192 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
sal of that very excellent article, at page 49, of the cur¬ 
rent volume of the Cultivator, (March No.) I wish most 
respectfully, to recall your attention, and that especially, 
of every man engaged in the culture of Cotton, whose 
grand ob ject is his own, his country, and posterity’s wel¬ 
fare. This communication appears over the signature of 
M. W. Philips, of Log Hall, Miss. That your corres¬ 
pondent of Log Hall, is a gentleman of intelligence and 
experience in the culture of Cotton, under the present 
system, will appear at once obvious, when we come to 
examine carefully, which we should, the nice and per¬ 
spicuous certainty with which he has detailed the seve¬ 
ral operations, even the smallest minutia, attending the 
tedious routine of growing cotton under the practice of 
the country. The satisfaction of those readers, who may 
not possess the convenience of reference to this article 
of Mr. Philips, as likewise the necessity arising under 
certain positions of argument, in elucidation of the seve¬ 
ral prominent features of advantage, which the proposed 
improvement offers to the planter render it proper that 
I make such extracts therefrom, as will serve to illus¬ 
trate here, the principles of the system. Previous to in¬ 
troducing such extracts, I here remark in reference to 
that performance, what i think the candor of every ex¬ 
perienced planter will readily accord to it,—that it con¬ 
templates a greater degree of perfection in many of its 
operations, as practiced by its author, than is common to 
the system as we generally meet with it among plant¬ 
ers; hence the utility of its quotation, hoc tempore etloco. 
Mr. Philips says:— 
■ i, '^ len our Hud has been the preceding year in cotton, we 
either pull up the stalks, throw several rows into one heap 
roll them into heaps and burn; or thresh them down with 
cudgels, to be plowed in. The latter plan I pursue. Having 
cut, heaped, and burnt up, what logs may be lying on the 
ground, we commence our plowing operations by running a fur¬ 
row,; (straight on level land, with the hill on rolling or hilly 
land,) in the old water furrow with a shovel plow ; to this we 
throw two furrows with a turning plow, and leave it so until 
time to plant. Should the land have been in corn, manv cut 
down corn stalks, pile and burn, (I plow all in,) and proceed 
as above; if in oats, I invariably flash deep with a two horse 
plow, and run off rows as before, 4 feet apart in thin land, and 
6 in rich land; on our strongest land, rows are even as much 
as_8 to 10 feet apart. The plowing so far done, cannot in my 
opinion, be done too early. From the 1st to the 5th of April, 
some seasons earlier, we commence planting cotton; having 
completed planting all corn that the land will admit planting, 
and now break out the entire row well ? and as deep as we can, 
about 4 inches the deepest, being particular to break out just in 
advance of the hands planting. * * Then open 
out the furrow for seed, with some implement about three- 
fourths of an inch deep. * * This row should be 
as straight, or as regular in its curves as possible, to permit 
after work being done to the best advantage. In the furrow on 
the ridge we sow seed, having had them hauled and dropped in 
parcels at suitable distances in the field, from 2 to 4 bushels to 
the acre; not being particular, only in having enough; then 
cover with a wooden tooth harrow, or a board about 6 inches 
wide, 18 inches long, concave on the lower edge, and pinned 
with the heel pin of shovel plow on the chip. * * \Ve 
do not desire to cover .cotton over half an inch; and indeed the 
covering is not necessary, unless in dry weather; for a light 
shower will so beat the seed in the soil and compress the wool 
left on seed, so as to germinate immediately. 
“ Having planted abou t half the crop, we pursue other business, 
for a few days, so that an entire scraping comes on not at same 
time. One hand and horse can open 10 to 15 acres, 4.1 feet apart, 
one hand can sow seed, and one hand and team cover. But I 
look on it as very hard work to drop la acres; though I have 
done it myself, I could not have repeated. I always begin to 
scrape as soon as 1 have a stand up, grass or no grass, and no 
regular time for this.” 
