Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-