28 
rrsrt, 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
fly has disappeared, and that too will escape. We are not 
prepared to say, however, that these rules will prove in¬ 
fallible. It is stated in the Maine Farmer, by Mr. Norcross, 
that he sowed on the last Friday of April, and on the 5th 
May. The fly appeared in great abundance on the first 
sowing, but as most of the grain was then past the blossom 
the injury was only in the late heads, and the damage to 
the crop did not exceed a twelfth. That sowed on the 5th 
of May was reduced in produce one half by the worm. 
We sowed on the 5th May, and although we saw flies up¬ 
on the grain for five or six evenings after it had come into 
head, the injury did not probably exceed one fourth of the 
crop. We examined several fields of wheat sown from the 
30th to the 22d May, and was not able to discover in them 
the least indication of the worm. These facts would seem 
to indicate, that if wheat is sown very early in autumn, or 
to late in the spring, the crop may escape the grain 
worm, or be but partially injured by it. Yet we want fur¬ 
ther experience—more facts—before we can lay down any 
certain rules. 
The observations of practical men have led to this fur¬ 
ther conclusion, that good culture tends to lessen the evils 
of the grain worm, inasmuch as it imparts health and vigor 
to the crop, and accelerates the early developement of the 
blossom in the winter varieties before the fly appears. We 
have had cases cited to us, where parts of fields, being low’, 
wet, badly cultivated, or affected with rust, were almost 
wholy destroyed by the worm; while other parts of the 
same field, upon dry, well cultivated ground, and the 
straw unaffected by rust, were but partially, or not at all 
attacked—the kernel having become indurated, before the 
worm was in a condition to prey upon it. 
It is proper we should here remark, that a complete pre¬ 
ventative has been announced as having been discovered 
by S. W. Jewett, of Weybridge, Yt. We know Mr. Jew¬ 
ett to be highly respectable farmer; he has confided to us 
his secret; and we have no doubt it has proved efficacious 
with him But the difficulty is in applying the preven¬ 
tive on a large scale, and the still greater difficulty of 
applying it in some districts at all. Mr. Jewett asks but a 
moderate compensation for his secret. 
Kirby and Spence remark, in their work which we have 
quoted, with no little force, that among the various instru¬ 
ments which the Almighty ordains for the punishment of 
offending nations, and the more to manifest and glorify his 
power— 
“ He employs means, at first sight apparently the most 
insignificant and inadequate to effect their ruin: the nu¬ 
merous tribes of insects are his armies, marshalled by him, 
and by his irresistable command impelled to the work of 
destruction; where he directs them, they lay waste the 
earth, and famine and pestilence often follow in their train. 
The generality of mankind, say they, overlook or disregard 
these pow'erful, because minute, dispensers of judgement; 
seldom considering in how many ways their welfare is 
affected by them; but the fact is certain, that should it please 
God to give them a general commission against us, and 
should he excite them to attack, at the same time, our 
bodies, our clothing, our houses, our cattle, and the pro¬ 
duce of our fields and gardens, we should be reduced, in 
every possible respect, to a state of extreme wretchedness; 
the prey of the most filthy and disgusting diseases, divested 
of a covering, unsheltered except by caves and dungeons, 
from ths inclemency of the seasons, exposed to all the ex¬ 
tremities of want and famine, and in the end, as Sir Joseph 
Banks, speaking on this subject, has well observed, driven 
with all the larger animals from the face of the earth.” 
The afflicting dispensations of Providence, are not only 
designed to punish men for their transgressions, but to 
awaken in them a constant and active vigilance, essential 
to their health and happiness; and under this view, the in¬ 
juries which we now suffer from the insect enemy which 
Is the subject of this report, may lead to renewed exertions 
in the performance of the great duties of life. 
The committee wfill close their report with recommend¬ 
ing, that the legislature of our state be requested by this 
convention, to offer a liberal bounty for the discovery of a 
preventive of the ravages of the grain worm. 
Mr. Buel also read the following most able and interest¬ 
ing paper,— 
On the Necessity and Means of Improving oar 
Husbandry. 
