On pulverising Soil. 115 



Art. V. On pulverising Soil. By John Wighton. 



Though it is certain that nothing is created without some specific purpose, a 

 man may be tempted to ask, What can be the use of weeds, seeing that they 

 encumber the ground, and choke up the crops ? The labourer, more indus- 

 trious than learned, may imagine that weeds are sent to afford him employ- 

 ment in rooting them out ; and he may not be altogether wrong, though he 

 does not carry his view far enough. The advantage does not end here ; for, 

 in the act of hoeing the weeds, the soil is pulverised, and thereby encourage- 

 ment given to the growth of the crops. But for the necessity of hoeing up 

 weeds, this important process of stirring and breaking up the soil would be, 

 it is to be feared, much neglected. However, since the days of TuU, the 

 benefit of pulverising the soil is better understood ; and, though many plans 

 of that great agriculturist were ridiculed in his day, they are now in common 

 use. He tells us that it is of more consequence to stir the soil than to 

 manure it, in short, that if the former be practised, manure will not be 

 wanted ; and that hoeing ought to be done at all times, instead of weeding. It 

 is useless for me to comment on the first ; and hoeing is not at all times 

 practicable. Weeds will not die in wet weather ; and it is injurious to tread 

 upon the land at that time. Hoeing, moreover, is hurtful to some crops in 

 very dry weather, from letting too much moisture escape, notwithstanding the 

 opinion of Tull. A proof of this is the fact that the best onions often grow 

 on the hard paths between the beds. The reason is obvious ; the firm soil 

 retains moisture longer than that which is loose. This circumstance led to 

 the practice of treading down onion-beds fresh sown, as also of pressing down 

 dry earth in which fine seeds are sown. 



I have said enough above to obviate the supposition that I am opposed to 

 hoeing or stirring the soil. Mr. Barnes, too, has noticed its great utility in 

 the November Number of this Magazine, for which its readers are much 

 indebted to him. He justly observes that gardeners have many kinds of 

 blights to contend against, without the injury caused by handling the fruit, as 

 servants are too much in the habit of doing, before it reaches the master's 

 table. This, however, is irrelevant to the subject before us. In justice to 

 Tull, I will give his words on the subject of hoeing in dry weather, at p. 27, 

 28.: — "Dews moisten the land when fine. Dig a hole in the hard dry 

 ground, in the driest weather, as deep as the plough ought to reach ; beat the 

 earth very fine, fill the hole therewith, and, after a few nights' dews, you will 

 find this fine earth become moist at bottom, and the hard ground all round 

 become dry." From this he observes : " In the driest weather, good hoeing 

 jM-ocures moisture to the roots ; though the ignorant and incurious fancy it 

 lets in the drought, and therefore are afraid to hoe their plants at such a 

 time." Although Cuthbert W. Johnston calls these enlightened observations, 

 they are not very clear. Though it is said that vapour is absorbed by the 

 soil, Tull's experiment does not prove it ; for, if such were the fact, the soil 

 would have been wet at the top instead of the bottom. The truth is, that 

 the hole was a vent for the vapours to ascend from below. Upon this Tull 

 might safely have founded his belief, that hoeing in dry weather gives moisture 

 to the roots of young plants ; but there is danger, on the other hand, of 

 letting too much escape. Young turnip plants can, perhaps, stand drought 

 better than wet cold weather. This appeared by the bad crops on good land 

 which retained moisture, and the good crops on poor land which did not, in 

 Norfolk, in the year 1841. As to the earth's absorbing vapour, it is not 

 apparent in this case. I may be wrong here ; but I can safely say that the 

 evaporation from the earth is far greater than any absorption b}' it. To illus- 

 trate this, there is no need of enquiry into the theory and phenomena of 

 dews; it is enough to make the simple experiment of covering part of a seed- 

 bed with a mat. The under side of the mat will be found wet, while the 

 upper will remain dry, like the exposed surface of the bed. Tull did not 



I 4 