This first operation, will be more familiarly recognised 
when styled, as it is by the great majority of planters, 
chopping out. Mr. P. continues— 
“I have usually begun to scrape by running the bar of a turn¬ 
ing plow next to row,” (n very common practice,) “ throw from 
the plant to water furrow about 1 1-2 to 2 inches deep; but be¬ 
lieving with others, it is not best to take earth from the bed, I 
now use a scraper, attached to chip of shovel plow, that will 
barely sweep off the surface as near the plant as possible, 
throwing the surface toward middle of row. When this is well 
done, one good hand can clear the remainder as easily as is 
usually done with two ordinary hands, by passing the hoe 
through the row, cutting out all, to one or two stalks, the 
breadth of the hoe apart, say about 10 inches apart, leaving the 
row perfectly clean and scraped. * * About a 
week or ten days we commence molding the plant with”— 
(the plow that may best suit the fancy of the planter.) “ We 
make it a point to get the plows in at this work as soon after 
scraping as we can, and get back with hoes to clean once more, 
either by scraping again or dirting; and if pleasant weather 
cut out at this time every other stalk. (In poor land 1 have the 
stand as at first, single stalks about 10 to 12 inches apart;) re¬ 
ducing to a stand one stalk, in good land, about 2 feet apart, in 
rich land even 3 feet at times. If this has been done well and in 
due season, unless a wet spring, the. push is over, as we now cul¬ 
tivate with double shovels,(I prefer it to any thing I have tried,) 
cultivator and harrow, just as the growth of grass and appear¬ 
ance of earth indicate—governed by—keep clean and stir well. 
I throw a little earth to the plants, the two or three last work¬ 
ings, but never make a hill unless on hill sides, these merely 
to prevent washes.” 
This brings us to the opening snow white staple, blush¬ 
ing to the harvest, which we all gather in the same way, 
by the fingering operation, since Mr.-—’s boasted 
Cotton picking machine, (at Augusta, Geo.) proved a sig¬ 
nal failure, as every such inanimate neuter probably ever 
will, in gathering clean cotton from the plant. 
Having turned to and carefully read this article, (which 
I sincerely desire that every lover of truth do for him¬ 
self,) I will now add my own testimony, by remarking, 
ffiat we have here a most faithful and graphic description 
of the modus operandi of preparing, planting, and culti¬ 
vating the cotton plant, as practiced throughout the en¬ 
tire length and breadth of the cotton region, from Charles¬ 
ton to New Orleans, with variations so slight as not to 
affect the general result. 
Having the subject now fairly before us, I shall con¬ 
clude this paper, by making a few general observations, 
as preliminary to the special dissection of this monstrous 
system , to which I shall carefully attend in the next num¬ 
ber. I first observe then, that it is matter of great as¬ 
tonishment to me, that this fallacious system, containing 
within itself, complete, the elements of certain destruc¬ 
tion, has not long, long since exploded. Who among 
the intelligent planters in the south, and they are innu¬ 
merable, that has not observed, yea more and sorely felt 
too, the very striking disparity that exists between the 
enormous investment of capital, in operating under this 
system and the meagerly accruing profits! This is not a 
question however, requiring a formal reply. We have 
only to look around us on every hand, and remark upon 
the dilapidated appearance which almost every cotton 
plantation, of but a half a dozen years standing, presents 
to the eye, sickening under this blighting influence! Not 
that the Southern planter has no taste for improvement; 
the very reverse is the fact; the very influences which 
our southern genial clime inspire, are both animating 
and improving; but the system of culture which he pur¬ 
sues, like a vampire, preys upon his vitals, withers his 
energies, and so saps his profits as to entirely forbid his 
attempting that improvement about his plantation, so ne¬ 
cessary to convenience as well as comfort; and which 
he loves to admire. Under a scientific and judicious sys¬ 
tem of agricultural policy, which I contend to be the sys¬ 
tem best and most profitably adapted to the culture and 
maturity of the cotton plant, the very idea of wearing 
out and rejecting land, is a solecism: the constant and 
invariable tendency of such system is, to improve the 
soil and augment its production,—ameliorating thereby 
the condition of every object, both animal and inani¬ 
mate, that comes within its resuscitating influence. But 
on the other hand, what have we to look upon as the ef¬ 
fect of the present flaying system, but one uninterrupted 
scene of broad spread ruin, and growing worse? Old 
worn out fields, red hills and gullied steeps,—admonitory 
lessons to posterity to migrate to other climes. 
N. B. Cloud, M. D. 
Planter’s Retreat, Ala. Nov. 1,1842. 
CHEMICAL MANURES—AGAIN. 
Editors of the Cultivator —I would inform my 
friend, Mr. Woodfix, that I probably committed one er¬ 
ror in the article he has twice criticised, and that is, in 
acknowledging that under any circumstances, ammonia 
can decompose plaster of Paris at atmospheric tempera¬ 
tures. I am aware that this opinion is directly opposed 
to that given by Liebig, in his celebrated work on Agri¬ 
culture and Physiology, as well as to the admissions of 
Daubeny in his Oxford Lectures. Those authors are pio¬ 
neers in the application of science to agriculture, and 
their works are among the noblest mental efforts of the 
age; and will no doubt be productive of invaluable re¬ 
sults to future generations, if not to the present. Yet the 
more formidable the standing and the names of authors, 
the more necessary it is to investigate their opinions, and 
expose their fallacies. 
