THE CULTIVATOR. 
July 
adopted by our farmers generally, in not cultivating the 
lands as they ought; having been under the fatal im¬ 
pression that the soil could not be exhausted, from its 
former virgin fertility. Shallow plowing, and exhaust¬ 
ing crops, without giving back a return to the lands, 
—in other words, taking all and returning nothing that 
ought to have been, has been too much the prevailing 
error. There are some exceptions to this rule, and 
where there are such the return has been in proportion. 
J. O. D. ...... 
Liebig’s System oe Manuring. —In the Cultiva¬ 
tor for December, 1845, is an account of a patent ma¬ 
nure which had been invented by Prof. Liebig. This 
composition was very highly recommended by Prof. L., 
and several associations were formed for the purpose of 
manufacturing it for sale. It was said that a company 
in England proposed to engage largely in the business. 
From the confident manner in which the distinguished 
chemist recommended this manure, great expectations 
were created in regard to it. The article in the Culti¬ 
vator, before referred to, was originally, it appears, 
sent as a communication to the Agricultural Magazine , 
London. In this communication, Prof. L. intimates that 
by the use of this composition, “ agriculture will be placed 
on as certain principles as well arranged manufacto¬ 
ries.' 1 - He supposes, also, that “ manufactories of ma¬ 
nure will be established in which the farmer can obtain 
the most efficacious manure for all varieties of soils and 
plants,” and that by the proper manufacture and use of 
the compound, “ a new era will arrive in practical farm¬ 
ing,”—that 11 instead of the uncertainty of mere empiri¬ 
cism, the operations of agriculture will be carried on 
with certainty, and instead of waiting the results of 
our labors with anxiety and doubt, our minds will be 
filled with patience and.confidence.” 
I have been able, however, to obtain but little infor¬ 
mation in egard to the actual application and opera¬ 
tion of this manure, either in England or elsewhere, 
though I have all along been anxious to learn some¬ 
thing of its results. But in the April number of the 
Farmers’ Magazine , I met with a letter in reference to 
this subject, from Dr. W. Weissenborn, of Weimar, 
dated March 1, 1847. 
The letter of Dr. W. comprises a pretty free discus¬ 
sion of Liebig’s theories in relation to agriculture, some 
of which he does not hesitate to say we know by ex¬ 
perience to be false.” Among those theories he men¬ 
tions particularly that which denies the necessity of ad¬ 
ding carbon to the soil, than which, he thinks nothing 
can be more absurd.” Liebig, as is well known, holds 
that plants may derive their supplies of carbon wholly 
from the atmosphere—the atmosphere containing, to 
use his language, “ an inexhaustible supplo of that sort of 
plant-food.” But Dr. W. observes, that “ plants are fixed 
to the soil, and deprived of locomotion. Could they soar 
on high, like birds, one might perhaps in fairness, bid 
them go in search of carbon through the atmosphere.” 
But I do not propose to enlarge at length on that 
part of Dr. W.’s letter which refers to theories, but would 
merely offer an abstract of the results of some experi¬ 
ments, which he states were made with a view of testing 
the value of Liebig’s patent manure. 
Experiment 1.—Soil a deep rich loam, containing a 
good proportion of lime, and having a warm south¬ 
eastern exposure. The crop grown on it in 1844, was 
beets, that of 1845 summer-colza, (a plant of the cab¬ 
bage tribe, similar to rape.) On the 26th of April, 
1846, one-half of the lot, (A,) measuring one-twelfth of 
a Prussian acre, was top-dressed with 20 lbs. of Lie¬ 
big’s patent manure, for grain crops, and then sown 
with 5| lbs. of barley. The other half, (B,) was not 
manured at all, but sown with the same quantity of the 
same kind of barley. The weather was favorable, and 
the barley grew well; but not the least difference could 
be discovered between the two lots. The crop was cut 
on the 8t,h and housed on the 11th August. 
