136 TALKS ON MANURES. 



more and more infertile, if uo manure be applied to it, or if the 

 fertilizing elements removed by the crops grown thereon, be not by 

 some means or other restored, it is, nevertheless, a fact, that after a 

 heavy crop of clover carried otf as hay, the land, far from being less 

 fertile than before, is peculiarly well adapted, even without the 

 addition of manure, to bear a good crop of wheat in tbe following 

 year, provided the season be favorable to its growth. This fact, in- 

 deed, is so well known, that many farmers justly regard the growth 

 of clover as one of the best preparatory operations which the land 

 can undergo, in order to its producing an abundant crop of wheat 

 in the following year. It has further been noticed, that clover 

 mown twdce, leaves the land in a better condition, as regards its 

 wheat-producing capabilities, than when mown once only for hay, 

 and the second crop fed off on the land by slieep; for, notwith- 

 standing that in the latter instance the fertilizing elements in the 

 clover-crop are in part restored in the sheep excrements, yet, con- 

 trary to expectation, this partial restoration of the elements of 

 fertility to the land has not the effect of producing more or better 

 wheat in the following year, than is reaped on land from off which 

 the whole clover-crop has been carried, and to which no manure 

 whatever has been applied. 



" Again, in the opinion of several good, practical agriculturists, 

 with whom I have conversed on the subject, land whereon clover 

 has been grown for seed in the preceding year, yields a better 

 crop of wheat than it does when the clover is mown twice for hay, 

 or even only once, and afterwards fed off bj^ sheep." 



"I do not think," said the Deacon, " that this agrees with our 

 experience here. A good crop of clover-seed is profitable, but it is 

 thought to be rather hard on land." 



" Such," said I, " is the opinion of John Johnston. He thinks 

 allowing clover to go to seed, impoverishes the soil." 



Charley, contin\ied to read : 



" Whatever may be the true explanation of the apparent anom- 

 alies connected with the growth and chemical history of the clover- 

 plant, the facts just mentioned, having been noticed, bot once or 

 twice only, or by a solitary observer, but repeatedly, and by num- 

 bers of intelligent farmers, are certainly entitled to credit; and 

 little wisdom, as it strikes me, is displayed by calling them into 

 question, because they happen to contradict the prevailing theory, 

 according to which a soil is sai 1 to become more or less impover- 

 ished, in proportion to the large or small amount of organic and 

 mineral soil constituents carried olF in the produce." 