If my friend, Mr. Woodfin, has been practically en¬ 
gaged in agriculture, he has no doubt observed, that 
when the leader of a flock of sheep leaps over a fence, 
the flock suddenly become magnetised by the same im¬ 
pulse, and the whole will leap over, even if they should 
all land in a quagmire. Just so it is with authors, when 
a leader gives an opinion, thousands will take the same 
leap, without examining the ground on which they may 
land. 
I will make a few extracts from Liebig and Daubeny, 
and will then endeavor to point out wiierein they have 
erred. Liebig says, page 85: 
“ The carbonate of ammonia contained in rain water, (and 
of course when presented from any other source,) is decom¬ 
posed by gypsum, in precisely the same manner as in the manu¬ 
facture of sal. ammonia. Soluble sulphate of ammonia and 
carbonate of lime are formed; and this salt of ammonia, pos¬ 
sessing no volatility, is consequently retained in the soil.” 
At page 89, Liebig asserts,— 
“ That powdered charcoal surpasses all other substances in 
the power which it possesses of condensing ammonia within its 
pores. Charcoal absorbs 90 times its volume of ammoniacal, 
which may be again separated by simply moistening it with wa¬ 
ter. Decayed wood approaches very nearly to charcoal in this 
power; decayed oak wood absorbs 70 times its volume, after 
having been completely dried under the air pump.” 
In the appendix to the same volume, Mr. Webster has 
given us extracts from Daubeny’s Lectures. At page 
398, Mr. Daubeny says: 
“Liebig, therefore, has suggested another mode in which 
gypsum may be beneficial to crops in general, by reference to 
the property which it possesses, of depriving ammonia of its 
volatility, and thus preventing its escape into the atmosphere.” 
“ This effect arises from the double decomposition which 
takes place, when sulphate of lime and carbonate of ammo¬ 
nia are brought together, the lime being converted into a carbo¬ 
nate, and the ammonia uniting with sulphuric acid. 
“ The above theory of its use being admitted, we may be en¬ 
couraged to extend its application to other crops besides the le- 
guminosas, and also to mix it with the dung of our stables, so 
as to prevent the waste of this valuable material, which is con¬ 
stantly occurring. 
“But the farmer must be reminded that it will be necessary 
that the sulphate of ammonia resulting from the action, should 
be brought into contact with some substance capable of slowly 
decomposing it, so as to supply ammonia to the plant. 
“ For there is no reason to believe that the organs of a vege¬ 
table can decompose sulphate of ammonia, and if they were able 
so to do, the disengagement of free sulphuric acid would hardly 
fail to be injurious to their structure.” 
Page 401, Daubeny says: 
“ I am indebted to an excellent scientific chemist, for the fol¬ 
lowing details, which may be of use to the agriculturist in ena¬ 
bling him to appreciate the importance of this commodity, and 
to prepare for himself any quantity that he may require for his 
farm. 
“ One gallon of the ammoniacal liquor added to 1 lb. 21 oz. 
of powdered, but not calcined gypsum, will produce 1 lb. of 
crystalized sulphate of ammonia. To effect the decomposition, 
the materials should be mixed and stirred up together for ten 
or twelve hours, a heat nearly that of ebullition, being at the 
same time employed. The sulphate of ammonia remains in so¬ 
lution, and may be obtained in a solid state, by evaporating at 
a low temperature.” 
We will now proceed to expose the scientific errors 
of the above writers. Liebig asserts “that carbonate of 
ammonia will displace lime from its combination with 
sulphuric acid, and from sulphate of' ammonia; even 
when the plaster spread on the land is watered with an 
ammoniacal liquid. He afterwards informs us that pow¬ 
dered charcoal exceeds all other substances in its power 
of condensing ammonia within its pores.” 
Daubeny says “ the above theory being admitted, (ra¬ 
ther a doubtful admission,) we may extend its applica¬ 
tion,” &c. In another section he admits, “ that if so 
formed, free sulphuric acid would be liberated by che¬ 
mical action in the plant, which could not fail to be in¬ 
jurious.” 
