Newspaper Page Text
426
A GOOD WAV TO 3IAKS CLOSE PEAS.
Editors Southern Cultivator: —Land in
corn last year —-rows 4 feet. About the 25th of
June, weeds being 3 and 4 feet high, I ran one fur
row in alley, with Brinly shovel, and threw up a
ridge on it, two furrows, with a Dixie plow —
then drilled the peas regularly with a Dow Law
Planter, 1 bushel of peas to about 3 or 34 acres.
About 3 weeks after planting, put in two {ar
rows with a Brinly sweep on Thill plow. r l his
cleared the sides of the ridges, put a little dirt
to the peas, and at the same time tore down the
ridges between, and destroyed all the weeds in
alleys. I have just seen the peas. They are the
lest I ever grew on that or similar pine land—
(> furrows in all, counting the Dow Law’s trench'
ing, sowing and covering as one furrow. It is
true, around the stumps are very foul, with rank
weeds, and here and there persimmon bushes, 5
feet high, but the peas are there too. \\ hen 1
planted, Iliad hut two Thill plows, and I could
not spare them, or I could have saved two out of
the 6 furrows. I mean that with the shovel, and 2
scooters on Thill, the Ist furrow and the| listing
could have been done by running once—(the plow
man running over Bor 0 acres per day,) first ma
king a ridge. The plows have to be adjusted to
suit the purpose.
These peas have cost me no hoe work—no nig
ger labor, through whose fingers such articles so
mysteriously disappear—and not one-fifth of the
labor usually put on close peas about here. R.
Grahamvillc, 8. C., Oct. 1870.
After the above was received, Mr. R. writes:
Since I wrote you, many persons have seen
the peas, and all say they never saw as good. One
of my white employees, F. Sauls, who put the
land in order, planted with Dow Law and culti
vated with Thill, says the whole manual la
bor was easier, and certainly did not take over
one-eighth the time it would have taken him to
have opened holes with the hoc, (every 6 inches,
as I required,) dropped 2 or 3 peas to the hill
and covered with the foot. If we could get ma
chines to harvest—or honest labor even, to liar
vest close peas on halves—this would be an im
portant improvement. The whole process, inclu
ding planting and breaking and tending, did not
take as much labor as to break up the land with
an ordinary turn-plow!
Many, very many, can attest the fact of the
disappearance of all my Bermuda grass, and
most of my nut grass, after breaking up the land
and running the Rotary harrow. R.
SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR.
TIIE V ALI E OF COTTOX SEED.
Kiitor South-l aid. —I find in an article in Do
/tow's Ikricw for August on “ Cotton Seed, its
Value and Use,” some statements which, in the
form given, arc calculated to mislead seriously
those who, in attempting to carryout the sugges
tions made, would depend upon those data in es
timating the exhaustion of the soil, consequent
upon the with Irawal of the cotton seed kernel
from the return to the field.
The author avers that the hull are u seen to
contain almost all the mineral parts of the seed,
and consequently the most valuable part of it as
a manure,” and that u their value as a manure is
very great.”
As regards the first proposition, I will, without
discussing at present the reliability of the analy
ses quoted (which I have reason to question seri
ously) merely call attention to the fact that,
while the hulls yield but two per cent, of ash, the
hulled kernel contains over six, therefore three
times as much in the same weight. Now, since
hullers divide cotton seed into about equal
weights of hull and kernel, it is plain that in re
turning the hulls alone instead of the whole seed,
we withold three-fourths of the mineral ingredi
ents, by weight.
But the difference is actually greater than
would thus seem to be the case, for the reason
that the nutritive value of the kernel ash. is by
far greater than that of the hull ash. According
to my determinations the value of the ingredients
returned in the hulls is not over one-fifth of that
of the entire seed; and it will be seen by refer
ence to the analyses of wood ashes, such as
beech, oak, etc., that the manurial value of cot
ton-seed hulls is almost exactly the same as that
of oak saw dust. So much with reference to the
second proposition quoted above.
It is farther stated in the article referred to,
that “ the value of cotton seed is too great to per
mit it to be used as a manure.”
The author remarks that, although wheat grain
would form a fine manure, it would not be eco
nomical to use it as such, and lienee concludes
that the same is true for cotton seed. But he
overlooks the fact that (hulled) cotton seed is
thrice as valuable as a manure, as wheat grain
(the latter containing only from one and three
quarters to two per cent, of ash) while it is very
far from being worth three times as much for
food. The reason is that the proportion of min
eral ingredients in cotton seed is too great for an-