THE CULTIVATOR. 155 
and is turned into the land when ploughed up for 
corn. Here, then, is a formidable exception of 
great extent, to the rotation creed, as well as to the 
poisoning system of Monsieur Candolle and others: 
for in two very large counties of Virginia, two 
white crops of grain constantly follow each other 
every year, without any perceptible deterioration, 
as the owners and cultivators of the soil all assert; 
and this too, in most cases, without any return to 
the land, of fertilizing matter, except the dead na¬ 
tural growth of the pea. Could this possibly hap¬ 
pen, either if rotation was as indispensable as it is 
alleged to be; or, if the poison-fanciers were right 
in their strange notion ? If their creed were true, 
neither corn nor oats could any longer propagate 
their breed in Accomack or Northampton; for both 
would have deposited by this time so much deadly 
poison for their offspring, that none could ever ger¬ 
minate, much less continue a healthful existence. 
Again, if your opinion be correct, the average 
equality of the corn and oat crops in these counties, 
for so long a period, without any alternation what¬ 
ever, except from one to the other, can be account¬ 
ed for only by supposing either that the soil of our 
eastern shore counties originally contained such a 
superabundant store of the peculiar food of corn and 
oats, that half a century has not sufficed to exhaust 
it; or that the natural growth of the pea restores an¬ 
nually, the quantum sufficit of this food to main¬ 
tain from year to year the alleged equality of pro¬ 
duct. The fact itself cannot be doubted, unless we 
can persuade ourselves to believe that every culti¬ 
vator in the two counties has deceived himself, 
which is hardly possible. 
In several other parts of Virginia, I myself have 
seen pieces of land whose owners have assured me 
had been constantly cultivated in corn without rest, 
for ten, fifteen, and twenty years, and in some ca¬ 
ses still longer, without apparent diminution of 
crops except in bad seasons. The same assurance 
has been given me by many tobacco-planters in 
the James-River country, as to the continued cul¬ 
ture of that crop, on the same land,—even for thirty 
years in succession; and likewise of corn and wheat 
alternately, for similar periods, on other portions of 
that territory. Only a few days ago, talking on this 
subject with a friend from one of our counties bor¬ 
dering on the Chesapeake, he told me that the best 
crop of wheat he ever made, was on a piece of land 
from which he had taken a crop of oats only a few 
weeks before he sowed the wheat; and I have heard 
similar statements from others whose word I could 
not doubt. In most of these cases I understood that 
no manure was used, unless the weeds and stubble 
could be so called, which were turned under by the 
plough. 
Take one fact as to cotton. Sevei'al years ago 
I was accustomed to visit a near relation who, for 
twenty odd years, cultivated this plant in a few 
acres near his house,—the soil of which, although 
good, appeared to have nothing peculiar in it,— 
nothing indicating any essential difference between 
that and other common soils of similar quality, 
on our tide-water-rivers. I saw the crop of cotton 
almost every year during the greater part of the 
time, and never could perceive any difference, in 
similar seasons. The proprietor himself always as¬ 
sured me he found none in the product, but what was 
manifestly attributable to the variation of the sea¬ 
sons,—the crop of one good year being quite equal 
to that of another. The only manure given to this 
cotton was drawn wood ashes, in which the seed 
was constantly well rolled before planting. 
Let me now state a few facts as to garden vege¬ 
tables, in opposition to the rotation doctrine, and the 
supposed necessity for a change of seed. In the 
tide-water portion of our state, I once saw, at a la¬ 
dy’s table, some Irish potatoes of so good a quality, 
that I was induced to inquire where she procured 
her seed, and how she cultivated them. She in¬ 
formed me, that she had used the same seed for 
eighteen years, and had raised them every year, in 
the same square in her garden, only adding the usu¬ 
al quantity of manure in the trenches, every time 
of planting. The soil of her garden appeared to 
me much the same as is common with us. Of some 
other table-vegetables I can' speak from my own 
experience ; for example, the English pea, (as we 
call them,) the snap-bean, and the Siberian cale. # 
These I have cultivated for a number of successive 
years, without any change of seed or situation, and 
m similar seasons have never discovered any differ¬ 
ence, either in quality or quantity. The manure 
used has been either from the horse stables, or 
drawn wood ashes. 
