1851. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
67 
between the parties. The kind of fences will neces¬ 
sarily depend much upon the location occupied; in 
some places timber is abundant, and stone scarce; in 
others the reverse of this occurs. 
In all places where stone fences can be made, they 
are greatly to be preferred; they are stronger, more 
durable, and less expensive. I have often been sur¬ 
prised, in going through different sections of the coun¬ 
try, to see a field covered with loose stones, sur¬ 
rounded with a poor-looking, old rail fence. The 
owner had perhaps plowed it for years in that con¬ 
dition, and the idea never seems to have entered his 
mind, that the stones could be converted into a fine 
fence, bettering the condition of his farm, and giving 
it a thrifty appearance. 
I have said that stone fences are less expensive 
than other kinds; as an idea to the contrary seems 
prevalent, some explanation may be necessary. Let 
us make a calculation as to the relative cost of stone 
and wood fences. I mean, of course, where stone is 
abundant. Worm fences are probably the cheapest 
kind of wood fences. 
1 panel, of 12 feet, will cost as follows: 
7 rails at 6d each,. SBO 42 
2 stakes, 3d, each,. 06 
Labor putting up,. 02 
Total,. SO 50 
This estimate, in the section of country where I re¬ 
side, would be considered low. Now, I have had 
good single walls built, three feet bottom, (sin¬ 
gled up to a foot across the top,) and four feet high, 
(such walls will stand better than double ones, un¬ 
less sunk below the frost, and made very large,) for 
from 50c. to 63c. a rod, including every expense, 
board of men. teams, &c. Such a fence, then, costs 
not as much as worm fence, and is far stronger and 
more durable. A fence of this description will re¬ 
sist cattle and horses that would vault over, or tear 
down, a seven railed worm, or five railed post and 
rail fence. 
The expense attending fencing a farm is always 
great, but there is no outlay that pays better than a 
judicious system of fencing. Where stone or timber 
is plenty, fields can scarcely be made too small. I 
should be glad if the tillable land of my farm was 
fenced in acre lots. It is, perhaps, to the system of 
fencing in small lots, more than anything else, that 
farmers living in mountainous lands, are enabled to 
live and do so well as they do. In order to get rid 
of the stone on their land, they are necessarily com¬ 
pelled to fence in small lots. This gives them an op¬ 
portunity to shift their cattle often from field 
to field, thereby obtaining for them fresh pasture al¬ 
most daily. I recently heard of a man who grass- 
fatted twenty head of cattle on twenty acres of land. 
This seems at first view, almost incredible, but a 
glance at his plan will show that it is not impossible. 
He fenced his fields into acre lots: when the grass 
was well grown, he turned his twenty head into one 
field. This they eat off pretty clean, and manured 
pretty well in a day—he then, next day, turned into 
the next field, and so on till the whole were used. 
By this time the first field had had twenty days rest, 
and was covered again with an abundant herbage. 
The same system was pursued througout the season. 
Now, had these twenty head of cattle been turned 
into a twenty acre field, it would not have been long 
before they would have had it gnawed down to the 
earth, and so far from fatting, they would, in all pro¬ 
bability, have had hard work to find a living on 
it. If any one should think it an objection to fenc¬ 
ing in small lots, that it takes up too much of the 
land, I think upon trial, that the advantages accruing 
therefrom, will be found so great as to amply com¬ 
pensate for the loss of land.* 
In many parts of the country, it seems to me that 
there is no system of fencing at all—at least I should 
judge so from the perfect want of plan and order 
with which fields are enclosed. We have seen them 
of so many different shapes, sizes and figures, that 
it would require a pretty good geometrician to tell 
what they were. I know that plain farmers cannot 
always have everything according to the rule and 
plummet, but I think some improvement might be 
made in this department of farming, which would be 
of great advantage to the farmer, as well as contri¬ 
buting to beautify the general face of the country. 
Upon many farms where I have been, in this and 
other sections of country, I have found a great source 
of inconvenience arising from the want of lanes. I 
have known farmers to drive cattle nearly half a mile 
to get to some particular field, which could have been 
reached in 200 yards, had a proper lane been made 
where it ought to have been. In many instances, 
the use of whole fields are lost for a season, from the 
want of lanes. An impression seems to exist, that 
they take up land. If farms are properly laid out, 
lanes, which will make themselves easy of access all 
over, will take up but little room, and it will not be 
lost, for they always afford a great abundane of good 
pasture. 
General Improvement of the Farm. —There 
is no quicker way within my knowledge to improve 
a sandy soil, and no one calling for less outlay, than 
* We are unable to agree with our esteemed correspondent on this 
point. We think the division of land into small lots, is liable to ob¬ 
jections that are by no means balanced by the advantages. It creates 
a great expense in the erection and support of fences, occasions the 
loss of land, and increases the expense of cultivating crops. In the 
case of stone walls, they necessarily cover several feet in width, and 
besides the ground they actually cover, there is always a strip on each 
side which cannot be plowed, and whenever the field is in tillage, the 
use of this strip is lost. If land is divided into (! acre lots,” the num¬ 
ber of turnings in plowing and other work, is much increased, and in 
consequence of the time thus lost, much less work is done in a day. 
As to the advantage of shifting stock in the way proposed, there are 
different opinions. Some who have tried both small and large divis¬ 
ions, for pasturage, have given the preference to the latter. To fat an 
animal on an acre of grass, is doing well, but not better than is fre¬ 
quently done in the best grazing districts, without resorting to such 
small divisions as our friend recommends. Eds. 
