56o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
AUG. i 
SUNLIGHT OR SHADE FOR SOIL. 
Does Sunlight Injure Land ? 
Is a fallow profitable t darkness favorable for nitrifica¬ 
tion; shade does not increase fertility; what heat and 
sunshine really do. 
1. Does exposing the soil to the sunlight injure its fer¬ 
tility T 
2. Does shading land increase its fertility ? 
These questions are suggested by an Ohio subscriber who 
asks “ Why is sunlight injurious to naked soil f ” and 
adds. “ There are practical questions involved upon which 
the farmers should be posted. For instance, about August 
1, I propose to plow under two fields of clover, and sow to 
wheat, say on September 20. Will this exposure to sun, 
intensified by repeated harrowings and rollings, injure the 
land, the future crop or both? Should the clover be left to 
shade the land until a later day? Is my land injured while 
waiting the slow coming on of the corn crop T I sowed 62 
acres of clover this spring. I intend to mow these fields 
about August 1. The mulch may be as good for shade as 
the standing stubble, but I think not. Now, must we in this 
way, all the year through, be on the watch to keep our land 
shaded ?” 
Fallowing Considered Highly Beneficial. 
Exposing the soil to sunlight, so far as experimental 
evidence goes, does not injure its fertility. So far as I 
know, the process of fallowing has been considered de¬ 
cidedly beneficial, the greatest objection to it being the 
loss of the use of the land. While at the New York Ex¬ 
periment Station, we had a piece of ground that had been 
in nursery stock, and was in a very bad condition, so much 
so that a neighboring farmer would not take the land to 
cultivate for the crop he could get off it. We fallowed 
this land for one entire year, and planted it to wheat, from 
which we obtained one of the largest and finest yields I 
have ever seen. 
Numerous experiments have been conducted by foreign 
investigators, from which it has been shown that exposing 
soil with no crop upon it does not injure its fertility, but 
that it even increases it. Pagnoul found that soil con¬ 
taining no crop gained nitrogen from the air to quite an 
appreciable extent. 
Shading the land, from one standpoint, does increase its 
fertility, while from another it does not. I have had ex¬ 
perimental mulched plots that made miserable crops when 
compared with those from adjacent unmulched plots 
treated in every way the same as the mulched plots, ex¬ 
cept the covering. Referring to Pagnoul's experiment 
again, soil that was grown to grass gained nitrogen from 
the air much more than soil that had no crop upon it, 
while soil that had clover upon it gained more nitrogen 
than did that grown to grass. 
I don’t believe that the Ohio subscriber will make any 
mistake in repeatedly harrowing the land for a future 
crop. I should say that his land would improve while 
waiting for the coming on of the corn crop, for the reason 
that clover is beneficial rather than detrimental to the 
soil. For my part, I would either keep the harrow or cul¬ 
tivator going, or else keep a crop upon the soil unless I 
wanted to fallow for a specific purpose, which, of course 
might be admissible. c. s. plumb. 
Indiana Station. 
Exposure Probably Not Harmful. 
1. Heat disperses volatile matter into the air. Nitro¬ 
genous fertilizing often takes on a volatile condition, and 
therefore excessive sun heat may tend to lessen fertility. 
Light, as another “ mode of motion,” also exercises a 
powerful effect, and may impair fertility. Experience 
seems to have shown very clearly that some, if not all, 
soils may be injured, in our American climate at least, by 
a bare fallow. But sometimes such a fallow may be neces¬ 
sary as a means of destroying weeds. In such a case I 
would certainly let the weeds grow as long as it was safe, 
before turning them under. 
2. It follows as a natural consequence from the above 
that shading can be directly advantageous. It may also 
be Indirectly so, as favoring beneficial changes in the soil, 
such as nitrification, which is favored by darkness and 
moisture. 
3. I would hardly expect that exposure to the sun for 20 
days in September, with repeated harrowings, would seri¬ 
ously reduce fertility under the circumstances. A large 
amount of organic matter, such as a crop of clover, needs ac¬ 
cess to air in order to promote the rapid decay needed to 
prepare available food for the new crop ; and unless it were 
a very dry September, I think there would be no loss. But 
this is an opinion merely. In southern Ohio it might be as 
well to wait a little longer. 
