Newspaper Page Text
358
AGRICULTURAL. _
DANIEL LEE, Id. Editor.
SATURDAY, MARCH 31, iB6O
THE CRITICAL STUDY OF PLAHT FOOD.
Mr. J. B. Lawes gives, in a late number of
the London Agricultural Gazette, an instructive
article on the relative value of the Manure ob*
tained from one ton of different kinds of foed
consumed by domestic animals on the farm. In
feeding live stock, no item of profit is more im
portant than that whicli results from the produc
tion of plant food in the most economical man
ner. When the intelligent reader calls to mind
the fact, that millions of dollars are paid by
farmers every year for Peruvian guano at a cost
of more than sktty dollars for two thousand
pounds, while the same weight of common yard
manure is not worth over fifty cents, and rarely
that, he must see ample room for improvement
in skillfully condensing the essential elements of
fertility by all cultivators of the soil. Their
home-made fertilizers of whatever kind, are gen
erally too bulky, and difficult to manage as com
pared with the best guauos, involving great la
bor in hauling and spreading, and the loss of
much time and money in feeding crops by the
one hundred acres on aliment so diluted, and of
little value per 100 lbs. A home-made fertilizer
equal to bird manure in strength, requiring only
a few hundred pounds per acre, is now the grand
desideratum of scientific agriculture. The in
gredients in stable manure, which are of least
utility for promoting the growth of all cereals,
cotton, and other staples, must be got rid of,that
the loading, hauling, unloading, and spreading of
hundreds of tons of nearly worthless matter
may be avoided, As one step in the right di
rection, we submit to the consideration -of all
thinking men the results arrived at by the most
pains-taking experimentalist in Great Britain, as
to the relative value of manure from twenty-five
different kinds of cattle food:
TABLE,
Showing Vie Estimated Value of the Manure obtain
ed! from the Consumption of one Ton of different
articles of Food ; each supposed to be of good qual
ity of its kind, t
Estimated money
value of the
Description of Food. Manure from one
Ton of each
Food.
FT. d.
1. Decorticated Cotton-seed oake 6 10 0
2. itape-cake 4 13 0
3. Linseed-cake 4 12 0
4. Malt-dust 4 5 0
6. Lentil* 8 17 0
6. Linseed 8 18 0
7. Tares 8 18 6
8. Beans 8 18 6
9. Peas 8 2 C
10. Locust Beans 12 6
11. Oats 1 14 <5
12. Wheat -. 1 18 0
13. Indian Corn I 11 6
14. Malt 1 11 6
15. Barley 1 9 6
16. Clover hay 2 5 0
17. Meadow nay 1 10 0
18. Oat straw 0 13 6
19. Wheat straw 0 12 6
20. Barley straw 0 10 6
21. Potatoes. 0 7 0
22. Mangels : ; 0 5 0
28. Swedish Turnips 6 4 3
24. Common Turnips 0 4 0
25. Carrots 0 4 0
It will be seen by the above table that a
“cake” made from “decorticated cotton seed,”
that is, seed whose hulls have been removed by
machinery, yields at this time the most con
centrated manure produced on the farm. It is
not the “cake" which is worth six pounds ten
shillings a ton, or thirty-two dollars and fifty
cents, but the excrements ot a beast while con
suming that amount of cake, after the oil has
been expressed from it. If the droppings of an
animal were properly dried, the entire quantity
derived from two thousand pounds of oil cake,
grain or hay, will not exceed one. thousand
pounds; about one half of the solids being
burnt in the system, to keep the temperature of
the body night and day at blood heat. From
these data it is demonstrated that a cotton plant
er may, by simply hulling his cotton seed, ex
pressing the oil for market, and feeding the cake
to hogs, cattle, and sheep, produce a manure
worth $32 50 per thousand pounds, or in round
numbers, three cents a pound. As Mr. Lawes,
the author of the above Table is, himself, prob
ably, the largest manufacturer of super-phos
phates in England, and in the world, he can have
no motive to over-estimate the value of cotton
seed for manure; for every oue of the twenty
five articles of stock food, common in England
and tried by him, is a competitor in the mar
ket for general use, iu place of his manipulated
fertilizers, which are made mostly from fossil'
t/ones, coprolites, and phosphatic guanos. He
knows well that the more farmers learn of the
true nature of the best possible manures, the
more they will purchase of such as really deserve
confidence. Hence, he makes money by expend
ing from ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year
in purely experimental operations to ascertain
the true value of all manurial substances—
manufacturing and selling large quantities of the
best, as proved by experience and analyses.