We cannot be too often reminded of the contrast which 
exists between good and bad husbandry,—nor too often 
admonished to search into the causes of this difference, 
and to apply the needful remedies. The difference does 
not consist alone in a single crop, or a single season: The 
soil in one case is becoming more and more exhausted of 
fertility, and losing its intrinsic value, while in the other 
its relative worth is on the increase, and the difference in 
product is consequently annually increasing. 
We will illustrate our proposition by a comparison be¬ 
tween American and Scotch husbandry, now and sixty 
years ago. Sixty years ago, the agriculture of Scotland, 
was in a wretchedly low and unproductive condition; 
while the products of our yet unexhausted soil were abund¬ 
ant. But sixty years ago the spirit of improvementfell upon 
Scotland, her agricultural society was instituted, and com¬ 
menced its useful labors, and was soon after greatly aided 
by the organization of a national board of agriculture; ag¬ 
ricultural surveys were made and published of every coun¬ 
ty_the best practices of every district thus became known 
to the whole nation—men of fortune and science turned 
their attention to the encouragement and improvement of 
this parent art;—and the consequence has been, that a 
wonderful and salutary change has come over that land, 
fraught with abundance and with blessings. The value of 
land has in consequence been enhanced three and four 
fold, and its products have been increased in a proportion¬ 
ate ratio. “ In fertile districts,” says Sir John Sinclair, 
“ and in propitious seasons, the farmer may confidently 
expect to reap, lrom 32 to 40 bushels of w r heat; fiom 42 
to 50 bushels of barley; from 52 to 64 bushels of oats, and 
from 28 to 82 bushels of beans, per statute acre. As to 
green crops, 30 tons of turnips, three tons of clover, and 
from 8 to 10 tons of potatoes, per statute acre, may con¬ 
fidently be relied on. In favorable seasons the crops are 
still more abundant.” 
Now, what has been our progress during the last sixty 
years? Has it not been retrograde in agriculture ? We 
have, to be sure, obtained abundant crops from our rich 
virgin soils, and when these have become exhausted, un¬ 
der bad management, we have occupied and exhausted 
others in their turn. But what is the condition now of 
the lands that were cultivated by our fathers half a cen¬ 
tury ago ? Do they produce the average crops which are 
given above as the products of Scotch husbandry ?—un¬ 
der all our favorable circumstances of climate and of civil 
liberty. Are our crops half as large? Nay, are they 
more than a third as large? Do we get from our old dis¬ 
tricts, an average of more than 10 to 13 bushels of wheat, 
of 14 to 17 of barley, or of 17 to 21 bushels of oats per 
acre? At the close of the last, and in the beginning of 
the present century, the surplus products of northern ag¬ 
riculture were exported, to an immense amount. Now 
we import the agricultural products of Europe, to avert 
the evils of famine! The cause of this remarkable differ¬ 
ence, in the surplus products of the soil, may be partially 
owing to unpropitious seasons, but is mainly to be sought 
for in the neglect of our agriculture—both by the people 
and the governments. In Europe, the governments, and 
influential individuals, have bestow’ed spirited attention 
upon the improvement of agriculture, as constituting the 
basis of national prosperity and independence. While 
with us, improvement in husbandry has been considered 
a minor concern,—it at least has not received the consi¬ 
deration of the statesman or the political economist. Par¬ 
ty politics, and local or personal schemes of aggrandize¬ 
ment, have so much engrossed the attention of the men 
who ought to lead in these matters, and who do lead in 
every other public improvement, that the humble claims 
of agriculture have failed to attract their notice, or engage 
their attention, although it constitutes the base which 
supports the whole superstructure of civilized society.— 
If we would preserve the superstructure, with its embel¬ 
lishments, we must take care to make strong and perma¬ 
nent this foundation. Our farmers, too, seem generally 
indifferent, or spiritless, in regard to the general improve¬ 
ment of our agriculture, either because they mistake their 
duty and true interest, or that, under the influence of a 
strange fatuity, they fear they shall sink as others rise. 
