no 



For the Southern Planter. 

 POSTSCRIPT TO REMARKS ON THE EFFECT 

 Of LIME ON SORREL. 



After my answer to the published denials 

 (by I) r . Pendleton and the editor of the 

 America Farmer,) of the growth of sorrel 

 "being destroyed by lime, had been sent to the 

 press, 1 made a visit to Prince George county 

 and attended the monthly court on March 8th. 

 I made use of the accidental opportunity to 

 invite the fanners then present to state 

 their testimony on the question, whether for 

 or against my views. A paper with both the two 

 following headings, of opposite purport, were 

 submitted, and, after full notice and explana- 

 nation. it received the- signature (as was 

 believed) of every ■ experienced marling or 

 liming fanner then on the ground. 



Among the signers who support my position, 

 several reported strong cases of apparent excep- 

 tions to the general rule affirmed. Of these, 

 one farmer (like Dr. Pendleton and his friend,) 

 had seen the quantity of sorrel increased for the 

 first year after liming ; but having given longer 

 time to observation, he found the growth to 

 disappear the next year, and thereafter. 

 Another, on his land from which previous 

 marling had removed the sorrel, had known 

 that plant to appear again partially, after a 

 later dressing of a peculiar gypseous and sul- 

 phureous and also fertilizing clay. Another 

 had known the growth of sorrel, which had 

 disappeared generally from afield after marling, 

 to return in great abundance on, and precisely 

 limited to, a small space thickly covered with 

 rotting pine leaves as manure. Others stated, 

 (and perhaps every one might state,) that after- 

 light and irregular marling or liming, and the 

 consequent general disappearance of sorrel, 

 that some spots still continued to produce that 

 growth. In a few other cases of the oldest 

 and only mailings, and where the dressing had 

 not been heavy, and also where the organic 

 matter and the fertility of the soil have much 

 increased since, that sorrel, after long disap- 

 pearance, had again returned in a few scattered 

 plants. This partial return, even after the 

 oldest known single marlings, (of 36 years,) 

 has not yet occurred where the dressing had 

 been heavy. This late return of sorrel on 

 marled land was anticipated and predicted, 

 audi other reasons therefor stated, many years 

 before the occurrence of any such fact had 

 been known. [See p. 219 of 5th edition, and 

 the same passage in all the older editions of 

 the Essay on Calcareous Manures.] Yet all of 

 these apparent or temporary exceptions' did 

 not invalidate or weaken the general rule, 

 to the several witnesses and reporters, or 



oppose the written testimony which they have 

 here offered. This testimony, I trust, will 

 be deemed more than enough to maintain, and 

 that without exception, my position, which has 

 been assailed and denied, viz : that marling or 

 liming, in proper manner and quantity, %vill 

 entirely destroy the groivth of sorrel, and 

 prevent its return. Edmund Ruffin. 



Prince George, Va., March Hh, 1855. 



COPY. 

 [First Heading.'] 



" The undersigned, by personal experience and 

 observation, as well as from general report, are 

 perfectly sure that marling, or liming, sufficient 

 and proper for the most profitable manuring of 

 land, lias, on our respective lands and others, 

 destroyed the former growth of sheep-sorrel, and 

 prevented its subsequent growth. : 



Names of Farmers. 



Years 

 since be- 

 ginning 

 personal 

 use ofmarl 

 or lirne. 



Age of 

 earlier 

 marli ng 

 (not since 

 repeated,) 

 by prede- 

 cessor on 

 same farm 



William Gee 



marl 



12 years 

 10 " 



Nat. W. Osborne 



lime 



Edmund Ruffin, jr. 



marl 



16 " 



Alfred Butts 





20 " 



Alex. C. Harrison 





14 " 



Wm. E. Proctor 





10 " 



Robert Harrison 





20 " 



Edward A. Marks 





26 11 



David Tatum 





20 " 



William Bryant 





10 ££ 



Peter Eppes 





10 " 



J. M. Jordan 



lime 



10 " 



Williamson Simmons 



marl 



15 " 



Nat. C. Cocke 





14 ££ 



William Shands 





20 u 



J. C. Hobbs ma 



•1 and lime 



14 " 



Archibald Glover 



marl 



9 <: 



James B. Cocke 





20 <£ 



Samuel T. Smith 





6 ££ 



Henry Hollingsworth 





15 ££ 



T. W. Simmons 





12 ££ 



John Avery 





20 ££ 



S. G. Well's 





15. ££ 



Thomas IH Daniel 



i>. 



12 " 



Robert R, Collier 





16 £i 



James S. Gee 





25 £< 



Wm. L. Shackelford 





15 ££ 



George A. Wilkins 





9 ££ 



Peter C. Marks 





15 <: 



John A. Peterson 





25 ££ 



Wm. H. Edwards 





12 ££ 



Richard G. Dunn 





28 ££ 



Giles Johnson 





14 ££ 



W. H. Warthen 





5 ££ 



36 years 

 18 years 



34 years 



34 years 



28 years 



[ Signatures — Ayes 34.] 



\ Second Heading.] 



u The undersigned, marlers or limers of experi- 

 ence, believe that marl or lime, applied as "manure- 

 in proper quantity, and well intermixed with the 

 soil, does not destroy and will not prevent the 

 growth of sheep-sorrel. 



[ Signatures — None.]'' ' 