Neither the hull nor the oil in cotton seed is
of much more value for feeding plants than com
mon sawdust. Hence, their removal gives a
more concentrated fertilizer, and one four times
stronger than manure from Indian com.
We find no difficulty in cultivating English
beans in Georgia; and we invite attention to
the fact that a ton ol these leguminous seeds
yield manure worth three pounds thirteen shil
lings and six pence, or more than eighteen dol
lars of our mopey. As food for laboring per
sons, ant! all working auimals on the farm, no
other vegetable aliment equals that which made,
in part, the, Fabii so famous, and the Roman
legions remarkable for their physical strength
and powers of endurance. The Bean of South
ern and Central Europe has many advantages
as an agricultural plant, and we prefer it as food
for man and beast to the Dolichos, or cow pea,
which belongs to the same tribe. Some of the
best crops of wheat that we ever saw in the Gen
esee country were grown after beans, instead
of a clover lea. We can raise a bushel of bea n
m sovxkksk exslx sd biresibb.
about as cheap as one of corn; and we regard a
bushel of this legume as equal to two and a half
of corn, to feed with bacon to negroes. One
meal a day of bacon and beans, when greens and
other vegetables are scarce, or not to be had,
is a good allowance to combine muscular power
with economy. Attention is called to tho fact,
that the manure from a ton of clover hay is
worth two pounds five shillings, say eleven dol
lars ; while that of the best English hay is
worth jost half that sum. Note, also, that a
ton of Indian corn yields manure worth thirteen
shillings and six pence, or three dollars and a j
quarter less than a like weight of clover. The !
latter contains about twenty per cent more ni
trogen than com. and some seven times more of
the miueral food of plants. Hence the remark
able value of clover as a renovating crop, and
for producing the flesh and bones of domestic
animals. Clover culture should be extended
at the South. The fact should be borne in mind
that the farmer who finds the manure from a ton
of dry clover worth eleven dollars, sells min
eral superphosphate of lime (a rich article) at five
pounds five shillings a ton; <snly a little more
than the estimated value of the manure from
two tons of clover hay._
Bear in mind, also, tlje fact that two tons of
clover will not make over one of manure, ex
' elusive of water and litter; so that clover ma
nure may be as concentrated as a mineral super
phosphate of lime. Practical farmers have hith
erto studied very little the art and the science of
condensing a large amount of fertilizing power
in a small body of manure; and yet, nothing
connected with tillage and planting is more im
portant, unless one is willing to acquire the bad
reputation of being a land killer, a curse to the
State, and an enemy to all coming generations.
Cultivators have no moral right to make one
rood of soil less fertile than they found it The
fertility of the Earth is the gift of God, for the
equal benefit to all generations; and,therefore,to
make the ground unfruitful is an abuse of one's
physical strength or mental power, or of both,
not committing of sui de, and the
; murder of children and grandchildren, that the
selfish parties may have, and waste in excesses,
what legitimately belongs to posterity.
Children unborn have an inalienable right in
) c
all the natural resources of the soil. Otherwise,
eacli generation may lessen the capacity of all
continents and islands to feed and clothe man-
I kind; and in a few centuries, exterminate the
J whole human race. Neither reason nor morali
i ty sanctions the folly, or extenuates the -crime
J of lessening the natural fruitfulness of any plan
i tation, county, or State. Whatever is borrowed
j from the soil that unaided Nature fails to return,
» the borrower should restore, that he may leave
; the arable land of .the community as rich as he
! found it. Not to do this, is dishonest; for if
i one man has a right to make a desert, all must
J have the same right; and thus all will have a
> right to inflict the greatest possible injmy on
i perfectly innocent parties. It is absurd to claim
| a moral right to do wrong. Agriculture is as
i much a moral question as any other whatever.
