538 Abstract Report of Agricultural Discussions. 
roots. If the heads only were worked off, the stems were uninjured, 
the plant continued to grow, and a large amount of root was formed ; 
but if the clover was fed off, the plant was more or less injured if 
not killed, and no root was formed. This in considering the effect of 
the clover crop upon wheat would be of very great value. 
Dr. Voelcker said : The question had already occupied his atten- 
tion, and he found that after two years' clover-crop, leaving the first 
year's crop standing for seed, more nitrogen was actually obtained 
than when the clover was immediately fed oft". The explanation was 
that roots develope themselves much more perfectly when the clover- 
plant is allowed to grow without being checked, than if subjected to 
the nibbling tooth of the sheep. As the question was one of great 
practical importance, he hoped that in event of it being necessary to 
extend his observations and experiments, members of the Society in 
different parts of England would assist him by forwarding him 
specimens of clover from different localities. 
Mr. Coleman asked whether the comparative injury from feeding, 
as against mowing, in reference to the wheat crop, would not depend 
in a great measure upon the method of feeding ; whether the plan 
which he believed was most economical as far as the animal was 
concerned, viz. that of passing rapidly over the surface, allowing the 
crop to attain a height of G or 8 inches, and then at once feeding off, 
giving one day say to one spot — woidd not answer the same purpose 
as allowing the clover to run up to seed ? It might be gathered 
from what Mr. Holland said, that mowing a' crop would produce 
more of root than feeding off. That, however, was hardly consistent 
with his experience. If the crop was continually gnawed down, they 
could readily understand that, like a tree constantly topped, it would 
not produce root growth ; but he should like Dr. Voelcker's opinion as 
to whether, supposing it were fed off in the way he had suggested in 
the case of poor but not clay-soils, they might not expect a better 
r< suit. 
Mr. Frere observed that it had been the immemorial practice to 
plunder the pastures for the advantage of the rest of the farm ; but, on 
the other hand, it was said that the pastures were the landlord's 
bank. This was a paradox which had an important bearing upon the 
question under their notice. 
Dr. Voelcker (in acknowledging a vote of thanks proposed by 
Sir John Johnstone, and seconded by Mr. Holland, M.P.) said he 
could not form any precise opinion as to the point raised by 
Mr. Coleman, but he proposed to make experiments with the view of 
ascertaining the amount of produce, and what was left in the ground 
after treating a piece of clover in various ways. With respect to 
Mr. Frere's question, he could only hope that those who looked 
upon pastures as a bank had some other bank as well. He had 
generally found that those who looked upon pastures as a bank from 
which they could continually draw, were not men who were very well 
to do, and certainly, if they were tenants, were of no great advantage 
to their landlords. 
