I860.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
131 
utterly abominable practice of putting the lines 
round the body in plowing. 
My Ohio friend, who wanted me to go West, 
and not wear out my life among the stones of 
Western New York, is not satisfied with what 
I said about the matter. He admits that the 
averages given in the Agricultural Survey of 
Delaware Co., Ohio, are correct, but thinks I 
should have stated that “It was there inserted, 
that on any- of our lands, by proper rotation of 
crops and good tillage, forty bushels of corn 
per acre were produced in the most unfavorable 
seasons, and that without uuderdraining, or the 
use of special manures, and, indeed, very little 
of barn-yard manure—generally, none at all.” 
I can do as well as that here, without barn-yard 
manure or artificials. Plaster, clover, and 
thorough cultivation, will give us forty bushels 
of shelled corn per acre. Of course our farm¬ 
ers do not average this, neither do they in Ohio. 
But we have good farmers who raise larger 
crops than this, an 1 underdraining, barn-yard 
manure, and artmeials, are as much the excep¬ 
tion here as in Ohio. But of course I do not 
claim that our land is as rich as the Scioto Val¬ 
ley. All I claim is, that the difference in the 
average crops is not so much in favor of Ohio 
as we generally suppose. It is very common 
for farmers who visit the West to tell wonderful 
stories on their return of the magnificent crops 
they have seen. And the impression here is, 
that the West produces double what we do—an 
impression which the statistics do not confirm. 
The Ohio State Board of Agriculture, at its 
recent Annual Meeting, awarded the prize for 
the best crop of corn grown in the State last 
year to Mr. Burras, of North Fairfield, Ohio. The 
field contained a little over 13’| 2 acres. It was 
a sandy loam, pastured the two previous sea¬ 
sons, and manured the previous October and 
November with 29o loads of barn-yard ma¬ 
nure. Land plowed 7 to 9 inches deep the 
first two weeks in May, and planted May 22d. 
Rows four feet apart, and hills eighteen inches 
apart, and thinned to two stalks in a hill. On 
the poorest half of the field forty- bushels of 
ashes were also applied, with a very marked ef¬ 
fect—this half of the field giving at least one 
hundred. bushels of corn more than the other 
half. Thirty dollars were expended in cultiva¬ 
ting the field, and seventeen dollars in hoeing. 
The yield was less than fifty-one bushels of 
shelled corn per acre. Mr. B. states that the 
grasshoppers injured the crop considerably, 
especially near the fences. He thinks that five 
acres might have been selected that would 
have yielded eighty bushels of shelled corn per 
acre. If so, the other eight and a half acres in 
the field yielded less than thirty-three bushels 
per acre. And this is the Premium Corn Crop 
of the State of Ohio for the year 1868. 
“ In regard to the average of our wheat crop,” 
my friend writes, “ it is to be observed that a 
large portion, perhaps one-half the crop, is sown 
upon corn ground, and almost always with timo¬ 
thy, to which clover is added the following- 
spring. Under these circumstances, we can af¬ 
ford to put up with a lighter crop than the 
Eastern farmer, whose land is occupied two 
years in the production of one crop of wheat.” 
Perhaps so; but the profits of a crop of 
corn, of 33 bushels per acre, followed by a 
crop of wheat, of 11 bushels per acre, and 
this by pasture, two acres of which is required 
to graze a full-grown cow or ox, cannot afford 
exorbitant profits. Many of our farmers here 
do no better than this, some not as well. But 
we can raise much larger crops, and obtain far 
higher profits. And doubtless the same is true 
of Ohio. All I wished to show was, that 
poor farming does not produce large crops in 
Ohio, and that this fear of competition with 
the rich lands of the West is unfounded. 
This fact is of as much importance to the 
farmers of Ohio as to those of Western New 
York. If they can raise corn cheaper than we 
can, there are farmers still farther West who 
can raise it cheaper still. But, fortunately for 
us, and for the farmers of Ohio, all the advant¬ 
ages of life are not concentrated on one partic¬ 
ular spot, and all the disadvantages on another. 
They are pretty evenly distributed. A good 
farmer can succeed here,—a bad one prospers 
nowhere. 
Summer-fallowing would not be so unpopu¬ 
lar if the work was more thoroughly done. If 
the land was kept constantly stirred, and no 
weeds suffered to grow, we should hear no more 
about “ sun-burning,” and similar nonsense. I 
have seen but one good summer-fallow for a 
dozen years or more, and that was one of John 
Johnston’s. Naturally a rather heavy clay, three 
plowings, and repeated harrowings, rollings, 
etc., made it as clean, moist, and mellow, as a 
garden. No wonder it produced good wheat. 
Last spring, an intelligent and wealthy young- 
farmer of this State promised me to make the 
following experiments. He had a capital piece 
of land, from which a crop of clover for hay and 
for seed had been removed in 1867, and which 
bid fair to produce a heavy’crop the next year. 
