488 MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURE. 



drcd and forty-two acres more than were cultivated in 1840. 

 These statistics, though not altogether reliable, demonstrate 

 two facts — one absolutely, and the other approximately. First, 

 that during the last decennial period our lands continually de- 

 preciated in productive power; and, secondly, that that depre- 

 ciation was equivalent to the annihilation of sixty-three thou- 

 sand acres of land a year, or nearly three per cent, of the 

 value of the farms of the State, exclusive of buildings and 

 woodland. In fine, it appears that in 1850 we were cultivating 

 six hundred and thirty-two thousand one hundred and forty-two 

 acres more than we should have been if the production of 1840 

 had been sustained ; three hundred and sixty thousand eight 

 hundred and fifty-five acres more than would have been neces- 

 sary at the rates before assumed; and also that the impover- 

 ishing culture from 1840 to 1850 was equal to an annual waste 

 of sixty-three thousand two hundred and fourteen acres, which 

 was apparent in the diminished total product and in the in- 

 creased quantity of land in use. 



This waste may be estimated with considerable accuracy. 

 The farms of the State were valued at one hundred and nine 

 million seventy-six thousand three hundred and seventy-seven 

 dollars. Two and nine-tenths of one per cent., the exact pro- 

 portion which the annual waste of land bore to the quantity in 

 cultivation, is three million one hundred and sixty-three thou- 

 sand one hundred and forty-five dollars. But if you allow that 

 one-half of the total value of our farms is in woodland and 

 buildings, the depreciation was one million five hundred and 

 eighty-one thousand five hundred and seventy-two dollars per 

 annum. But, whatever may have been the exact depreciation, 

 it is plain that our culture from 1840 to 1850 was an exhaust- 

 ing one — the acres continually increasing, and the production 

 diminishing. These facts demonstrate what it is unpleasant to 

 believe, and yet more unpleasant to say, that the farmers of 

 Massachusetts of that period could not, as a class, be called 

 good farmers. Good culture benefits land; bad culture ex- 

 hausts it. During the ten years to which our statistics refer 

 the culture of the State was bad. Land reclaimed from the 

 water and the forest was not used to increase production, but 

 its native fertility was required to supply those crops which 