To the foregoing statements it may perhaps be 
objected, that they contain more matters of opinion 
than of fact. True it is, that I have given no results 
* This I beg leave to recommend as preferable to all other 
winter-greens. 
of actual comparative measurements; but it is 
hardly conceivable that so many farmers and plant™ 
ers as have referred to, could have been cultivating 
corn, wheat, oats, and tobacco, for nearly half a 
century, without over measuring their crops. This 
is never omitted, although in some instances pro¬ 
bably, less accuracy may be practised than in oth¬ 
ers. Still a measurement is always made with suffi¬ 
cient particularity to warrant the opinions I have 
stated, derived from so many different individuals, 
in different parts of Virginia, and concurring with 
a degree of unanimity which could hardly be possi¬ 
ble unless sustained by similar facts. Taken all to¬ 
gether, they appear to my mind most indisputa¬ 
bly to refute the plant-poisoning-doctrine; and if 
not greatly to invalidate the rotation-creed, at least 
to throw in its way, some obstacles which I can 
pex-ceive no satisfactory means of removing. If 
there are any I should be highly gratified to learn 
what they are. I am not conscious of any preju¬ 
dices on either side ; but notwithstanding the fear¬ 
ful odds against me, I must believe from an experi¬ 
ence of nearly “three score years and ten,” that 
some very profitable farming may be rationally ex¬ 
pected without any rotation of crops, provided 
only that suitable manures, and in sufficient quan¬ 
tities, be annually applied to the arable parts of 
every farm. 
Let me beg you, my good sir, not to mark me 
down as an utter infidel—guard the rotation sys¬ 
tem. To a considerable extent I profess myself a 
believer ; but acknowledge, with all due humility 
and apprehension of reproof, that I am a bit of a 
sceptic, as to some of the marvellous benefits as¬ 
cribed to\the mere alternation of crops ; for in al¬ 
most every case to which 1 have paid particular at¬ 
tention, the effects seemed quite as much attributa¬ 
ble to manure, as to rotation. Still I am willing to 
admit—nay, I finally believe, that the best system 
of husbandly is inseparably connected with, and 
dependant upon both. 
In connection with this subject, there is an opi¬ 
nion very prevalent among us as to the comparative 
power of different crops to exhaust or improve land, 
which seems to have more in it of fancy, than of 
fact. I am aware that some European gentleman, 
(of what profession I do not recollect,) has publish ¬ 
ed a table, which has appeared in our agricultural 
papers, wherein he professes to have ascertained 
this power, to the ninth part of a hair ; but has left 
us utterly benighted, in the slough of despond, as to 
the modus operandi,—although, if he is a real prac¬ 
tical agriculturist, he might readily have concluded 
his table would prove such a stumbling-block, such 
a pons asinorum, in the way of us American clod¬ 
hoppers, that we never should be able to get over it 
without farther aid, than the mere tabular statement 
affords. The existence of the exhausting power in 
all crops, is too manifest,—too much a matter of 
daily observation to be denied ; but what crop ex¬ 
erts it most, and the exact degree of such exhaustion, 
I humbly conceive, to be among the “unknowable 
things” of this world. One common notion, how¬ 
ever, this table unquestionably disproves, which is, 
that some crops actually improve land, and hence 
are called improving,—ameliorating crops. Now, 
I would most respectfully suggest to all my agricul¬ 
tural brethren who read your highly useful paper,— 
(and I venture to call them brothers, because I myself 
feel the sentiment of fraternity for all,) that if any 
general rule whatever can be established on this 
subject, it may be expressed in something like the 
following terms : All crops, if taken entirely off 
the land, exhaust in proportion to the number and 
size of the spongioles of their roots, and the time 
consumed in their growth and maturity ; and none 
actually improve, but such, (if any such there be,) 
as return to the soil more of the food of plants, than 
they consume. This I consider a universal rule ; but 
if any one can produce what he believes to be an 
exception, I pledge myself at least to the at¬ 
tempt of disproving it. 
A word or two in conclusion, and I shall cease to 
tax your patience with any more of my lucubrations. 
I assure you, in perfect sincerity, that they have 
been prompted solely, by an anxious wish to pro¬ 
mote our cause,— that cause which I verily believe 
to be the main-spring, the only true source, both 
of individual and national wealth, prosperity, and 
happiness. If you believe this communication may, 
in any degree, contribute towards these vital ob¬ 
jects, then I wish you to publish it; otherwise, it 
is my wish that you burn, or use it as waste paper. 
Its style and general character may possibly need 
some explanation,—nay some apology, with the 
graver, more solemn portion of our brethren. If 
such apology be required, here it is. My experi¬ 
ence has thoroughly convinced me, that plain naked 
statements of facts in husbandry, however important 
they may be, are such soup meagre diet to most ot 
our brethren, that very few, comparatively speaking, 
can be prevailed upon, ever to taste, much less to 
swallow such cookery. With this fact indelibly im¬ 
pressed upon my mind, I have endeavored to sea¬ 
son the dish which I have offered to you and your 
readers, although it is with much fear and trembling, 
lest it may force upon your memories the old adage, 
—that, “God sends meat, but the devil sends 
cooks.” I remain, dear sir, 
Yours very respectfully, 
JAMES M. GARNETT. 
REMARKS. 
We most cheerfully give insertion to the preceding com¬ 
munication, and not the less readily because some of its opi¬ 
nions seem to conflict with our own. We say seem to con¬ 
flict—for we are still of the opinion, that were our views mu¬ 
tually understood, there would be found to be no great mat¬ 
ter of difference between us. Besides, it is by free and libe¬ 
ral discussion—by the collision of opinions—that important 
truths are often elicited, and improvements made. The high 
standing of our correspondent, and his long practical experi¬ 
ence in husbandry, will always render his favors acceptable 
to the conductor, and interesting to the readers of the Culti¬ 
vator, however highly “spiced.” 