We should consider our soil as we do our free institu¬ 
tions— a patrimonial trust—to be handed down , xjnim¬ 
paired, to posterity ; to be used, but not abused. — 
Bolh are more easily impaired than they are restored — 
both belong, in their pristine vigor and purity, as much to 
our children, as they do to us. In some of the once po¬ 
pulous and fertile districts of the old continent, the fertili¬ 
ty of the soil has been recklessly wasted by men, whose 
descendants have, consequently, become poor and wretch¬ 
ed, and their country almost virtually a desert. In other 
portions, where the fertility of the soil has been sedulous¬ 
ly preserved for ages, or centuries, the population has 
continued prosperous, wealthy and happy. 
It is undeniably true, that our general system of farm¬ 
ing is bad; that in most parts of our country the natural 
feitility of the soil has been gradually diminishing, and its 
products becoming less; that the evil is increasing; and, 
that without a radical reform, we shall, in the north, not 
only cease to have surplus products to pay for the foreign 
commodities which long habit has rendered necessary to 
our convenience, but lack a supply of bread stuffs for our 
own population. To what degrading dependence will this 
course of things in a few’ years reduce us—unless prompt 
and efficient means are adopted to check our down-hill 
course in the products of agricultural labor !-With the finest 
country in the world, a population almost entirely agricul¬ 
tural,—exempt from the enormous burthens, as tithes, 
rents and poor rates, which press like an incubus upon 
the agricultural labor of Europe,—and dependant on fo¬ 
reign supplies for the means of subsistence!! The idea 
is humiliating—is alarming—to all who look to the ultimate 
prosperity and happiness of our country. Our maritime 
commerce depends upon contingencies which we can nei¬ 
ther foresee nor control. Venice and Genoa, and Portu¬ 
gal and Spain, have each in turn, had their “ days of com¬ 
mercial prosperity”—they successively rose to opulence— 
to power—and successively sunk, the victims of corrup¬ 
tion, into effeminacy, vice, and despotism. Manufactures 
too, as we have had abundant cause to know, are but a 
precarious dependence for national greatness. Commerce 
and manufactures are the shaft and capital of the social 
column, of which agriculture constitutes the base; and 
without this base, they can no more withstand the shocks 
and revolutions of time, than could the shortlived glory 
of the nations we have named. Great Britain now wields 
the trident, and the world is made tributary to her work¬ 
shops. But great as she is in commerce, and in manufac¬ 
tures, these are considered secondary and auxiliary to her 
agricultural greatness. Land is the basis of her national 
w’ealth,—it is the surplus marketable produce of her soil, 
says Sir John Sinclair, that is the source of all her political 
powder, and of the personal enjoyment of her citizens; and 
there is no source of domestic industry, or of foreign com¬ 
merce, he adds, that can in any respect be put in compe¬ 
tition with the improved cultivation of her soil. The agri¬ 
culture of Great Britain employs but two-thirds of her po¬ 
pulation; and yet the surplus products of her soil, suffice 
to feed and support the other third, and to assist in supply¬ 
ing our deficiencies. Our population is at least five-sixths 
agricultural; yet during the two last years we have had to 
import about ten millions worth of bread stuffs to supply 
our deficiency in this first element of life; and even in 
the most favorable seasons, the exports of the surplus pro¬ 
ducts of our northern soil, have been merely nominal. 
We will state one fact, derived from official documents, 
which will demonstrate beyond the power of refutation, 
our down hill course in this great branch of national in¬ 
dustry. It is this: the average increase of bread stuffs, 
passing from our Ganals to tide waters, from the great grain 
district of the west—from the Flanders of America,—has 
amounted to three and three quarters per cent; while our 
population has increased in the ratio of six per cent per 
annum! If such has been the deficiency, in our grain 
growing, new and fertile districts, to meet the wants of 
our increasing population—how much greater must that 
deficiency have been in the exhausted soils of old settled 
districts? Many portions of our country, which once ex¬ 
ported grain, have, by bad husbandry, become dependent 
upon the comparatively new settlements, or upon foreign 
supplies, for this indispensable necessary of life. This re¬ 
mark will apply to almost our entire Atlantic border.— 
Will any mathematician tell us, how long it will require, 
according to the disproportionate ratio of increase, between 
our population and our means of subsistence, to reduce us 
to a state of absolute dependance? or, to a state of nation¬ 
al want and famine. 
