FARMERS' REGISTER— AGRICULTURE IN PRINCE GEORGE. 



233 



admitted to be so palpable, as to need no elucida- 

 tion. But obvious as it is, exijcrience proves that 

 it has been either totally disre<^arded, or is at best, 

 but sljfihtly operative. Nor do we conceive that 

 we shall materially err, when we attribute the low- 

 state of husbandry principally to the inconceiva- 

 ble misapprehension of this subject, on the part of 

 agricultuiists of every description — whether prac- 

 tical or theoretical — improvers or exhausters of the 

 soil. 



Various and discordant as arc the opinions of ag- 

 riculturists, they may properly be classed under 

 the two heads of practical and theoretical, wh'mh 

 names, though not exactly appropriate, will serve 

 for the purpose of distinction. With our practi- 

 cal men, he is the best farmer who cultivates the 

 greatest number of acres, and who derives the 

 heaviest gross product from tlie amount of labor 

 employed. The first and generally the only ques- 

 tions asked to decide on tiie good or bad manage- 

 ment of any individual, are, " How many labor- 

 ers does he employ.'" — "How many acres does 

 he cultivate?" — " What amount of crop does he 

 make.'" — By such estimates, is the practice of most 

 of us entirely regulated. 



Yet the gross product is very different from the 

 nett product, (in which the whole profit consists,) 

 and the former may be, and frequently is, increas- 

 ing, at the same time that the latter is diminish- 

 ing. If farmers were in the habit of calculating 

 the probable cost and profit of every process of cul- 

 tivation and improvement, and in consequence, 

 w-ould reject whatever was not more profitable than 

 costly, a most extensive and beneficial change 

 would be immediately produced. It may perhaps 

 be useful to state a few examples of its effects, and 

 pi'actices which are found on every farm in the 

 county. 



The cost of the cultivation of corn on average 

 land, including every attendant operation, expense 

 and injury, cannot be rated lower than S§5 per acre. 

 The highest price of corn at this time, is .^2 per 

 barrel,* and of course 2i barrels per acre are ne- 

 cessary to replace the actual cost of cultivation ; 

 and from every acre cultivated producing less than 

 that quantify, an actual loss accrues. Let us sup- 

 pose a field of 60 acres to produce 180 barrels, of 

 which 20 acres produce 5 barrels per acre, 100 

 barrels at $2 .^200 gross 



Deduct for cultivation 20 acres at 85 100 



Remainder, clear profit 



8100 



* The pric3 of corn has greatly increased since this 

 report was made. Tlie low price above stated caused 

 a diminution of grain culture, and an increase of that ol 

 Tobacco and Cotton in this county, and as far as the 

 same reisons operated, wherever climate and situation 

 did not forbid the change. This, together with two suc- 

 cessive bad seasons for corn, has nearly doubled its price. 

 This temporary advance is however balanced by the de- 

 pression of the price of Tobacco and Cotton, so as io. 

 leave our average profit for all our crops not very dif5'-ir- 

 ent from that of 1 o'20. But -vvlmtever change may occur 

 in price, it will not at all affvict the principle on which 

 these calculations are founded. All that is caitended 

 for is, that the amount oi nett product is the measure and 

 the proof of good husbandry ; and from this proposition 

 it foliows, that a coiu-se of cultivation or improvement 

 may be at one time good, and at another bad, according 

 to the variation in the price of the product. 



Vol. 1—30 



20 acres at three bbls. per acre, sixty 



bbls.at $2 per barrel ^120 



Deduct for the cultivation of 20 acres 

 at .^5 per acre 100 



Profit 



20 acres at 1 bbl.— 20 bbls at 82 

 Cultivation of 20 acres 



Absolute loss 



820 



840 

 100 



860 



This shews that two thirds of the field would 

 have yielded -8120 profit, and yet from the whole 

 it amounted to 860 only. Considerable as is the 

 loss stated, but few farmers in the county have a 

 greater proportion of good, or a less proportion of 

 poor land, than in the above example. — Such is the 

 profit and loss arising from our best land. We feel 

 no disposition to exhibit a similar statement of the 

 worst. 



Suppose the clearing an acre of woodland, and 

 putting it in order for cultivation to cost 812, and 

 its average product to be only 2 barrels: the re- 

 gular loss attending its cultivation will be 81, be- 

 sides 8 12 for the first improvement. Not one tract 

 of the land now annually cleared, yields sufficient 

 nett product to repay the enormous expense of the 

 operation. 



Our theoretical, or improving farmers, by a dif- 

 ferent road frequently arrive at the same end, viz: 

 diminishing the nett product, to augment the gross. 

 They define good husbandry to consist in adopting 

 every mode of enriching the soil, and of making 

 the different processes of cultivation as perfect as 

 possible, so as to make each acre produce to the ut- 

 most. This rule is derived from the publications 

 and practice of Europe, and applied to American 

 agriculture, without considering the great differ- 

 ence of circumstances. In England, land and pro- 

 duce are high, and labor cheaj) : it is therefore pro- 

 fitable to raise as much as possible from each acre, 

 without much regarding fhe additional labor. In 

 this country, land and produce are cheap, and la- 

 bor dear ; and it is therefore generally to our inte- 

 rest to make the most of our labor, and to estimate 

 the quantity of land as of secondary importance: 

 Even if the climate and products of the two coun- 

 tries were the same, the best Virginia management 

 if practised in Britain, would quickly lead to ruin ; 

 and if the Lothian fallow, (the })erfection of Scot- 

 tish husbandry,) v,as adopted here, fhe whole crop 

 of wheat added to the fee simple of the land on 

 which it grew, would not pay the cost of prepara- 

 tion. This neglect of drawing a line of distinc- 

 tion between improvements suitable to our situa- 

 tion, and such as are not, is a fruitful soui'ce of er- 

 ror, to young and enterprising farmers. They are 

 certain to bring upon themselves, serious losses, 

 and by giving practical men an opportunity to tri- 

 umph over book farmers , their own bad habits are 

 confirmed, and new obstacles opposed to the pi-o» 

 gress of improvement. Those who in the end be- 

 come the best farmers, have almost invariably pass- 

 ed through a long apprenticeship of loss and dis- 

 appointment. 



To derive as much nett profit as possible from 

 our capitals, it is necessary to discontinue much of 

 the labor now devoted to both cultivation and im- 

 provement; but the application of the same rule 

 will sheWj that many improvements which are ge- 



