are 

 every thing, and their true meaning is nothing. 



The term fallow applied to land, originally 

 meant its lying untilled, and unproductive, or 

 (according to our provincial term) at rest. "When 

 such land was ploughed up, during the old and 

 very imperfect practices of husbandry in Europe, 

 it was always done to be laid down in grain sown 

 broadcast, and most generally, in wheat. As the 

 process of preparation was performed with as lit- 

 tle trouble as possible, it was of course commenc- 

 ed late, so as not very long to precede the sowing, 

 and was limited to as few piougingsas would form 

 a tolerable seed bed. This wheat on fallow we 

 may suppose led to fallowed wheat as an equiva- 

 lent term, and thence came the use of fallow to 

 designate the ploughing or preparation of the land 

 for the crop. Here were two totally ditferent 

 meanings, and the last evidently improper, if the 

 first was correct. The first (and still most gene- 

 ral) application of the word fallow, was to land 

 not ploughed, or in use — while the new meaning 

 was directly the reverse, or land ploughed and 

 preparing for a crop. 



As cultivation was improved, fallow (in its second 

 meaning) became a very perfect and laborious ope- 

 ration, extending through the greater part of the 

 year, and serving not only to put the soil in proper 



tilth to receive seed, but to cleanse it by the destruc- 

 tion of all noxious weeds, which had now become 

 the main ol)ject of fallow. The original meaning 

 was now quite lost (in agricultural language, how- 

 ever it might stand in dictionaries) — for though 

 the land was still unproductive, it was any thing 

 but neglected, uncultivated, or at re.st. 



The increase of skill and labor bestowed on this 

 operation rendered it so different from the ancient 

 practice, and from such as still remains in the 

 worst cultivated countries, that we may consider 

 it as a third meaning for fallow : for, according to 

 the manner of the process, fallow was the pride of 

 Scottish and English husbandry, while it was the 

 disgrace of the French, Avhere the ancient sloven- 

 ly manner long continued, and perhaps still conti- 

 nues. 



But as fallow was a preparation for wheat, when 

 other horse-hoed and cleansing crops were after- 

 wards introduced, and made to precede, and pre- 

 pare the land for wheat, their cultivation was also 

 designated by the same term — and the two kinds 

 were distinguished by the names of naked or sum- 

 mer fallow, and covered, or fallow with a crop. 



It was after this that arose the long continued 

 controversy in Great Britain, between the advo- 

 cates of naked summer fallow, and those who 

 were for substituting it by covered fallow — or as 

 they were called, fallowists, and anti fallow ists. 

 The former maintained the high importance of 

 cleaning the soil of weeds, and that it could only 

 be done by a good naked summer fallow. The lat- 

 ter admitted the necessity of the cleansing process, 

 but maintained that it might be performed suffi- 

 ciently well, while cultivating some profitable 

 cro}), without losing a whole year of lent or pro- 

 duct, as the naked fallow required. This was an 

 important consideration, where the price and rent 

 of land were so liigh : and the whole dispute in 

 Britain turned on the loss of a year's rent, and 

 whetlier that loss was compensated by the supe- 

 rior condition of the field from using naked sum- 

 mer fidlow. The opposer of naked fallows admit- 

 ted their good effects, while he contended that 

 they were too dearly paid for by the loss of a 

 crop, or of a year's rent: and their strongest ad- 

 vocate admitted that a covered (or crop) fallow 

 would be preferable, provided it would leave the 

 field as clean, and in as productive a state — which 

 the fallowist denied could be the case. 



I will here observe that the great objection, in 

 Britain, to covered fallowing for wheat, was that 

 they had no horse-hoed, or cleaning crop, which 

 could be profitably cultivated on a large scale, and 

 which ripened just before the time to sow wheat. 

 If their climate, like ours, had been suitable to In- 

 dian corn and tobacco, these would have been con- 

 sidered fallow crops of such great value, as to 

 serve as a general substitute for naked fallows. 

 Yet in this country, where these two crops have 

 so generally preceded wheat, we have never call- 

 ed their cultivation fallowing, merely because it 

 had not been so named in England. Yet strict 

 analogy directs that term to be applied to these 

 crops, if beans are entitled to it in England. We 

 have here also on every farm, fields lying at rest, 

 and unproductive, for one or two years between 

 the years of tillage. Such fields are fallow, ac- 

 cording to the most ancient, general, and most cor- 

 rect meaning of the term : yet in no case has this 

 application ever been made, because the next sue- 