4. I do not think the soil of a corn field, here at the North 
at least, is ever harmed in that way, if kept loose on the 
surface by shallow tillage. 
5. I think this matter much more Important South than 
North. T. H. HOSKINS. 
Orleans Co., Vt. 
An Experiment with Fallowing. 
In the Rothamsted experiments two acres of land, in ad¬ 
joining fields, have grown wheat continuously since 1855. 
One of these acres has been divided into halves, one-half 
being sown to wheat each year and the other half left 
fallow, the treatment being alternated year by year. The 
other acre has been all sown to wheat each year. For a 
short period the fallowed acre yielded more wheat each 
year than the acre sown continuously ; that is to say, half 
an acre, alternating with fallow, produced more wheat 
than a whole acre under continuous culture; but this con¬ 
dition was soon changed, and for the 30 years ending with 
1885, the fallowed acre yielded an annual average of nine 
bushels per acre against a yield of 13 bushels each year 
from the acre continuously in wheat, thus showing that a 
bare soil may lose fertility almost as rapidly as one con¬ 
tinuously ^cropped. 
I apprehend, however, that the secret of this loss lies not 
in any deleterious effect of sunlight, but in the washing 
from the soil of the nitrates as they form. Soils of the 
most astonishing fertility are found in regions of meager 
rainfall and scanty heroage. The wonderful productive¬ 
ness of lands that require irrigation Is familiar to all. 
The nitrate of soda beds of Peru and Chili lie under a sky 
from which rain never comes. With these facts in view, 
I would try to keep my fields covered with growing 
vegetation, not from any fear of sunlight, but for the 
sake of catching the nitrates as they form and before the 
rain has washed them away, and holding them either for 
the crop which catches them or for one to which it may be 
made to yield them. chas. e. thorne. 
Ohio Experiment Station. 
A Talk About Nitrification. 
1. Exposing soil to the sunlight does not necessarily in¬ 
jure its fertility. Vast areas of land have lain bare for 
ages under semi-tropical suns, which will produce large 
crops of grain and grasses without fertilizers as soon as the 
land is supplied with a sufficient amount of water by irri¬ 
gation or otherwise. What, then, do sunlight and heat 
do to the soil t First, they tend to break up the organic 
matter in the soil, and this, in turn, produces carbonic acid 
gas, and this makes available, to a great extent, the plant 
food already in the soil. More than this, sunlight and heat 
hasten nitrification and usually the result is a positive 
addition of nitrogen to the soil. If there is very little 
moisture in the soil the nitrification goes on but slowly. 
If no heavy rains Intervene, the nitric acid produced by 
the summer fallow, and “ weathering” is not washed out 
of the soil. The reader must here learn to distinguish be¬ 
tween plant food that is mineral and that which is not. The 
mineral matter set free by fallowing, or summer exposure 
of the soil, is not lost to any appreciable extent unless par¬ 
ticles of matter are washed off the land bodily. The min¬ 
eral matter which was made soluble and available by cult¬ 
ure and exposure, may become less soluble as the physical 
condition of the soil changes in the fall, in fact, under 
certain conditions, may become almost inert. This reverted 
mineral matter is not lost, it is only sleeping. The nitro¬ 
gen, which is not a mineral, has a great tendency, in some 
of its forms, to escape by evaporation when not in contact 
with earthy matter. When it changes its form into nitric 
acid in the soil it is then easily leached out of the land. Now 
it will be seen that exposing the soil to the sunlight during 
the drier months of July and August has a great tendency 
to liberate plant food, and gives little opportunity for loss 
by leaching. There can be little or no loss simply from 
sunlight. The danger always is, that having made the 
plant food in the soil available it will become less soluble 
and the nitrogen be lost by leaching before the ground is 
thoroughly permeated by the growing roots of the plants. 
