366 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Not' 
grasshoppers. Agricultural periodicals expound their 
favorite hobbies to their credulous and admiring sub¬ 
scribers, puff their respective restoratives for exhausted 
and diseased nature after the fashion of quack medicines, 
and every now and then publish the astounding results 
which have attended their labors. 
We might make pages of extracts from agricultural 
publications, to prove all we have said, and much more, 
but it is not our purpose to find fault with those who 
choose to pursue a different course from the one we deem 
best. Still we firmly believe that although much that is 
said and written in the aforementioned style is true, it is 
designed to do great mischief and to effect incalculable 
harm. 
Very many necessarily derive their notions of improv¬ 
ed farming from such ultra writing, and failing to realise 
all that is advertised, are out of all conceit of book farm¬ 
ing. They condemn the teachings of really scientific 
men, because empirics or wanton cheats palm off their 
vagabond theories for reliable truth. Not long since, at 
an Agricultural Fair, we listened to a tirade of abuse 
directed against all those who undertake to teach the 
principles of successful agriculture, without a practical 
knowledge of the details of farm labor. Farmers were 
told to rely upon their own observation, to let books and 
theories alone, and be content to learn wisdom in the way 
that nature designed every man should—by patieut toil. 
That man had been prejudiced against his own interest 
by partial, extreme, and false representations, made by 
these self-constituted apostles of Agricultural Science. 
Nor is this a solitary instance. There are thousands of 
farmers who would gladly adopt any means of improve¬ 
ment, were they assured that the} 7 would not be victim¬ 
ised by some humbug or other. As a class, farmers pride 
themselves on their intelligence, and their ability to de¬ 
tect a cheat, and having once been decieved, they resolve 
never to trust again. For this reason, if for no other, 
those who undertake to direct public opinion, and ad¬ 
vance the cause of agriculture, should weigh well what 
they publish, and see to it that they do not retard, rath¬ 
er than help on the interests of the agricultural commu¬ 
nity. 
The fault more often lies in ignorance—a wrong use of 
terms, and a confusion of thought, than in any intention 
to deceive. It grows out of an ambition to do more than 
means are provided for doing—to know more than it is 
possible to know, and to be wiser than the age. 
We would not be understood to condemn the utility of 
calling in chemistry to the aid of Agriculture—to under¬ 
value any improvements of the day, or to censure with¬ 
out reason. Chemistry has already done much for agri¬ 
culture, and in the hands of chemists may do much more; 
but that chemistry is the “ philosopher’s stone” of agri¬ 
cultural progress, we do not believe, or that chemistry 
and scientific agriculture are synonymous terms. The 
principles of vegetable growth cannot conflict with the 
laws of chemistry; for all nature is in perfect harmony 
with itself. No patent invention can supercede the im¬ 
mutable course of nature, or stimulate our soils to last¬ 
ing productiveness, any more than the intoxicating cup 
can make the mind more healthy and vigorous. Seed 
time and harvest came in their appointed time, before 
Liebig and Johnston and Norton, brought in their trea¬ 
sures of science to the aid of Agriculture, and now that 
Mapes has so far outstripped all competitors in the march 
of scientific progress, no great change has eome over the 
spirit of the farmers’ dreams. Chemists may amuse 
themselves with their theories, and shed ink like water 
in defence of their favorite hypotheses—speculators may 
concoet splendid projects for the amelioration of labor, 
and reap golden harvests as the reward of their impu¬ 
dence—but the silent, powerful, undercurrent of agri¬ 
cultural and national prosperity moves in an altogether 
different channel. Wherever a thoughtful, prudent far¬ 
mer is earning his bread, wherever a resolute, laborious 
man is observing the constitution and course of nature, 
wherever economy and common sense are exercised, there 
is the work of improvement going on—there is agricul¬ 
ture really becoming scientific. 
£; Science is knowledge reduced to a system,” and 
just so fast and so far as the principles of vegetation, the 
proper use and application of manures, the laws of farm 
husbandry and economy, the preparation and treatment 
of soils to adapt them to particular crops, and in short 
the whole routine of farm labor becomes systematised and 
conducted upon rational principles, does the practice of 
agriculture become a science. We protest against the 
nse of the term scientific as applied solely to Agricultural 
Chemistry. We claim that it has a wider and a more 
universal meaning, and that farmers are wronged by the 
exclusive and partial views so often made public on this 
subject. We hear too much about the laboratory and 
too little about the farm—too much about analysis and 
too little about the diligent hand that maketh rich—too 
much about science and too little about practice—too 
much about what may be and too little about what is. 
If our agricultural papers would give us more facts and 
less speculation, draw more of their matter from experi¬ 
ence and less from imagination, devote their energies 
more to the universal spread of information, and less to 
the private interests of particular men, we should have a 
press on which we could rely, and to which we could 
turn as the fountain head of streams to water and fer¬ 
tilize our land. 
I do not find fault with The Cultivator, as I think it 
has generally pursued a consistent and intelligent 
course; but when one reads some articles which are 
published on agriculture, and that too from those who 
profess to lead public sentiment, no well wisher to 
scientific agriculture and the improvement of our rural 
population can hold his peace. Give us stirring articles 
on subjects of general interest, hut let them have com¬ 
mon sense for a sub-stratum,—portray in as glowing 
language as you please the claims of improved culture, 
but let conclusions he based on principles and facts, and 
thus will “ hook farming” and the teachings of agricul¬ 
tural periodicals take strong hold of the minds of farm¬ 
ers. and work out the proper results of really scientific 
agriculture. Cultor. 
-- 
Good and Bad Farms. —A ten acre field, costing 
fifty dollars per acre, and ditched, manured and im¬ 
proved, at fifty dollars more, so as to give double crops, 
is much move valuable and profitable, than twenty acres 
unimproved, costing the same money. 
