The Survical in Farming. 
263 
in his business to produce the prime animals which have made 
all the running. As a feeder, again, he has been shut out of 
the advantages obtained from early maturity in fattened stock. 
It is doubtful whether his manure has not cost him as much to 
make as that of the judiciously liberal feeder, and it has not been 
worth half as much when made. There is, no doubt, a gi'eat 
deal of waste in giving cattle excessive quantities of cake ; but 
such extravagance, except for show beasts, is less common, I 
believe, than it was some years ago. The principles of feeding 
are more generally understood than they were when nearly every 
farmer despised " book-knowledge," and the wastefulness 
referred to has been fully exposed. It is characteristic of 
reckless and extravagant farming, and not of such judicious 
high farming as is alone worth defending. 
A low farmer may be, and often is, a capital judge of stock, 
as well as a very keen higgler. There are low farmers, too, who 
keep a few stock well, and others who keep a good many poorly. 
In either case a good buyer and seller may often make a profit 
if he catches the market in his favour ; but this does not help 
the condition of his farm, and he must be a dealer rather than a 
farmer if he is to make up for inferior crops by profits on live- 
stock. A man who keeps a fair number of stock in proportion 
to his acreage, and feeds them well, cannot be a low farmer. 
There are various grades of highness and lowness in farming — 
so various that the line of demarcation may be difiicult to 
draw in some cases ; but, for the purposes of my argument, I 
have nothing to do with the class, if there be one, which may be 
said to represent a mean between the two main divisions, and 
there are comparatively few farmers who cannot be said to verge 
towai'ds one or the other. 
Recalling my definition of a high farmer ag one who feeds 
his land before it is hungry and cleans it before it is foul, I 
wish now to call attention to a tv^pe of farmer entitled, in my 
opinion, to be classed as high, although perhaps this may not 
be generally allowed. A case which was under my observation 
for many years may be described as illustrating this type. This 
farmer's land was heavT, and chiefly arable. He did not breed 
or dairy, as his land woiud not bear stock in winter. In summer 
he fed off most of his green crops with fattening sheep, which 
had a moderate allowance of cake, reserving only enough clover 
and grass for hay for home consumption. In winter he fattened 
as many cattle as he grew roots for, giving them cake and corn 
as well as roots and hay. The cake was the only fertiliser which 
he brought on to his farm, as he did not buy any artificial or 
other manure. His theory was that " a farm should baste 
