THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



87 



they were weaned and put into a good 

 field, for young cattle can't bear confine- 

 ment. Upon this method I increased my 

 stock rapidly, and I have since been en- 

 abled to enlarge my tobacco lots, and so 

 far improve them as to yield twenty 

 bushels of wheat per acre. My experi- 

 ment thus far has not been a full one, but 

 this year I have more milk and butter, 

 larger calves, and instead of purchasing, 

 have been enabled to sell three yokes of 

 oxen> and to part with eight or ten head 

 of cattle besides. The only extra effort 

 to sustain more cattle has been to - mow 

 ten stacks of coarse hay as winter food. 

 Thus much for the practice, and now for 

 the theory. 



The proposition which I wish to main- 

 tain is, that it would be well for us to 

 raise more cattle and keep them better 

 than we now do, even if it should require 

 a third of the labor on the farmer to pro- 

 vide for their support. I know, sir, that 

 it will be said, how can we keep more 

 cattle well when we do all we can to 

 maintain what few we have, and then 

 lose a good number ? I would ask such 

 persons in kindness to tell me what labor 

 they perform to keep their cattle during 

 the winter ? They put away their shucks 

 and sometimes stack their wheat straw 

 and throw to their stock twice a day. — 

 This is nearly all the labor they perform 

 during the year. The people in the best 

 farming countries work more for the keep- 

 ing their stock than for their families. — 

 The keeping of neat cattle in- Virginia 

 cost less in proportion to their value than 

 any other species of animals. The horse, 

 unless he be a valuable one, consumes in 

 the year more than he would sell for ; the 

 hog generally cost more than would buy 

 the same amount of pork; but the cow 

 fed upon the coarsest food, shucks, straw, 

 &c, and frequently denied after the most 

 affectionate importunity a single short ear 

 of corn, affords us milk, and butter, cer- 

 tainly one of the most indispensable bless- 

 ings at our tables ; good beef, leather and 

 candles, good work oxen, and last, though 

 not least, a good supply of valuable ma- 

 nure. This last article alone remunerates 

 us tenfold for the labor and expense ordi- 



narily bestowed upon our cattle. Now, 

 let us increase our provender, both in quan- 

 tity and quality, and we shall soon per- 

 ceive a corresponding increase, both in 

 quantity and quality, of the manure for 

 it is a well established fact that rich food 

 makes rich manure. Can any one sup- 

 pose that this extra attention to cattle can 

 from any possible cause diminish the pro- 

 ducts of the farm, since animal manures 

 are known to be absolutely essential in 

 the production of all kinds of crops, and 

 particularly the grain crop? You had 

 as well tell me that manure impoverishes 

 land, as to say that feeding cattle well 

 will lessen the products of a farm. But 

 the same difficulty presents itself. How 

 are so many cattle to be fed in our pre- 

 sent situation. In reply I would say, if 

 you will do no more for your cattle, be 

 sure to make meadow, if you have none, 

 and mow a great quantity of all kinds of 

 coarse grass and weeds for winter food ; 

 and instead of going into the woods for 

 j leaves and pine tags to make manure, 

 take your scythes and mow the bottoms 

 and creek or branch sides and all Wet 

 places for all kinds of hay, and whilst 

 'you obtain an infinitely better manure 

 you provide food for your cattle. But do 

 I dare to recommend the foreign and Yan- 

 kee notion .of root crops for cattle? I 

 answer in the affirmative. What but the 

 introduction of the turnip crop constitutes 

 the great era of agricultural improvement 

 in England ? Where is the man in the 

 Northern States who has fallen out with 

 the root crop? 



Does it not appear to be a matter wor- 

 thy of inquiry by gentlemen farmers, why 

 j in the old countries an acre of grass land 

 j should rent for a higher price than the 

 j same of arable land ? Would they not 

 'shrewdly suspect that the nett profits 

 | of the acre in grass may be greater than 

 I the acre in a clean crop ? Should we not 

 ! be led further to inquire, what use could 

 ; possibly be made of the product of a grass 

 I lot to make it more profitable than that 

 I of an arable lot ? Can it. be that an acre 

 \ of grass, fed to an ox or cow, should add 

 more to the income of the farm than an 

 j acre of good wheat at nine shillings per 