If our climate were very dry we would Incur but little loss 
In this direction, but since fall and winter rains, especially 
in the South, are so abundant, there is always danger of a 
considerable loss from leaching and reversion of the min¬ 
erals, unless a plant is growing upon the soil d ring the 
wetter seasons of the year. From this fact I would always 
recommend the sowing of rye in the corn, or immediately 
after it Is cut, in order to conserve fertility in the rainy 
part of the year. 
2. Shading land, under eertain conditions, does increase 
fertility, especially of the surface soil. Land that is pro¬ 
perly shaded is likely to be moist at the surface because 
the shade prevents evaporation to some extent. Neither 
chemical action nor nitrification can take place in the ab¬ 
sence of a suitable amount of moisture. When moisture 
is deficient chemical forces cease to work. So it will be 
seen that shading the ground is simply improving Nature’s 
laboratory. Again, mulching by keeping the land from 
getting too dry and hard assists capillary attraction 
whereby not only moisture, but plant food, Is carried from 
the subsoil to the surface, for if nitrogen can leach 
down through the soil it can leach up through It also. 
The observant farmer of half a century ago was wont to 
predict good crops in the next season after a severe 
drought. What had happened was that plant food had 
been leaching up through the soil and had been deposited 
near the surface. 
Yes, plow under the two fields of clover on August 1, or 
earlier if it was cut early, and plow but once and culti¬ 
vate and expose to the sun, and harrow and cultivate and 
expose to the sun again, and no Injury, but benefit, will 
come to the land. The chances for a wheat crop will be 
greatly improved, because wheat loves, first, a fine, well 
pulverized, compacted lower furrow slice, with a fine 
loose, fertile, shallow seed bed. It likes to pasture in the 
fall on the surface where the harrow has prepared an 
abundance of food. It loves to extend its roots horizon¬ 
tally all along the comparatively cool, compacted furrow 
just under the seel bed. If the frost tends to lift it, it 
will lift on the roots as they lay horizontally and not 
break them. It likes to preserve the plant food in the 
lower strata of the furrow slice for the hot, exhausting 
days of June and July when the plant is putting forth 
every effort to reproduce Itself by the means of seed. 
“ The clover should not be left to shade the land until a 
later day.” Certainly not; a mulch of one or two inches 
of fine earth at this time of year is far superior to the 
shade which the clover will give. Do not be afraid that 
the sun will injure the land or the prospects for a crop. 
No, the land is not Injured by the “slow coming of the 
corn crop.” Nitrification does not take place to any extent 
till the soil gets hot in mid-June. July and August are 
months when the microbes bring us large additions of ni¬ 
trogen. We are to make their workshop habitable, the 
soil comfortable for them. They like some organic matter 
to work upon, plenty of heat, a comparatively loose soil 
and a moderate amount of moisture. 
“ Now must we, in this way all the year through, be on 
the watch to keep the land shaded ? ” Land was made for 
plants, and plants should always be growing upon the 
land, unless there is a good reason for having it bare. It 
is not so much shade in many cases as it is the economy 
of transforming inert plant food into that which is avail¬ 
able. Some plants have a better digestion than others, 
and can thrive on coarser food; some are deep-rooted, and 
not only want plants to harvest, but plants upon the land 
that have digestion equal to Equus asinus, and roots that 
reach beyond the tickling point of the plowshare, to work 
for us between the time of harvest and the preparing of 
the soil for a future crop. Nature’s plan is to raise a plant 
to feed an animal, to make fertility to raise other plants 
to feed other animals, so keeping the circle unbroken. 
Yes, keep on the watch and see that the land is shaded 
with plants, or we might better say, keep the plants at 
work preparing food so that there may be an abundance 
when wanted, up to the time when experience and science 
tell you that culture is needed to change the physical con¬ 
ditions of the soil and to make available that which the 
plants have conserved and helped to produce. It is not 
enough that the soil is fertile and the ground shaded; the 
greatest yield consistent with the least cost must be se¬ 
cured and the smallest amount possible of unproductive 
fertility be carried in the soil. I. p. Roberts. 
Cornell Experiment Station. 
The Shading Value of Clover. 