One of the experiments proposed was this: 
Plow up half the field early in the spring, be¬ 
fore the clover starts, and summer-fallow it 
thoroughly, plowing it three or four times, and 
harrowing and cultivating as often as a weed 
shows itself, and oftener. The other half to 
be allowed to remain until the clover was in 
blossom, and then turn it under. The surface 
afterwards to be kept clean and mellow by the 
use of the cultivator and harrow. Both pieces 
to be sown to wheat the first or second week 
in September. Such an experiment has a bear¬ 
ing on a scientific question of considerable in¬ 
terest and practical importance. I visited my 
friend in July, and found a splendid flock of 
sheep on the “summer-fallow,” with feed 
enough to keep them fat. Of course this was 
not what I wanted, and the experiment fell 
through. But how many summer-fallows are 
there that are managed much better ? One of 
my neighbors boasts of how he kills thistles. 
He “ summer-fallows,” and in August, when 
the thistles are hollow, puts on a cultivator that 
crushes the stems of the thistles. This, he says, 
kills them. He “ had a field completely cover¬ 
ed with thistles, and this method destroyed 
them.” Perhaps it might. But is this sum¬ 
mer-fallowing? It is only truth to add that 
his farm is by no means free from thistles and 
other weeds, and is not remarkably productive. 
If a farmer summer-fallows, let him do it 
thoroughly; otherwise he loses his time and 
labor, and the use of the land. 
I have lately received several letters from 
farmers in different parts of the country, ex¬ 
pressing surprise that I should advocate the old- 
fashioned, and, as they thought, “exploded” prac¬ 
tice of fallowing, and they ask for my reasons. 
If I lived on alight land farm, of course I should 
not summer-fallow. And it I lived in a section 
where land was worth two hundred dollars an 
acre, where manures, natural or artificial, 
could be obtained at reasonable rates, and where 
there was a good demand for everything the 
farm could be made to produce, I do not think 
I should summer-fallow. The mere loss of the 
use of the land for a year would be fourteen 
dollars an acre. I could use this fourteen dol¬ 
lars to better advantage in purchasing manures. 
But let a farmer be situated as I am, or rather 
say as I was five years ago, and it will pay to 
summer-fallow. I bought a farm of two hund¬ 
red and eighty-five acres. The land, a lime¬ 
stone, moderately heavy loam, not too light for 
wheat, nor too heavy for corn; the “ clay 
spots” which the men talked about being sim¬ 
ply hard and cloddy from want of drainage. 
An underdrain and good tillage converts them 
into the richest and best of land. The farm 
thoroughly run down; not “ exhausted,”—sim¬ 
ply neglected. M 3 - crops the first season were: 
Weeds, uncommonly good, large, heavy, early, 
luxuriant, and of the best quality; Barley, 
late, rusted, not fit for the maltster,—when run 
three times through the fanning mill, and 
ground with corn and peas, made excellent 
food for pigs; screenings abundant, and fair 
chicken food; yield, twelve bushels per acre, 
“ thrashers’ measure;” Oats, eight or ten bush¬ 
els per acre,—quality not equal to the “ Poland.” 
I also sowed peas! They were better than the 
oats and barley, but I forget the yield per acre. 
In fact, it is possible that I did not thrash them 
at all, but fed them out to the pigs. I keep an 
exact and detailed account of every day’s work 
done on the fiirm, but I am now talking from 
memory, and may not be giving the exact 
figures. Sometime I m;iy give you all the par¬ 
ticulars. 
After the barley- and peas, I sowe?l wheat. 
The land was plowed, and cultivated thorough¬ 
ly. The yield was about fifteen bushels per 
acre. It was seeded with clover, which was 
very good—really- encouraging. After the oats, 
the land was plowed in the fall, I think, and 
again in the spring, and was planted to corn. 
The corn was cultivated ten or a dozen times, 
and was a good crop—probably seventy or 
seventy-five bushels of ears per acre. After 
this it was sown to barley-: yield, perhaps 
eighteen bushels; the wheat, eighteen bushels. 
This seeded with clover, which was capital. 
What I want to say is this. If, instead of 
sowing oats, barley-, and peas, I had summer- 
fallowed the land, it would have been money- 
in my- pocket. A summer-fallow would have 
enabled me to clear the land cheaper than I 
could do it with a cultivator among the corn. 
The error I made is a very common one— 
looking at the gross receipts instead of at the profit 
its. I thought two crops would bring in more 
money- than one, forgetting that even if this is 
the case, one good crop will often afford far 
more profit than two poor ones, and leave the 
land in better condition. If I had the last five 
years to live over again, I would certainly sum¬ 
mer-fallow more. I would clear the laud, de¬ 
velop more plant-food, and put two crops into 
one. It is not “ high-farming,” but it would pay 
better than sowing so much land to spring crops. 
Constant Supply of Water for Live-stock. 
If water has to be supplied to stock by pump¬ 
ing, or if the animals must be driven to the 
trough or brook, aside from the great expense, 
in time there are other losses felt keenly- by- the 
thoughtful farmer, and which we have often 
commented upon. Besides, the duty-of watering 
the animals, if left to irresponsible parties, is 
more likely to be neglected than perhaps any 