An excellent scientific chemist informs Daubeny, that 
at a high temperature, he has made sulphate of ammo¬ 
nia by adding carbonate of ammonia to sulphate of lime; 
which Daubeny considers a confirmation of Liebig’s the¬ 
ory. Now any practical chemist would at once have 
seen the fallacy of Liebig's theory, from the very fact 
communicated by the chemist, as we shall presently see. 
It is not to be supposed that nature will resort to forced 
and injurious applications, when more genial and effect¬ 
ive series of appliances are at her command. 
Of all the alkaline earths, alumina has the least affinity 
for sulphuric acid, and baryta the greatest. Of all the al¬ 
kalies, ammonia has the least affinity for sulphuric acid, 
and potash the greatest. Magnesia will displace ammo¬ 
nia from its combination with sulphuric acid, and lime 
will displace magnesia. At or near the boiling point, a 
new series of affinities are formed, and those having the 
weakest affinity when cool, will at high temperatures, 
displace those having the stronger; but on cooling, the 
former affinities again resume their primary influence. 
If Daubeny had been a practical chemist, the informa¬ 
tion received from Mr. Phillips, the chemist, that he had 
obtained sulphate of ammonia by boiling plaster of Paris 
with sub-carbonate of ammonia, would have led him to 
see the fallacy of Liebig’s assertion that such a change 
would be produced at atmospheric temperatures. 
I am not a little surprised that so acute a theorist as 
Liebig, should have been led into this error, when the 
facts he has presented us, are sufficient to disprove his 
theory. He asserts that charcoal, where no decomposi¬ 
tion is claimed, will retain vastly more ammonia than the 
sulphuric acid of the plaster; which could not be the 
case, if the sulphuric acid of the plaster were neutralized 
with ammonia. We are informed by Daubeny, that 1 lb. 
2| oz. of gypsum, will take all the ammonia of one gal¬ 
lon of ammoniacal liquor to saturate its acid; and will 
any chemist admit that 1 lb. 2| oz. of charcoal will re¬ 
tain within its pores the same quantify. 
It is evident that both Liebig and Daubeny, in their 
eagerness to prove a theory, have been blind to mechani¬ 
cal and resulting attractions, which often perform impor¬ 
tant results without chemical decomposition. Witness 
the retention of ammonia by charcoal. 
I had convinced myself, after making experiments for 
many months in a London laboratory, that so certain 
were chemical results from the table of affinities afford¬ 
ed by chemists, beginning with Lavoisier and ending with 
Davy, that chemistry deserved to be ranked as an exact 
science; but if this portion of the theory of Liebig be 
true, it will prove so uncertain as scarcely to deserve the 
name of science. Wm. Partridge. 
New-York, Oct. 1, 1842. 
SHEEP. 
Editors of the Cultivator —In your October No. 
over the signature of J. McD. McIntyre, I notice an ar¬ 
ticle purporting to correct an error in my letter, pub- 
tished in the Transactions of the New-York State Ag. 
Soc. for 1841. Mr. McIntyre says: “ he feeds his own 
flock (Saxony,) 150 to 200 lbs. hay, and four bushels of 
potatoes, daily, to the hundred sheep.” Those of your 
readers who have a volume of the Transactions referred 
to, I would ask to he to the trouble to read my commu¬ 
nication, and then decide whether Mr. McIntyre has quo¬ 
ted me correctly; but to those who have not that volume, 
I beg leave to say that “ and four bushels of potatoes” dai¬ 
ly, is an addition of Mr. McIntyre’s. 
For two winters past, my flock has not received, on an 
average, over one and a half pounds of hay, daily, or its 
equivalent in grain, roots, &c. calculating the nutritious¬ 
ness of the several kinds of provender, as laid down by 
the most experienced and scientific farmers in Germany. 
I feed by weight rather than measure, and keep a pair 
of steelyards on my hay mow, and weigh often in the 
course of the winter, not only the hay I feed to my sheep, 
but the grain, roots, straw, &c. also. This is the method 
by which I arrive at the quantity my flock consumes. 
And I frequently weigh the fodder for my cattle also. I 
did not however intend to occupy much room in the Cul¬ 
tivator at this time, and therefore add only one remark 
more in conclusion, to express my surprise, that a shep¬ 
herd of so much exactness as Mr. McIntyre shows him¬ 
self to be, as to “accurately weigh their (his sheep) 
food,” should otherwise neglect them so much, that “ the 
long continued warm weather, coupled with carelessness 
in not sufficiently cleaning their yards,” cause “ many 
of his flock to lose much of their wool.” 
Such a negligent shepherd would not find employ long, 
by Your humble servant, 
Buskirk’s Bridge, N. Y H. D. Grove. 
