216 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER,. 



time my grass, and shall finish in a day or two. 

 The crop is estimated at two tons per acre. I have 

 seventy-five acres in grass for the scythe. 

 I am, very respectfully, 



Your ob't serv't, 



Edward H. Herbert. 



EXPLANATION OP COMMODORE JONES' PRIZE 



ESSaY. 



The following letter explains itself: 



Near Prospect Hill, Va., May 30th, 1854. 

 Frank: G. Ruffin, Esq., 



Dear Sir,— Your favor of the 20th inst., has just 

 come to hand, for which accept my thanks, for the 

 tender of your columns, as well as for calling my 

 attention to a glaring incongruity in my prize Essay, 

 which had previously escaped my own notice, as 

 well as perhaps the notice of others, until your 

 correspondent so delicately pointed to the error in 

 the extract you sent me. 



Truly I have left the 6th field unappropriated; 

 that error escaped my reading, possibly from some- 

 times using the terms field, and shift, as synonymous 

 — but the ground work of the discrepance was laid 

 some years ago, when I commenced an article for 

 publication, but was interrupted by orders to sea, 

 and never returned to it till I commenced the Essay 

 on worn-out Lands. There was a period of my ag- 

 ricultural progress when I thought with " Arator," 

 and many other distinguished practical farmers of 

 Virginia, that the hoof and the tooth were destruc- 

 tive to land, and hence the necessity for a standing 

 pasture, in any plan for improvement of the soil, 

 and for which the sixth field was originally intended, 

 and can now be so appropriated by any who still 

 believe in the non-grazing plan, or by making five 

 fields of twelve acres each; instead of six of ten; 

 the land is all brought into cultivation. 



I am, sir, with great respect, &c. &c. 



Your ob'd't serv't, 

 Thos. ApC. Jones. 



For the Southern Planter. 



REPLY OF COL. JOSIAH WM. WARE TO THE 

 EDITOR'S ARTICLE ON STOCK. 



Mr. Editor, — I have been reading with care your 

 editorials about the "Necessity of good stock to 

 Virginia farmers," and feeling convinced the sys- 

 tem you suggest will be injurious to Virginia's best 

 farming interest, and well calculated to reduce her 

 lands from exhaustion to sheer sterility, I must be 

 pardoned for suggesting an adverse system for the 

 consideration of Virginia farmers, in two numbers: 

 one on farming, the other on stock. I trust not to 

 impose on you after. 



You say, in your February number, "the low 

 state of the live stock in some of the finest parts of 

 Virginia is a source of anxiety sometimes to their 

 owner." I consider this a good omen, for, with the 

 prudent, next to that is improvement. I think, with 

 you, that " they must be improved" in quality at 

 any rate, if not in quantity; and cautiously in 

 quantity, for farmers may rely upon it that until 

 they can have their grounds sufficiently covered 

 with grass for their animal's consumption without 

 so far denuding their land as to expose it to the 



scorching rays of the summer sun and the freezings 

 of winter, they can neither have good stock or im- 

 prove their land, and their efforts must, as it has 

 done, result in disappointment. You instance Eng- 

 land, advantageously, and say " sixty-six per cent, 

 of her arable land is devoted to meadow and pas- 

 ture;" also, "Ohio as greatly the heaviest wheat 

 grower in the Union," and " only two-ninths of her 

 soil in grain," and this is the true secret of their 

 success; they are. not overstocked to their grass 

 land — as an evidence of the latter, where is more 

 clover seed raised and sold than in Ohio 1 but as to 

 England, her grass lands are perfect sods, and com- 

 posed of varieties of grasses mixed together. 



You properly ascribe Virginia's present situation, 

 among other things, to her deficiency in grass and 

 stock. Your quotation, from Arthur Young to Gen. 

 Washington, justly says " Repose under grass is the soul 

 of management, and draining and tillage to be given 

 in the year, that yields green winter food." Now, 

 to have more stock than can be maintained on the 

 grass, can not mean Mr. Young's " soul of manage- 

 ment repose under grass f but, unquestionably, his 

 " caput mortuum." 



A farmer who wishes to improve his land, and at 

 the same time raise stock and grain, must cover 

 first his land with grass, and when sufficiently 

 covered with grass, then take care to get the best 

 and most profitable kind of stock — not a sufficiency 

 to eat up all the grass, but only a sufficiency to 

 graze pretty closely the grass on the land you design 

 fallowing for a crop. A farmer ought to have the 

 best and most profitable kind, because a few will 

 enable him to carry on this system with more money 

 received and more clear profit, than numbers of un- 

 profitable stock that must effectually injure the 

 land by leaving it bare. The number can then be 

 increased as the increase of the grass will allow; 

 for you may rely upon it land cannot improve, nor 

 can wheat be raised by stock, unless that stock has 

 a sufficiency of grass to make them muttons and 

 beeves, without laying the land bare to the effects 

 of the sun and frost. 



In your April number, you say "Tide-water and 

 Piedmont Virginia, with every advantage of climate 

 and contiguity to market," and " with a soil better 

 on an average, than that of the Valley , do not come 

 within fifty per cent, of their value." Here, we 

 might differ widely, for we of the Valley are some- 

 what vain of 'our country, and under the same 

 management, i. e. to raise comparatively no grain 

 and cover our lands with the natural grasses of our 

 country, (which is the same,) so that neither sun 

 or frost could reach it, we would be disposed to 

 throw the glove to the proud Kentuckian. Your 

 admission that "it does not come within fifty per 

 cent, of their value," although with the advantage 

 of climate and contiguity to market, is rather evi- 

 dence of not being better soil, for such things are 

 regulated by the demand of farmers, who make 

 their money by the sweat of their brow, and are 

 likely to lay it out in the most profitable manner; 

 but, (if there is a question as to which is of most 

 value among reflecting men,) why is it this land is 

 of more value % May it not be that our system of 

 cultivation is different 1 We do not keep so much 

 stock as to graze our lands bare ; and if so, would 

 it not be better to adopt our system as speedily as 

 possible 1 "The Black Sea, Mediteranean and 

 other parts of Continental Europe," that rival u* 

 in the markets, when inquired into, will be found, 

 I expect, do not graze their land naked. 



Mr. Holcombe's statement — that new instance — 