It is apparent, from the examples of improvement which 
are witnessed in many districts of our country, that we 
can improve the general condition of our agriculture, if 
we will adopt a wise and energetic policy. Nay, we have 
a demonstration of the practicability of doing it, in the 
now palpable benefits of the law to improve our agricul¬ 
ture, passed in 1819. That law involved an expenditure 
of 40 or 50,000 dollars, and expired in 1S24. It was found 
fault with by many from political motives, and by more 
from a spirit of envy, in those who either had not the en¬ 
terprise or the talent to compete successfully for the re¬ 
wards which it gave to industry and skill. And besides, 
the law, in some instances, was badly, we may almost say 
corruptly, executed Yet under all the disadvantages of 
want of organization, of inexperience and abuse, has not 
that expenditure been like manure spread upon our soil ? 
Did not that law excite a laudable emulation among the 
whole farming community, and bring into action more 
skill, more industry, and more improvement? Has it not 
been instrumental in greatly improving our farm stock, our 
farm implements, and modes of culture? Has it failed to 
increase the farm products of any one county, of a respect¬ 
able population, to the amount of the total expenditure? 
Or, has it failed to return into the treasury, every year, the 
gross amount of that expenditure, in the form of canal tolls 
upon the increased productions of the soil? We do not 
put these questions because we have any doubts in the 
matter, but to bring the subject home to the calm and de¬ 
liberate consideration of those reflecting men, whose duty 
and interest is to scan, to .judge, and to act wisely, upon 
a question of momentous importance to our country. If 
these men think with us, that the law of 1819 has amply 
remunerated the state, for its expenditure, on the increas¬ 
ed tolls on our canals, and that it has added millions to the 
value of our annual agricultural products, they will not 
hesitate to renew that policy which has been productive 
of so much public good. The improvements of the last 
eighteen years might have been respectable without the 
aid of that law; but it was Mat which gave a new impetus 
to improvement. The fairs and exhibitions which it pro¬ 
duced, taught our farmers, that there was yet much to 
learn in their business;—that they could improve, in their 
farm stock, in their farm implements, in their seeds, and 
in their modes of culture—and many of them resolutely 
determined to profit, and did profit, by the lessons of in¬ 
struction which they then imbibed. And when the spirit 
of improvement has begun, it is like civil revolution, it 
seldom retrogrades. One improvement leads to others, as 
naturally as the active mind, having attained to one branch 
of knowledge, soars to other and higher branches. Our 
southern brethren say, we are in advance of them greatly 
in agricultural improvement. If this is so, we owe this 
distinction in rural improvement to the law that was pass¬ 
ed, upon Gov. Clinton’s recommendation, in 1819. 
It requires no science, and very little art, to wear out 
and exhaust the most fertile soil. The process is simple: 
take from it all you can, by close cropping, for a few con¬ 
tinuous years, and return to it nothing in the form of ma¬ 
nure, and the work is done, or far advanced. In this busi¬ 
ness w y e have shown ourselves to he no mean adepts. But 
it does require science, and art, and perseverance and ca¬ 
pital, to restore fertility to a : soil which has become ex¬ 
hausted. This we have not yet sufficiently learned; but 
it should be our next lesson; and the sooner we begin, 
the sooner shall we profit by it. 
Agricultural improvement is slowly developed, at least 
to superficial observers. It requires years to renovate the 
fertility of an exhausted soil—to improve the stock of a 
farm; or to realize the benefits which result from draining, 
from’alternating crops, and from root culture. We are 
much in the habit of calculating upon immediate gams, 
without looking to remote and ultimate benefits. We saw 
not the change, when the law of 1819 was in force, be¬ 
cause its benefits were but partially developed. But we 
now hear the remark from hundreds, that the appropriation 
of 1819, was one of the most beneficial to the state that 
has ever been made by the legislature. I he popular vote 
of the state would never have sanctioned the construction 
of the Erie and Champlain canals; and yet the wisdom of 
the measure is now sanctioned by an enlightened world. 
Although the construction of these canals, may have ope¬ 
rated prejudicially to some individuals and districts, yet 
the benefits which have resulted to the whole state have 