According to my observation and experience, this farmer 
will do about right to plow under his clover for wheat 
early in August. I think the ground will lose somewhat 
in fertility when bare and exposed to the sunlight for six 
weeks in hot weather, or at least it may do so. But it will 
take about that time to partly rot the clover and get the 
newly turned soil settled and firm, in the beet condition 
for wheat. We must take the risk of some loss to get the 
foundation right for a wheat crop. If it were corn or 
potatoes, I would let the clover grow until time to put in 
the crop ; but we must prepare differently for the greatest 
success in wheat culture. Now, with the above prepara¬ 
tion I would feel badly if, on my farm, we got heavy rains 
just before seeding time, or after seeding, before the wheat 
roots had fully occupied the soil. I would feel that there 
was a loss by leaching of the fertility that the partial 
summer fallow had helped to make available. The wheat 
will show a decidedly less rank growth than it would if 
we had had dry weather, or only light and not leaching 
showers. I have noticed this often, and prefer dry weather 
for fitting wheat land, or any time when the land is 
bare of a crop. We had heavy rains just after our pota¬ 
toes came up this year, following quite a serious drought. 
I considered it rather a misfortune, a3 the roots did not 
occupy all the soil by any means, and fertility would be 
carried down. It is raining quite hard now. The tops 
nearly cover the ground, and the roots extend through 
nearly or quite every inch of soil. No loss can occur. I 
should say, then, that this man proposes to do just the 
best thing that he can do ; whether it will injure the land 
(cause any loss of fertility), or make a great crop, will de¬ 
pend somewhat on the weather. 
I believe there may be loss while “ waiting for the slow 
coming on of the corn crop,” but it is unavoidable. We 
may reduce the chances for this, however, by letting the 
clover grow till the last minute, and then turning and 
planting promptly and rather late, so that the corn will 
start quickly. The writer once obtained a wonderful yield 
of corn for this locality by letting the clover grow until 
May 20. It was about a foot high. Then we plowed and 
planted a field in a hurry. I would do the same thing now, 
if growing corn; but there is some risk of its getting too 
dry to plow readily. 
I have practiced mowing my stubbles once or twice, owing 
to the weather, for quite a number of years. It pays me 
beyond question. Bat I do not cut off enough to make the 
land bare. Say the clover is 10 inches high and some 
weeds are sticking up higher, I set the mower knife high 
enough to clip off the weeds and wheat stubble, and about 
half the growth of the young clover. There is a thick but 
short mat left, which quickly grows up again thicker than 
ever. The little stubble and leaves and tender weeds (never 
wait till these get old and woody) work down among the 
clover plants on to the surface of the ground, and I know 
that they decidedly increase the fertility on my farm. 
Wheat stubble standing up does no good, but lying right 
on the earth it certainly does. Then mice will do no in¬ 
jury during winter and the hay will be free from trash. Two 
mowings in a wet season give quite a little vegetable 
mold on the surface, and then, too, the fields are clean. 
With the smoothing harrow, Breed’s weeder and the 
mower (and incidentally drained land), injury from weeds 
may be a thing of the past. 
In answer to the last question, I say, yes, if you want to 
do your best. The first effort of Nature towards restoring 
to a state of fertility land that man has abused and left to 
her care, is to get something growing on it to cover it— 
weeds, brush, anything. I had much rather my land 
should grow weeds than be bare, provided they do not go 
to seed. We look on weeds as worthless, but they are far 
from it sometimes. The thousands of young weeds that 
sometimes spring up between my potato rows after the 
vines begin to die I consider a blessing. If heavy rain 
comes they will save the leaching down of fertility. Their 
roots are busy for me. They will not get large enough to 
be in the way of the digger at all. Before they can pos¬ 
sibly go to seed we will have the potatoes out and the Cut¬ 
away harrow makes an end of them when we are digging 
up the soil, and they decay and feed the wheat. They do 
a little good in the way of shading the surface. 
Yes, we must study this matter if we want to keep our 
farms up to the most profitable standpoint. There are 
thousands of acres of permanent pasture in northern Ohio, 
the owners of which would do well to remember that bare 
land grows poorer. These pastures are gnawed (and 
tramped) to death. They grow poorer and poorer, and so 