The manured portion, (A,) yielded 23 sheaves, 
weighing 2224 lbs., and containing 92 lbs. of grain, 
103| lbs. straw, and 26 7-12 lbs. of chaff, and other 
refuse matter. 
From B, there were harvested 22 sheaves, weighing 
234| lbs., containing 954 lbs. of grain, 108 8-15 lbs. of 
straw, and 30 12-15 lbs. of chaff and other refuse mat¬ 
ter. Liebig’s manure had not, therefore benefitted the 
crop at all. On the contrary, the land that had not 
been manured, gave a somewhat better return. 
Experiment 2.—It was made on an area of 18 Prus¬ 
sian square ruthen, (1 ruthe =12 feet;) soil and aspect 
as in the first experiment. In 1845 the field had yield¬ 
ed a crop of winter wheat. In 1846, 
A. —Six square ruthen were manured with 18 lbs. of 
Liebig’s patent manure, for leguminous plants. By 
mistake, 18 lbs. were employed instead of 9 lbs., which 
would have been the proper quantity for that area, ac¬ 
cording to the instructions given by the firm of Messrs. 
Pfeiffer, Schwarzenberg &. Co., of Hesse-Cassel: 
B. —Six square ruthen were manured with stable dung. 
C. —Six square ruthen were left without manure. 
On the 4tlrof March, the area was sown with 7|lbs. 
of vetches. The vegetation presented no difference on 
A and C; but was more luxuriant on B. The crop 
consisted, on A, of 63 lbs., viz: 15| lbs. of grain, 47£ 
lbs. of straw; on B, 684 lbs., viz., 184 lbs. of grain, 
50 lbs. of straw; on C, 634 lbs., viz: 15 lbs. grain, 
484 lbs. straw. The grains from A, B, and C, present 
no difference as to their size and specific gravity; there¬ 
fore Liebig’s manure did not benefit the vetches. 
Experiment 3.—On poor mountain-land there were 
sown with vetches:—A, (6 square ruthen,) manured 
after Liebig’s system; B, (6 square ruthen,) manured 
with stable dung; C, (6 square ruthen,) without ma¬ 
nure. The vegetation on A and C presented no differ¬ 
ence whatever; on B, it was considerably more luxuri¬ 
ant. 
I submit these statements without comment, being 
only anxious that the public should arrive at Matter- 
Of-Fact. Troy, June , 1847. 
Results of Industry. —[The following furnishes a 
good example of what may be accomplished in farming 
by laborious industry and perseverance. There are 
probably many such in our country, and it is proper 
that they should be held up for the encouragement of 
others. The writer of this article, it should be remem¬ 
bered, is located in a region which many look upon as 
very unfavorable to agriculture.— Eds.] 
I commenced clearing land from a wilderness estate 
in 1820; the growth was heavy hard wood of beech, 
maple, birch, with some hemlock and spruce. I felled 
but little each year, at first, as I had neither ox, horse, 
or man, to help me, unless I hired or exchanged my 
own labor for them; (the latter. I often did.) I prac¬ 
ticed clearing every movable thing from the land, sow¬ 
ing it with some kind of grain and grass seed. It scarce¬ 
ly ever failed to produce a good crop of grain, and after 
wards grass in abundance, for ten, and sometimes for 
fifteen years. I have cleared, with the assistance of my 
own sons, principally, about one hundred acres of wood¬ 
land. I have about twenty-eight acres well cleared of 
stones, which is in a good state of cultivation. My 
stock consists of oxen, cows, and young stock, to the 
number of twenty to twenty-five, one horse, and about 
forty sheep. I have plenty of hay for my stock, and 
sell from five to ten tons yearly. My barn, previous to 
1846, was 40 by 50 feet, standing where the ground 
sloped to the southwest, about four feet in fifty. In 
1846 I built an addition on the lower side of the old 
part, one hundred and two feet long and thirty wide. I 