1 It should be considered alike in its moral, so
| cial, and intellectual aspects.
Mr. Lawes wrote the article from which the
foregoing table is copied, to' refute and expose
the imposition of sundry quacks, who are sell
| ing cattle feed at from $2.00 to $2.50 a ton, un
der the pretence that it is exceedingly concen
trated aliment. Pretenders and-speculators are
( ever ready to fleece the public by flattering the
most popular idea, and leading thousands to pay
r out good money for some counterfeit commodity.
Just now, manures and liquors are more adul
j terated than other manufactures, because pur
r chasers are ready to consume anything that
J. bears the right name, without stopping to en-
quire into its nature or value. “ The pleasure
of being cheated” is quite as great now as when
Butler wrote Iludibras. There is a wide dis-
ference between tbe nourishment of plants and
animals. Plants feed very largely on common
| air and water. They need but little aliment
from the soil. Animals burn nothing but or
’ ganized substances to generate vital heat; and
from no other can they repair the constant waste
in every muscle, bone, nerve, and membrane.
Volume or bulk is as much a matter of neces
sity to fill the stomach and blood-vessels of an
animal as organized and assimilable elements of
the right kind to form its tissues. Hence the
concentration of animal food can never be car
ried anything like so far as substituting 100 lbs.
of the best guano or artificial manure, for ten
thousand pounds of stable manure. Nature
does so much for plants that human science and
industry are lightly taxed for their production.
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.
Battle House, Mobile, Ala. \
March 6th 1860. j
Mr. Editor:—Passing through this city on
my way to Baltimore, after my recent visit to
Cuba, Chas. A. Gilbert, Esq., one of our agents
at this point, directs my attentiou to an article
in your journal of February 18th, ult, on the
subject of “commercial manures,” in which you
refer to our manure; also analysis by Prof.
Shepard of tiie South Carolina Medical College,
and at the same time propound questtions in
reference to the application, Ac.
I find in the Charleston Courier of March Ist
a communication from Prof. Shepard, which ac
companied by analysis of Rhode’s superphos
phate, is addressed to our agents Messrs. Rhett
and Robson; which I annex as it appears to
answer your question.
I will note in this connection, for the benefit
of your readers, that the Rhodes’ manure is
made as strong as pure bone and sulphuric acid
will make it, and we have no fear of any scruti
ny it may be subjected to, nor the result from
applications to soil deficient in phosphoric acid,
the quantity required being 100 to 200 pounds
per acre. This manure being strictly nourishing
in its properties, can be used in any way the
inclination of the planter may suggest Either
broadcast in the hill or drill. Awaiting the re
sult of a full investigation of our manure, I re
main yotir obedient servant,
B. M. Rhodes,
of B. M. Rhodes A Co.
Office 82 Bowly's wharf, Baltimore, Md.
Analysis and Report of Rhodes' Superphosphate,
by Prof. Shepard, of South Carolina Medical
College.
Charleston', Feb. 27, 1860.
Messrs. Rhett A Robson — Gentlemen: The
samples drawn by myself on the 24th inst, from
a lot of 1500 barrels of Rhodes’Superphospliate,
gave, with very slight differences, the following
average result, viz.:
Soluble Phosphate (or Superphosphate) of
Lime 1&50
Insoluble (or bone-earth) Phosphate of
Lime... .777. 28.00
Hydrated Sulphate of Lime 15.50
Organic Matters, (including Uharcoal)— 5.00
Insoluble Earthy Matter (Including Silica) 9.50
Free Sulphuric Acid, aboul 3.50
Water 24,50
Other Salta, and loss 8-5®
100.00
This agrees with former analyses as nearly
as can be expected in a mechanical mixture of
this description, Tbe quantity of soluble phos
phate, however, is rather higher, while that of
the insoluble is less than m the previous lot.
But I regard the proportions of soluble phos
phates nor found as fully up to the-maximum of
utility in such a preparation, since more of it,
if present, would require too much free sulphu
ric acid for the welfare of living plauts—besides
such a mixture, from too ready a solubility
would be liable to be washed away and lost, in
case of drenching rains. It is better to have the
main portion of the phosphate in a condition (i.
e., as bone-earth) to be retained by the soil, so
as to be more gradually supplied to the crops
throughout the entire period of tlieir growth,
through the interruption of the carbonic acid
water, always in contact with their more deli
cate r jots, and especially abundant when the
proper supply of compost is furnished in culti
vation.
