28.03.2013 Views

Southern planter - The W&M Digital Archive

Southern planter - The W&M Digital Archive

Southern planter - The W&M Digital Archive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1908.]<br />

ROTATION OF CROPS.<br />

Editor /<strong>Southern</strong> Planter:<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no subject connected with farming more important<br />

than that of crop rotation, and I wish to commend<br />

the rotation suggested by Mr. Hicks in the last number<br />

of the Planter. I think, however, he is wrong when he ex<br />

presses the opinion that rye will not pay as a cover crop<br />

after corn. It is true that rye will add no nitrogen to (the<br />

soil and should be turned under before it has made much<br />

growth or it will remove too much moisture. It will do<br />

nothing but conserve fertility; it will aid in holding what<br />

the soil gains during Mr. Hick's excellent rotation. I<br />

know that the Planter has pointed out time and time<br />

again the harmfulness of leaving a held bare during the<br />

winter, but it is slow work driving a new idea home. You<br />

may persuade a farmer to adopt a sensible rotation as<br />

long as he gets something off the land but he can't appre-<br />

ciate a loss unless it is visible "to the eye. In raising a<br />

heavy weight it is good to make a long pull, a strong pull<br />

and a pull all together but it is quite as important to hold<br />

what you have gained. Rye is the hold-fast and by all<br />

means should be included in Mr. Hick's rotation. 0n8<br />

question—will the double^action harrow, without plowing,<br />

suitably prepare the land for cow peas or soja beans?<br />

Bedford Co., Va. M. A. CROCKETT.<br />

Either the double-action harrow or a disc harrow will<br />

effectually prepare the stubble land for a crop of cow peas<br />

or soja beans. It should be run lengthwise and across the<br />

field.—^Ed.<br />

Editor <strong>Southern</strong> Planter:<br />

LAND IMPROVEMENT.<br />

After reading the article of Prof Massey and your editorial<br />

note thereon in the last issue, I feel impelled to an<br />

expression on this subject, although greatly in fear 'that 1<br />

shall only illustrate the proverb that "fools rush in where<br />

angels fear to tread." As I understand Prof. Massey, he<br />

claims that even where every pound of grain and roughage<br />

grown on the farm is consumed by live stock, and 'the<br />

manure carefully saved and returned to the soil, there<br />

must be a gradual loss of phosphoric acid and potash, the<br />

same being carried off by milk or meat, eggs, butter or<br />

whatever products leave the place. In other words every<br />

farmer must eventually become a buyer of both phospho-<br />

ric acid and potash or reconcile himself to leaving a poorer<br />

farm than he inherited from his predecessors. This is a<br />

question which has often occurred to me and one that is<br />

hard to answer. <strong>The</strong>oretically, Prof Massey is right and<br />

he can prove his position by figures; for unless there is<br />

an inexhaustible supply of the necessary mineral elements<br />

in the soil it must eventually become depleted.<br />

<strong>The</strong> question which confronts us resolves itself into<br />

this: Is the supply of phosphoric acid and potash inex-<br />

haustible? and capable of treatment to make it perennially<br />

available? Or is It not? And I think it is about the most<br />

important one that confronts humanity.<br />

In view of our present experience it is possible to throw<br />

a little light on this subject, from both points of view.<br />

In the first place, all will admit that it is possible to take<br />

any piece of land rich in mineral elements, and to grow<br />

corn or wheat on it year after year and by so doing ex-<br />

THE SOUTHERN PLANTER.<br />

haust the available phosphoric acid and potasii, as indi-<br />

cated by the gradual decrease in the yield, until it gets<br />

to a point beyond which it does not pay to cultivate; but<br />

the experiments at Rothamstead, and in fact the observa-<br />

tion of every intelligent farmer goes to show that after a<br />

while land so treated gets into a state where it will not de-<br />

teriorate any further; in other words, where the annual loss<br />

of mineral constituents is so small Uiat .me natural process<br />

of soil weathering, brought about by cutUvauou, win balance<br />

it, and the land will go on producing its minimum<br />

crop indefinitely, the only variation being due to climatic<br />

conditions favorable or otherwise to the crop. That tnis<br />

is the case on 'the vast majority or laud will be pretty gen-<br />

erally conceded, and the fact that tne amount of grain<br />

produced will be so small as to make its cultivation un-<br />

profitable does not bear upon the argument that here is<br />

land that is perennially fertile. <strong>The</strong>re is anotuer point<br />

that I desire to establish in order to perfect my premises,<br />

and that is that all land will not deteriorate to the same<br />

point; some will go as low as a few bushels of corn or<br />

wheat per acre, some will stop at two bushels of the<br />

former and 4 or 5 bushels of the latter per acre, the experiments<br />

at Rothamstead seem to point to 12 bushels of<br />

wheat as the minimum under tbeir conditions of soil and<br />

climate and the question has never, so far as I know, been<br />

decided as to 'the determining factor, whether it was lack<br />

of phosphoric acid, or nitrogen.<br />

If we admit, then, that all lands have a state of minimum<br />

production beyond which point they will not go under<br />

conditions of proper cultivation, and that lands differ in<br />

their productive capacity after reaching this point, the<br />

important thing to find out is first the cause of this dif-<br />

ference and second the remedy to apply in order to bring<br />

the poorer lands up to the standard of the best lands.<br />

Here is a problem quite as abstruse as any that is engag-<br />

ing the attention of the scientists at our Experiment Sta-<br />

tions, and one which, if solved on a commercial basis<br />

within reach of the average agriculturist, would be of as<br />

great benefit to the American farmer as any that can<br />

engage the attention of the philantropist.<br />

Soil analysis seems to show that 'the supply of phos-<br />

phoric 'acid and potash in the average land is far in ex-<br />

cess, of the needs of any crop, no matter how luxuriant,<br />

but that something is lacking to make it available, and<br />

now, that we have hastily reviewed the known, let ua<br />

turn to the field of conjecture.<br />

My own experience on a run-down farm would seem to<br />

indicate that nitrogen was the lacking element, for the<br />

growth of legumes alone, without manure or fertilizer,<br />

will make an improvement in most of the lands that have<br />

come under my observation in Virginia. If this is the<br />

case, then by alternating corn and peas, or common<br />

clover and wheat, on the same land that produces five<br />

bushels of wheat or two barrels of corn as its minimum<br />

crop, we should increase that yield a little, and I believe<br />

this will generally be the case even without the addition<br />

of one pound of commercial fertilizer or manure of any<br />

sort; a steady rotation which follows every cereal crop<br />

with a legume must eventually carry the land up to an-<br />

other and increased point of productivity. We will say<br />

for argumentative purposes four barrels of corn and ten

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!