THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



103 



Which is rather more than 186 per cent, on the 

 previous unimproved product. 

 General average per acre of wheat, on 

 six farms, (omitting No. 1,) for 1850 

 and 1851, - . - - - 11.88 



(The culture in three shifts, and wheat following 

 corn on five of the six farms.) 

 Actual general product of wheat on six 



farms, omitting No. 1, for 1850, - 9,832 

 Same for 1851, - - -10,638 



General increase of wheat crop of 1851 



over estimate for 1840, (3950 bushels,) 6,688 

 Which is nearly 170 per cent, increase on the pro- 

 duct of 1840. 



General increase of wheat crop of 1851, 

 over estimate of total production on 

 six farms before their marling Avas be- 

 gun, (1358 bushels— 10,638,) - 9,280 

 Which is rather more than 680 per cent, increase 

 on the early and unimproved product in wheat. 



It might be inducing a great error if I were to 

 leave my readers to infer that all this increased 

 production was on the same land, or that the space 

 cultivated on each of these farms was the same 

 from 1840 to 1851. On the contrary, and as is the 

 case of almost every improving farmer in lower 

 Virginia, each of these has more or less enlarged 

 his cultivated space, by new clearings, or bringing 

 again under culture waste and greatly impoverished 

 ground, (including all the galled and gullied spots) 

 previously left out if cultivation and use. In ad- 

 dition, the first named three farms have been more 

 or less increased in surface, by purchases of ad- 

 joining poor land. But, in almost every case of 

 such additions, whether by purchase, or by clear- 

 ing of original forest, or bringing under culture 

 before worn-out lands, these new additions were 

 much poorer than the average quality of the land 

 previously tilled; and of such additions (before 

 being, marled) served at first to increase the gross 

 or total production of the farm, they served — and 

 mostly still serve — in greater proportion to lessen 

 or keep down the average production to the acre, 

 which is the main matter here in question. Thus, 

 while the latest actual crops then known (1850 and 

 1851) averaged for the latter six of these farms 

 only 23.39 bushels of corn and 11.88 of wheat to 

 the acre, it is certain that some parts of these 

 farms, originally very poor, and improved only by 

 marl and their fair share of farm-made putrescent 

 manures, (and in some cases Avithout any other 

 than their oavii groAvth,) are capable of making 30 

 or more bushels of corn, and 15 or more of wheat 

 after corn, or 25 or more if after clover or pea 

 falloAv. 



But it may be truly asserted, that all the produc- 

 tions of all ground added to these farms since their 

 marling was begun substantially are as Avholly due 

 to marling as the mere increased product of the 

 land kept before under usual tillage. Before this 

 improvement Avas begun, not only much, but much 

 more, land A\ r as annually added by neAV clearings to 

 every farm; and, also, much better land, until all 

 such was brought under culture. Still the extent 

 of culture did not increase — or but little — because 

 as much, or nearly as much, old land Avas annually 

 turned out of culture as being exhausted and worth- 

 less, as Avas added by new clearings. Since the 

 marling no land has been turned out, and all neAV 

 clearings remain as so much net increase to the 

 extent of surface cultivated. Therefore, not only 

 the increase of product, from being subsequently 



marled, of all neAV or added spaces, but their total 

 product, is all due to the improvement by marling. 



None of the farms mentioned Avere selected in 

 1840, because shoAving the largest, or even proper 

 increased products from marling ; and in 1852, when 

 questions again were put, they Avere thus directed 

 merely because the same persons had before an- 

 swered in 1840. Other farmers who began to marl 

 later, #nd on neAver and more level lands, have done 

 much better than the farmers above referred to, 

 because of the unfavorable circumstances above 

 named. As one case out of many of more recent 

 and much greater improvement, I will cite the tes- 

 timony of David Tatum, a respectable and reliable 

 man, (though formerly a very unsuccessful and 

 profitless farmer,) who, as he stated of himself, 

 Avas ahvays " going doAvn hill " in his farming, not- 

 withstanding all his efforts to improve, until he 

 began to marl. His locality, in the interior of 

 Prince George county, Avould alone forbid his ac- 

 cess to other than farm-made manures ; and he has 

 only used these with leaves from his wood land 

 and latterly marl. In answer to inquiries, this lat 

 but very successful marler wrote (in 1852) as fo 

 lows: "I commenced marling ten or twelve year 

 ago. My average crop of corn at that time was 

 not more than 10 bushels to the acre, and that Avas 

 the principal crop made on the farm. In 1850 and 

 1851 my corn crops averaged at least 30 bushels 

 and my Avheat crops 20 bushels to the acre." 



Judging from his locality and the former and 

 present conditions of his farming, and from the 

 general usage of his neighborhood, I infer, that 

 before marling Mr. Tatum made little or no wheat — 

 OAving to the then poverty of his land ; and that 

 iioav the culture of wheat is not extended (as is 

 that of corn) over the still poorest part of every 

 field, in its turn of tillage. 



The high rate of general increased production 

 from marling, stated in the last case, A^as owing 

 to the absence of the most unfavorable circum- 

 stances of all the other farms previously named. 

 Probably, on each one of these, if not all, (and I 

 can vouch for No. 7) there haA'e been obtained on 

 portions of the space under tillage -full as large 

 products as those stated by Mr. Tatum, and Avith- 

 out any advantage or aid not alloAved by Mr. NeAV- 

 ton's requisitions. And if any portion of marled 

 land, coming fully under the conditions required 

 by his proposition, sIioavs a continued or enduring 

 production very much greater than the maximum 

 rates he supposes, then the unsoundness of his 

 view in this respect, as a general proposition, is as 

 clearly made out as if such large products covered 

 entire farms. Whatever has been done on even as- 

 much as 20 acres of suitable land, may be done on 

 any greater space, or a Avhole farm, if of land 

 equally suitable to being improved. The greatest 

 production caused by marling, under all the con- 

 ditions required by Mr. Newton's proposition, is 

 the true measure of the effects and value of marl- 

 ing ; and not the smaller or smallest benefit derived, 

 more usually and on much larger spaces, where 

 the circumstances of the land, or its management, 

 are very unfavorable to the proper operations of 

 the manure. 



So far, my remarks have been confined (with the 

 small exceptions stated) to miocene marl on na- 

 turally poor lands. Soils naturally rich, (hoAvever 

 much exhausted by tillage,) and eocone marl con- 

 taining much of fertilizing ingredients besides car- 

 bonate of lime, Avere properly excluded from Mr. 

 Newton's proposition. Therefore, the folloAving re- 