Chas. Upham Shepard,
Prof. Chemistry in Medical College
of South Carolina.
Although the communication of Mr. Rhodes,
and the remarks of Prof. Shepard in the Charles
ton Courier, are in the character of an adver
tisement, yet we publish both gratuitously be
cause we hope to make them instructive to* our
readers. In his first analysis, Prof. S. found 14
percent, of superphosphate of lime in the ma
nure of Rhodes A Co.; and in his last, as stated
above, 154 per cent Prof. S., in commendation
of this compound, says:
“ It is better to have the main portion of tho
phosphate in a condition (»'. e. as bone earth) to
be retained in the soil, so as to be more gradu
ally applied to the crops throughout tho entire
period of their growth, through the intervention
of the carbonic acid water, always in contact
with their more delicate roots, and espeotnlly
abundant where the proper supply of compost
is furnished in cultivation.
If the planter supplies “ compost” to his cot
ton or com planti, and this manure yields car
bonic acid which will slowly dissolve bone
earth, why should the cultivator bny bny super
phosphate? On the other hand, if the planter
uses no compost, and his growing crop needs
15 J lbs. or 31 lbs. of soluble phosphate per acre,
why should he purchase forty-nine pounds of
tcater at two cents and a half a pound, which
he does not want, to obtain only tbirty-one
pounds of something which he does want?
Prof. Shepard reports 2i4 per cent of wa
ter in a “ mixture ” that contains only 151 per
cent, of soluble phosphate of lime. "VVe are
studying this “mixture ” for the benefit of the
public, without the least unfriendly feeling to
ward either the manufacturers or their agents
who make money by on commission.
Mr. J. B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, ad
vertises a superphosphate of lime made of bone
dust at six pounds, six shillings a ton of 2*240
lbs., which is understood to contain about twice
as much phosphoric acid, (soluble and insoluble)
as that of Rhodes A Co. His mineral super
phosphate he sells at £5 55., or at a fraction
over $26, for 2,240 lbs.; which contains some
thing more than 31 per cent, of soluble phos
phate of lime. Should there be any excess of
sulphuric acid, it is easy to'add lime and form
gypsum.
Hence 100 lbs. of pure mineral phosphate of
lime may be converted entirely into a bi-phos
phate of lime, which is soluble in water, and
gypsum, which is also soluble. Burning a true
bi-phosphate, and the natural bone-earth in phos
phatic guanos, the farmer can mix them quite as
well as any trader, or manipulator of commer
cial manures. Soils in which decaying plants
yield much carbonic acid, will do well with fine
ly ground, simple phosphate, like that used by
Mr. Gardner last year on cotton; while y soils
poor in organic matter, will probably give a
better return to use from 20 to 40 pounds of a
true bi-phospliate of lime per acre. To obtain
the last named quantity, the planter will have
to buy over 250 lbs. of. Rhodes’ superphosphate;
and to get 100 lbs. of the most common, natu
ral phosphate of lime, he must purchase 433 lbs
of “ the mtxture.” We do not say that this
compound is not the best in the market, but we
are quite confident that it will not be the best in
one year from this time, according to the cost
of the article. There is room for great im
provement in commercial fertilizers ; and the
sooner this subject is fully discussed and under
stood by the public, the earlier will farmers find
all the constituent elements of every crop placed
within their reach at a low price as compared
with the present We criticise to remedy defects
—not to disparage the progress already achiev
ed in preparing nourishment for agricultural
plants in a concentrated form. The 3| percent
of free sulphuric acid found by Prof. Shepard,
mixed with 23 per cent, of insoluble phosphate
of lime, leads us Jo believe that tho 1500 bar
rels of the so-called superphosphate, a sample of
which he anajized, had been quite recently man
ufactured, and put in tbo market before tho oil of
vitriol had displaced all the phosphoric acid of
which it was capable. Perhaps the sulphuric
acid was too weak, or the bones were not
ground fine enough, and perhaps the manufac
turers found the demand for their “mixture” so
great as to take it away by the cargo before tbe
acid had half digested the bonedust. Food
cooked in a hurry is generally damaged by be
ing partly burnt and partly raw.
