350 
REVIEW 01? THE JUNE NUMBER OE THE AGRICULTURIST 
prairie soil, and it is all winter killed, I did not 
intend to put in any spring crop, having previously 
determined to devote all my attention to wheat; 
and now I cannot, for I have no means. Well, I 
have learned a good lesson—never to rely upon any 
one crop.” 
Again, Mr. Allen says, in speaking of the South, 
that they turn their attention to one crop, princi¬ 
pally through necessity, because they are compelled 
to work their estates with a rude and ignorant 
force. This I deny. Not that their laborers are 
ignorant, but that they are so rude that they cannot 
be taught to perform the necessary labor of culti¬ 
vating the most diversified crops. And it is often 
the case that we can find planters living side by 
side, and in a year of failure of the cotton, one 
is deeply injured, while his neighbor who cultivates 
food-plants, and grows stock, is able to sustain him¬ 
self and feed and clothe his hands without falling 
in debt for necessarily purchased food and clothing. 
I believe, in the long run, that those planters as 
well as farmers at the North, succeed the best who 
diversify their cultivation so as to create a domestic 
supply for domestic wants. If it cannot be done on 
the farm, let it be done in the neighborhood, as far 
as is practicable by mutual exchanges. All such 
neighborhoods will be found comparatively inde¬ 
pendent, contented, and happy. 
Mr. Allen asks, “ is not the multifarious system 
of farming the true secret of want of success and 
bad husbandry of many of the Northern farmers ?” 
I answer most emphatically, No. It is endeavoring to 
cultivate too much land, with too little labor. The 
case put of coupling the professions of law, divinity, 
and physic together, is not a fair one. Some of the 
most negligent farmers in the world are to be found 
along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, on the .rich¬ 
est alluvial soil in the world, whose crops never 
were diversified from the beginning of time to this 
present from corn and hogs, and who have not 
sufficient of the Jack-of-all-trade ingenuity to raise 
anything else or even do that one branch well. 
Here now are thousands of cases exactly in point 
to pro ve Mr. Allen’s position, that if but one or two 
objects comprise his (the farmer’s) attention, he will 
have seasons of comparative repose, which give 
him leisure for reflection, improvement, &c., &c. 
Yes, leisure that proves his ruin and shows some of 
the [dis-] advantages of a division of agricultural 
labor, which I never wish to see in New England, 
however astonishing its results may appear in Old 
England. J cannot but look at the tendencies of 
this article from the pen of a writer so well known 
and highly esteemed as Lewis F. Allen is, as dele¬ 
terious. 
It is not often that I meddle with the private bu¬ 
siness of any writer whom 1 review ; but I am strongly 
tempted to do so in the present instance, just to 
show that he does not practise what he preaches. 
It is generally known that Mr. Allen is a large far¬ 
mer— that though his family residence is at Black 
Rock village, he cultivates, and tolerably success¬ 
fully too, some 400 or 500 acres of land on Grand Is¬ 
land, in the Niagara river, and is constantly bring¬ 
ing more land under cultivation as fast as 10 or 15 
hands can clear it of timber. 
And docs he pursue the system of singleizing ?” 
Just about as much as his father before him, upon 
his hard bound New England acres, where he was 
brought up to do a little of everything. Why, he 
does not even singleize in his stock raising. If it 
is convenient for Jiim to do so, will he call to mind 
the late visit of the writer of this article to his farm, 
to see his really most beautiful lot of Short-Horn 
cattle ? But not Short-Horns alone ; for on the same 
farm is an equally fine herd of Devons. 
Again, there is a little “ dabbling” in at least two 
kinds of sheep. For there are to be seen on the same 
farm, a very good flock of the Cotswold, and 
another of South Downs. Now this gentleman 
is a stock-breeder, and any person who saw 
his flocks and herds about the time of my visit, 
must agree with me that he need not look further to 
find good ones. 
But does he confine his farming operations to this 
branch singly? If he does, what was that new 
milk-house built for last winter ? It strikes me it 
was for cooling milk in, which he sends in its 
purity in large quantities twice a day to Buffalo. 
But I need not particularize further to show that 
even he himself recommends what he does not and 
cannot practise ; neither can one American far¬ 
mer in a hundred ever attempt the “ singleizing" 
plan without danger of ruin. 
I would point out many more illustrative instan¬ 
ces of the folly of depending upon one crop alone, 
but this article has already occupied so much space 
that I have but little left for all the other articles in 
the No. under review, and shall close with a slight 
notice of only a few of them. 
Design for a Farm-House. —It is surprising that 
this plan should ever have passed the ordeal of a 
prize-awarding committee. As a dwelling for a 
country gentleman, who keeps his servants, it is not 
so objectionable. Some writer has said in your 
pages, that a farmer’s kitchen should be the biggest 
and best room in the house. And so think I. If I was 
making a plan for a farm-house, I would not design 
the kitchen less than 20 by 24 feet. In this plan it 
is only 12 by 20, which is a fatal objection. The 
little 6 by 8 milk-room opening into the kitchen is 
not a farm-house milk-room. The nearness of the 
privy is another very objectionable feature. If 
cheese is to be made, a cheese-room separate from 
the dwelling should always be provided. Butter 
should never be made, worked, or kept with cheese, 
or any other strong smelling substance. If it is, it 
will acquire a bad flavor. The farmer’s kitchen, 
besides being large, should be light and airy, with 
a broad back porch, well shaded, where the harvest 
hands could assemble before their meals, to wash 
or refresh themselves. In winter, what more 
pleasant sight than all the family and laborers of 
the farm, gathered around the crackling kitchen 
fire ! This cannot de done in a house built upon 
the plan under review. 
Comparative Weight of Pork and Bacon. —I think 
we have had an article of the same kind from the 
same pen before ; but still this is interesting, and 
would have been more so if the writer had told us 
exactly how much pork could be made from a given 
quantity of corn. I hope that experiment will be 
tried and the result given. Tables of this kind are 
valuable for reference, when made by one upon 
whom we can depend for their accuracy. 
Preparation for the Hay and Grain Harvest.-— 
