168 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



April 



Then, suppose I cultivate the soil of the 

 diflferent parts of the whole field for a long 

 term of years, maintaining each part in its 

 present state of productiveness, annually tak- 

 ing my two tons of hay from the best one acre, 

 and the same from the other two ; which, I 

 ask, would yield the most net profit ; the 

 one acre yielding the heavy crop, or the other 

 two, bearing only an equal amount. 



'Jhe two acres, as they stand, may, indeed, 

 be of more value than the one acre ; as each 

 of them may, perhaps, be brought up to the 

 standard of the other at a cost which will 

 leave a profit sufl5cient to make them so ; but 

 this does not interfere with the application 

 of the principle. 



The one acre requires less cost for fencing. 

 The toughness of the sward, may, indeed, 

 make it harder to plough, according to its 

 size ; but the whole expense is less. The se- 

 curing of the two tons from the one acre, is 

 at less cost than from the two acres. The 

 amount of seed required is less, for the same 

 surface, even, of the most fertile soil, and the 

 cost of sowing proportionately small. Then 

 there is the saving in removing stones, and, 

 in fact, a saving in about every one of the de- 

 tails connected with the business. If we were, 

 however, to come to the false conclusion that 

 the profits of the two parts of this field were 

 alike, we should then want to know what were 

 the costs of the two, including that of pur- 

 chase, and of cultivation, up to the time of 

 getting them into their present state. 



The cost of land, and of seed, and the la- 

 bor of going through all the details except the 

 application of manure, would be less on the 

 single acre. The amount of manure and its 

 cost would be greater. We think the diflfer- 

 ence, on the whole, would be small, in an av- 

 erage of cases. 



But it is not always practicable to buy just 

 such a farm as we want, and we sometimes in- 

 herit, or somehow get a few barren acres, 

 which may be so mixed up with the good as 

 not to be easily separated, while a mortgage 

 and other incumbrances may hinder our pros- 

 perity. 



If, with all these, a not very hardy physical 

 constitution is ours, we may be led to study 

 economy as it relates to the saving of labor, 

 and the getting of a fair remuneration for the 

 capital — time is money — expended on the soil. 

 And we may conclude that millions of acres in 

 New England are pastured, and otherwise cul- 

 tivated, at a loss. Also that it is better to let 

 much of our poorest land grow up to wood, 

 and thus get a sure, though a slow profit, 

 while time, labor and manure, are concen- 

 trated in the higher cultivation of the better 

 part. 



The same general principles may be ap- 

 plied to the keeping of stock. Much of our 

 poor stock should be rejected and the rest 

 kept better. A roan may feed a cow just 

 enough to keep the breath of life in her, without 



getting anything from her, or in any way increas- 

 ing her value. Up to this point, we all feed our 

 cows at a dead loss. Beyond it, if fed prop- 

 erly, we feed to a profit, if there is any profit 

 anywhere ! What stock you keep, keep well, 

 and keep no more than you can so keep. 



You may cultivate a piece of ground just 

 enough to get crops which will barely pay 

 you for all the capital you invest on it. All 

 below this point is a dead loss. If anywhere, 

 the net profit is in cultivating your soil to a 

 higher degree. As your means increase, in- 

 crease your stock as you can, and keep it well. 

 The same rule applies to cultivated land. 



There are thousands of farmers, who, had 

 they bought small instead of large farms, and 

 kept their encumbrances reduced, and also 

 kept a small number of cattle, and made the 

 best of what they had, would have made larger 

 net profits, and been richer men, while they 

 and their families would have had more time 

 for recreation and for mental improvement, 

 ;tnd been blessed with more of the comforts 

 of life ; and their sons would not have aban- 

 doned the farm for easier and more profitable 

 employment. 



Another thing to be considered is, the bet- 

 ter quality of crops where grown luxuriantly. 

 John Johnston, the great western New York 

 farmer, is reported as having said that the 

 same weight of hay from luxuriant grass is 

 more valuable than that of a light growth. 

 And I think reason teaches the truth of this 

 doctrine. Of course, luxuriant, heavy crops 

 must be cut when young, fine and tender, so 

 that the hay will be succulent and digestible, 

 and before the sugar and starch made up from 

 the carbon of the plant have become changed 

 to woody fibre. The crops from a grass field 

 may be often taken off at two cuttings instead 

 of one, to a much greater advantage. Our 

 grain crops are also of better quality from 

 soil well enriched with organic plant food, and 

 not too much strongly ammoniated manure, 

 which sometimes, as in the case of wheat, 

 tends more to the production of straw than of 

 seed. 



The same may be said of potatoes. Min- 

 eral manures like ashes, plaster, salt, bone, 

 &c., do not cause them to rot. Probably 

 Prof. Ville's statement, that a lack of phos- 

 phate of lime, and of potash, and too much 

 nitrogen, caused the rotting of potatoes, is 

 about corn ct. An extensive use of absor- 

 bents under our cattle, which no good tanner 

 neglects, is a great economizer of fertilizing 

 material, and a partial correcter of these evils. 



So we see judicious, as well as high manur- 

 ing is required. Another disadvantage of 

 poor manuring is, we have small potatoes, and 

 other refuse crops, which are worth far less 

 by the quantity than the larger and better 

 productions of highly fertilized soils. 



Meanwhile, in the cultivation of our soils to 

 the greatest advantage, and in the equaliza- 

 tion of our crops for the various purposes of 