(For the Southern Field and Fireside.)
THE WANTS OF AGRICULTURE.
Dr. Lee — Dear Sb': In other communica
tions we have suggested aids, by which the
planter owning unproductive land it he avails
himself of them, will be benefitted by being en
abled to produce the same amount of crop, if
not more, off of a less area of land. These aids
are not enough of themselves, and are not all
which is required to make up a perfect system
of farming, and should be considered only as ad
juvants to another more important and indispen.
sible operation—manuring.
Perhaps, the time was when, in many of the
oldest and most fertile portions of the first thir
teen states, there was no need of such a prac
tice. Only a century and a half ago, most of
our wide domain was one continuous forest, in
terspersed only occasionally with a limited area
devoted by the Red-man to his rude system of
culture. As the new became peopled by emi
grants from the old world, it became necessary
to fell the forest, and convert the hunting
grounds of the natives, into fields of grain, to
bacco, rice and cotton. With the yeomen of
that epoch, the greatest need was to open lands
for the plough and hoe. The practice instituted
then, as a matter of dire 'necessity, has been
handed down from generation to generation, and
from one locality to another, even to the present
day, and now is pursued as a matter of polity,
though its requirement has- long since ceased.
Thus we see that what our forefathers viewed
as a calamity and practiced from necessity, we
are now considering an advantage and follow
from choice. Can this be right policy? Grant
ing there is money in it, can we plead the same
urgent necessity, and say there is no other ne
cessity ? We will let answer, the deserted man
sions, the barren hills and valleys, the dilapida
ted fences, the sparsity of population, and in
short the melancholy and ruined aspect of ma
ny~sections of country which wore once beauti
ful, picturesque and productive.
Let us suffer our imaginative eye to run along
the vista of years for the next succeeding two
centuries, and allowing the same increase in
the operatives doing farm-labor, and the same
system of planting to prevail which has been
practiced to the present time, and see if the ap
palling, but truthful picture, will not illume the
present with lessons of wisdom? Just here,
, had we knowledge of the amount of forest land
which has been cleared, and reduced almost to
sterility in the United States within the last cen
tury. and the amount of area already allowed
to broomsedge and oldfield-pines, so that we
could present to readers an accurate statistical
account —and had we a knowledge of the popu
lation of every given area of the old thirteen
States, as now is, and was«ifty or sixty years
ago, with that of jrhat proportion of food and
wealth they derive from the other new States
and Territories, we might be able to present a
picture interesting and instructive in the ex
treme.
Taking into view, also, the immense exhaus
tion which must accrue to forest lands, in conse
quence of the large amount of timber taken
therefrom, for the manifold works, both public
and private, carried on in our own country, and
for the supply of our various necessities, togeth
er with the quantity exported, more or less, to
every civilized nation on the globe—and like
wise the fact that our markets are becoming
more and more numerous, and our necessities
for life and comfort liot at all diminishing, and
the demands from foreign countries rapidly on
the increase, and the disposition to supply that
demand,on account of increased facilities and en
larged profits, becoming more urgent, will wo not
discover that our natural, national agricultural
’capacity is fast diminishing ? The fact, too, that
our oldest citizens are constantly reminding us
by precepts, that forest land in Georgia, in the
counties first settled by our forefathers, when
now cleared docs not yield as abundant crops as
tho samo character of land did some fifty or sixty
years ago, should it not bo fraught with lessons
of wisdom to the young of the present genera
tion ? Does it not teach us conclusively that
land cannot produce largo growths of anything,
not even of trees, and have ‘them removed, as
is necessary for fencing, building, fuel, <tc., with
out impairing fertility, and consequently induc
ing diminished productiveness ? To us it does
not seem to enter the minds of the American
people (because, in truth, as a nation, we have
not yet been led to feel the necessity in its full
force) that a relative proportion of forest land
ought to be preserved and cultivated in
order to perpetuate agricultural and com
mercial independence as well as domestic
plenty and comfort. “ Woodman, spare
that tree,” should be as dear to the heart
of every patriotic American as “ Home, sweet
home." At present, only tho far-seeing and re