We must in the outset wholly disclaim being a disciple of 
the “ plant-poisoning” theory of De Candolle and others. 
We have uniformly considered it illusory. But we do con¬ 
tend, that each species or family of plants require, and do 
tend to exhaust the soil, of specific portions of its fertilizing 
matters ; and the exceptions taken by our correspondent do 
not seem to invalidate our general proposition. Our position 
is in a manner proved by the fact, that wheat requires carbo¬ 
nate of lime, clover, gypsum, &c. and that some soils will 
bear a succession of some kinds of crops, and not of other 
kinds. A soil may contain a large proportion, say twenty 
per cent, of the specific of food wheat, or corn, or tobacco ; and 
as not more than a half, or a quarter per cent of this may be 
required or taken up, by a single crop, the supply would last 
forty or fifty years, without perceptible diminution, and yet 
at the end of the period would become wholly exhausted of 
it. For we believe the elementary food of plants combines 
in definite proportions, and that crop takes from the soil, of 
its specific food, not in proportion to what the soil contains of 
this food, but only what is required, by the laws of vegetable 
nutrition, to supply its absolute wants. We are induced to 
this conclusion by the fact, that on analysis, every farm crop 
is found to contain about the same elementary matters, and 
in the same proportions, on whatever soil they are grown— 
poor or rich—which they would not do were they permitted 
to gorge themselves with their favorite food, or were wholly de¬ 
prived of it. It was these considerations which induced us 
to say ,—“ that when the same crop is grown on one piece of 
ground, for successive years, deterioration as certainly goes 
on as the sun shines by day.” 
And how is this proposition disproved, or even weakened, 
by the facts detailed by our correspondent? He tells us, in 
the first, place, that corn and oats have been alternated in Ac- 
comac and Northampton, for half a century, without percep¬ 
tible diminution of product. Are corn and oats “ the same 
crop?” Besides, the pea, the bean, or the vetch, which al¬ 
ways accompanies the oat, and which is turned under as food 
for the corn — is this nothing?— is not this virtually a three course 
system, instead of being a succession of the “ same crop?” 
The great wneat grown after the oat crop may be explained, 
though we do not mean to say correctly, by supposing what 
often takes place, that the oats were sown on a fresh turned 
ley, and that the vegetable matter of the soil only became 
soluble, or but partially so, after the wheat was sown. 
The potatoes and the garden products, it seems, received 
an annual supply of manure—and this manure probably 
abounded in the specific food of the plants. Every field of 
a farm would probably continue to yield like the potato, the 
pea, &c. and supersede rotation of crops, “ provided only,” 
to use our correspondents words, “ that suitable manures, and 
in sufficient quantities , be annually applied to the arable parts 
of every farm.” It is the difficulty of obtaining this manure, 
of suitable quality, and in sufficient quantity, from the avail¬ 
able means of the farm, thus annually, for every arable field, 
that a resort to alternating crops is deemed necessary. 
The truth of the matter seems to be, that we meant to give 
general rules, and our correspondent has shown, that like all 
other general rules, they are liable to particular exceptions 
But let us pul the question fairly : How will the general 
principle, or rather the want of a due observance of it, apply 
to Virginia, for instance ? Have not successive crops of 
wheat, of corn, or of tobacco, greatly deteriorated some of 
her once fertile soils? Have they not reduced thousands, 
and tens of thousands, of her good acres to comparative steri¬ 
lity—to unproductive commons ? If these questions are an¬ 
swered in the affirmative, they will in some measure sustain 
us in our general rule. If in the negative, we would ask, 
from what cause then has deterioration resulted ? 
Wc have said thus much in defence of the theory of rota¬ 
tion, not in the spirit of controversy, but because we deem it 
a valuable collateral branch of improvement whenever it can 
be reasonably adopted. So far as the experience of twenty 
years has enabled us to judge, we think its advantages mani¬ 
festly great, not as a substitute for manure, but as an auxiliary. 
— Cond. Cult. 
Rotation of Crops. 
Bucks Co. Pa. 9th mo. 27th, 1838. 
J. Buel—I observed with pleasure, in the 7th 
No. of the Cultivator, the following course of crops 
suggested. 1. Roots or Indian corn, with long ma¬ 
nure upon the sod : 2. Grain, with grass seeds : 3. 
Grass, for two years. 
Wheat, rye, barley and oats are the principal 
grains with which I am acquainted. But as clover, 
and I expect grass seed generally, takes but poorly 
upon oats, I think it would be prudent to discard 
that grain altogether in such a rotation. The others 
may any of them succeed corn ; but wheat or rye 
cannot, either of them, well be sown after beets or 
turnips ; and I suppose, as a general rule, not after 
potatoes, parsnips or carrots. Barley, then, ap- 