flective (a peculiar order of mind by no means
the most fortunate for the progressor in those
matters relative to the Future where “ igno
rance is bliss,”) perceives the substratum of
affairs, the immutable truth of things as they
exist per se. Who thinks why were railroads,
steamboats, ships, &c., invented any more than
to carry on commerce? This ultimatum is
enough to the minds of most querists. To elu
cidate the thought, let us ask what would be
the true condition (even now when only a little
over three centuries and a half, a period inap
preciable on the great chronological chart, have
elapsed since the first discovery of our conti
nent) of some of the old Atlantic States, and
especially tlibir cities, were it not for these rail
roads and steamboats connecting them with re
mote poirits where, as yet, fertility abounds and
plenty reigns? To illustrate still more clearly,
what would have been the condition of England,
and. especially Ireland, a few years since, and
we may say even now, but for the cotton, timber,
and grain which they receive from the United
States and other countries annually ? Are they
self-existent? Is their soil adequate to supply
their agricultural and commercial wants ? With
a soil abounding in fertility, because of the prac
tice of a wise, system of agriculture, not a very
great while ago instituted, they cannot even feed
their population. Many have starved, notwith
standing all their agricultural knowledge: but
what indeed would have been their condition
without the aid of science in their agricultural
pursuits? What, too, might now have, been
their prosperity, had they at an earlier period
began the practice of “ making two blades of
graes to grow where before only one grew ?”
Instead of now having a product perhaps only
tripling their unimproved lands, with the same
expenditure they might now be reaping harvests
quadrupling, or even quintupling, those of their
primitive soils. What has been and is true in this
part of the history of English or any other na
tional agriculture, may be, and is, we think, true
of American agriculture. As a nation, we have
not erred more than others, in the system
adopted during our infancy, but we ore inclined
to thiuk that we shall commit a great mistake
in following that system much longer than they,
even when the light of their experience and ex
amples are before us, and when wisdom, intelli
gence and patriotism forcibly point to us to
practice apother. Thinking men do see that
the practice of felling the forest, without any
regard to economizing the timber and preserv
ing the fertility of the soil, will reduce, in a
much shorter time, because of the more rapid in
crease of population by immigration and births,
the new States and Territories to the same de
pendent condition of the old Atlantic States,
unless some bidden power shall interfere, or the
teachings of science and experience are allowed
to take the place of blind, preconceived opinions
in directing the insatiate thirst for gain.
Indeed, some say a new era has already
dawned, old practices being done with and new
instituted. In some of the pursuits of mankind,
we own, history never before recorded more
progress. In some matters, so accustomed are
the inhabitants of the civilized and enlightened
portions of the earth to progress, that any law,
customs, scheme or undertaking, not medita
ting apparent amendment, meets with little or
no favor. With commerce, fine arts, mechanics
and some of the sciences, stand-still and rever
ence for what is ancestral, seem to be almost
discarded. But we cannot admit that Science,
with her genial, vivifying rays, has more than
dawned on American agriculture. As the sun,
in rising in the morning, first gives his light to
the highest objects, mountains, hills and trees,
leaving the plains and valleys the greater
amount of surface, unlighted only by reflection,
so science, in distributing her benign influence
on the mass of minds, first selects those the
most elevated; those reaching towards her, her
votaries, allowing the great balance to enjoy on
ly a reflected good. As a nation, we do not
see that we have yet attained any distinction,
not yet enjoyed any of the meridian light of
agricultural science. We have accomplished
stupendous results by our agriculture, but they
have been achieved at the expense of a loss of
an immense amount of fertility. Who can es
timate the quantity of cotton, grains, grasses
and other vegetables, the liberal soils of the
United States have already furnished to the
world ? Who can form the faintest conception
of the quantity and quality of fertility, which
has already, and is now being bartered off to
foreign nations ? Can any one be so blind or
even shortsighted as not to see that those lands
which have been employed in carrying on this
extensive system of trade, have sustained an in
calculable diminution of productive capacity ?
Aro we -not safe in saying that all our apparent
gain is not real and clear ? Then, are we not pen
ning a momentous truth, when we say, no sys
tem of economy is sound which has the elements
of destruction and waste engrafted on it? And
are not the majority of farmers in the United
States to-day practising such a system? We arc
of opinion that with the right system of hus
bandry, there are already cleared lands enough
in the United States, to support her present
population and what may be added thereto by
immigration and birth for the next half century.
If the public mind bad accepted this fact as a
truism, and were practicing i£ we might think a
bright day had dawned on American agricul
ture, and we could safely and with pleasure and
pride point to the far-off j'uture. Were we now,
as a nation, even practicing a system of agricul
ture, giving the maximum production of labor,
with a minimum impairment of fertility, tho
prospect would be flattering. Aro we prac
ticing such a system ? Let every farmer answer
this question to himself for himself. And were
this all that science promises to her followers,
the future indeed would be gloomy. Hunger,
starvation and nakedness, the parents of pesti
lence and death, would be the inevitable doom
of God’s people. But gratified are we, that this
is not all. Something more enduring and pro
gressive she holds out as a reward to those who
take her light os a beacon, —that a maximum
production of labor can accompany a maximum
increase of fertility. When farmers of tho Uni
ted States are basking in her noonday light,
that will be their system of Agriculture. Does
any one doubt the practicability of such a sys
tem? Surely not in this enlightened age, when
tbe pages of books, periodicals and newspapers
1 are recording illustrious examples. We are re
commending farmers, then, to do nothing more
than what others have done, and are now doing
in many parts of the world. We, as others now
and before, only desire to see false systems ban
ished by the true, that as a nation our existence
may be enduring and prosperous.
But it may be urged by some in argument,
and wo know it is admitted in practice (when
we see such an immense tide of emigration to
the Western wilds, leaving, so many old fields
behind), that a system of agriculture which
effects a progressive increase of the fertility of
the soil, is the true and right one—the one God
designed we should practice, if we meant to be ,
long prosperous and rich —but that there is no
necessity for its being adopted and practiced in
the United States, in the present day. We
grant that urgent necessity is not yet exercising
her full force. But do sound philosophy and
sSorality teach men obedience to no other law
but Necessity ? And must it come, that we
shall not cease to be extravagant in felling the
forest, and exhausting the virgin fertility of soils
until there is none left? If this shall be the
decision of the public mind, why need learned
chemists consume their time and exhaust their
brains—why need benevolent and philanthropic
men expend so much timo, strength, and money
in conducting agricultural experiments—why
endow agricultural schools and colleges—why
should enlightened governments make such liber
ala ppropriatious to foster and improve their ag
riculture?—(the State of Georgia has not, but wo
hope * she will not much longer be re
miss in duty towards promoting rightly so
rightly so important an interest) and why need
editors publish “line upon line" and page upon
page in periodicals abounding in wise sugges
tions and useful knowledge ? Is it but to teach
farmers how to clear off tne forest, plough, hoe,-
reap, consume and sell ? No! but even in these
operations, agricultural science does not with
hold her aid. But her highest aim, her most
important work is to teach men how to preserve
forests, increase the fertility of soils, and at the
same time obtain more bountiful crops. Amid
the various suggestions she makes to enable us
to effect these desirable ends, none is of more
paramount importance and indispensable to suc
cess, than the operation of Manuring. “To tho
farmer, Manure must be the first thing, and it
must be the last thing; with it he can do every
thing, without it nothing.” The true farmer,
no less a sage than the ancient orator, who gave
to action the first, sepond and third place in elo
quence, will answer, if it is asked him, what is
his first requisite? Manure. What second?
Manure. What third? Manure. These an
swers are to be united. Action and Manure are
the first and last requisites in agriculture, and
in the attempt to show what is tho last, and
how it acts, will be offered every inducement to
action.
(To BE CONTINUED.)
Tying up Cajttlb, and Soiling Cows. —Two
paragraphs in close juxtaposition. Tamworth
and Mr. Quincey tell quite different stories about
keeping cattle in the barn.
The seat of disease—an invalid’s chair.