4. Poor and acid soils cannot be improved durably, or profitably, by putrescent manures, without previously making them calcareous, and thereby correcting the defect in their constitution. sue a system of cultivation of which the returns fell short of his expenses, including rent of land, hire of labor, interest on the necessary capital, &c. Very true-if he had to pay those expenses out of his profits, he would soon be driven from his farm 5. Calcareous manures will give to our worst to a jail. But we own our land, our laborers, and soils a power of retaining putrescent manures, stock-and though the calculation of net profit, equal to that of the best-and will cause more proor of loss, is precisely the same, yet we are not ductiveness, and yield more profit, than any other ruined by making only two per cent. on our cap-improvement practicable in Lower Virginia. ital, provided we can manage to live on that in- Dismissing from consideration, for the present, come. If we live on still less, we are actually all the others, I shall proceed to maintain the growing richer (by laying up a part of our two per cent.,) notwithstanding the most clearly proved regular loss on our farming. FIRST PROPOSITION. Soils naturally poor, and rich soils reduced to Our condition has been so gradually growing poverty by cultivation, are essentially different in worse, that we are either not aware of the extent their powers of retaining putrescent manures: and of the evil, or are in a great measure reconciled under like circumstances, the fitness of any soil to by custom to profitless labor. No hope for a bet-be enriched by these manures, is in proportion to ter state of things can be entertained, until we what was its natural fertility. shake off this apathy-this excess of contentment which makes no effort to avoid existing evils. I have endeavored to expose what is worst in our situation as farmers: if it should have the effect of rousing any of my countrymen to a sense of the absolute necessity of some improvement, to avoid ultimate ruin, I hope also to point out to some of their number, if not to all, that the means for certain and highly profitable improvements, are completely within their reach. [Appendix C.] CHAPTER III. THE DIFFERENT CAPACITIES OF SOILS FOR RECEIVING IMPROVEMENT. As far as the nature of the subjects permitted, the foregoing chapters have been merely explanatory and descriptive. The same subjects will be resumed and more fully treated in the course of the following argument, the premises of which, are the facts and circumstances that have been detailed. What I wish to prove will be stated in a series of propositions, which will now be presented at one view, and afterwards separately discussed in their proper order. Proposition 1. Soils naturally poor, and rich soils reduced to poverty by cultivation, are essentially different in their powers of retaining putrescent manures: and under like circumstances, the fitness of any soil to be enriched by these manures, is in proportion to what was its natural fertility. 2. The natural sterility of the soils of Lower Virginia is caused by such soils being destitute of calcareous earth, and their being injured by the presence and effects of vegetable acid. 3. The fertilizing effects of calcareous earth are chiefly produced by its power of neutralizing acids, and of combining putrescent manures with soils, between which there would otherwise be but little if any chemical attraction.* When any substance is mentioned as combining with one or more other substances, as different manures with each other, or with soil, I mean that a union is formed by chemical attraction, and not by simple mixture. Mixtures are made by mechanical means, and may be separated in like manner; but combinations are chemical, and require some stronger chemical attraction, to take away either of the bodies so united. When two substances combine, they both lose their to be estimated by the amount of its earliest proThe natural fertility of a soil is not intended several temporary causes then operate either to duct, when first brought under cultivation, because keep down, or to augment the product. If land be cultivated immediately after the trees are cut down, the crop is greatly lessened by the numerous living roots, and consequent bad tillage-the excess of unrotted vegetable matter, and the coldness of the soil, from which the rays of the sun had been so long excluded. On the other hand, if cultivation is delayed one or two years, the leaves and other vegetable matters are rotted, and in the best state to supply food to plants, and are so abundant, that a far better crop will be raised than could have been obtained before, or perhaps will be again, without manure. For these reasons, the degree of natural fertility of any soil should be measured by its products after these temporary causes have ceased to act, which will generally take place before the third or fourth crop is gathered. According, then, to this definition, a certain degree of permanency in its early productiveness, is necessary to entitle a soil to be termed naturally fertile. It is in this sense, that I deny to any poor lands, except such as were naturally fertile, the capacity of being made rich by putrescent manures only. The foregoing proposition would by many persons be so readily admitted as true, that attempting But many others will as strongly deny its truth, to prove it would be deemed entirely superfluous. tural authorities. and can support their opposition by high agricul General readers, who may have no connexion with farming, must have gathered from the incidental notices in various literary works, that some countries or districts that were noted for their uncommon fertility or barrenness, as far back as any accounts of them have been recorded, still retain the same general character, through every change of policy, government, and even of the race of previous peculiar qualities, or neutralize them for each other, and form a third substance different from both. Thus, if certain known proportions of muriatic acid, and pure or caustic soda, be brought together, their strong attraction will cause them to combine immediately. The strong corrosive acid quality of the one, and the equally peculiar alkaline taste and powers of the other, will neutralize or entirely destroy each other and the compound formed, is common salt, the qualities of which are as strongly marked, but totally different from those of either of its constituent parts. inhabitants. They know that for some centuries at least, there has been no change in the strong contrast between the barrenness of Norway, Brandenburg, and the Highlands of Scotland, and the fertility of Lombardy and Valencia. Sicily, notwithstanding its government is calculated to discourage industry, and production of every profita-him only to failure and loss. Such farmers as I ble kind, still exhibits that fertility for which it was celebrated two thousand years ago. It seems a necessary inference from the many statements of which these are examples, that the labors of man have been but of little avail in altering permanently the characters and qualities given to soils by nature. his knowledge and opinions from books, adopts precisely the same idea of their directions-and if he owns barren soils he probably throws away his labor and manure for their improvement, for years, before experieuce compels him to abandon his hopes, and acknowledge that his guides have led allude to, by their enthusiasm and spirit of enterprise, are capable of rendering the most important benefits to agriculture. Whatever may be their impelling motives, the public derives nearly all the benefit of their successful plans-and their far more numerous misdirected labors, and consequent disappointments, are productive of national, still more than individual loss. The occurrence of only a few such mistakes, made by reading farmers, will serve to acquit me of combating a shadow-and there are few of us who cannot recollect some such examples. Most of our experienced practical cultivators, through a different course, have arrived at the same conclusion. Their practice has taught them the truth of this proposition-and the opinions thus formed have profitably directed their most important operations. They are accustomed to estimate But if the foregoing objection has any weight the worth of land by its natural degree of fertility in justifying European authors in not naming this -and by the same rule they are directed on what exception, it can have none for those of our own soils to bestow their scanty stock of manure, and country. If it is admitted that soils naturally poor where to expect exhausted fields to recover by rest, are incapable of being enriched with profit, that and their own unassisted powers. But content admission must cover three-fourths of all the highwith knowing the fact, this useful class of farmers land in the tide-water district. Surely no one will have never inquired for its cause-and their opin-contend that, so sweeping an exception was silentions on this subject, as on most others, have not ly understood by the author of Arator, as qualifybeen communicated so as to benefit others. ing his exhortations to improve our lands: and if no such exception was intended to be made, then will his directions for enriching soils, and his promises of reward, be found equally fallacious, for the greater portion of the country, to benefit which his work was specially intended. The omission of any such exception by the writers of the United States, is the more remarkable, as the land has been so recently brought under cultivation, that the original degree of fertility of almost every farm may be known to its owner, and compaired with the after progress of exhaustion or improvement. But if all literary men who are not farmers, and all practical cultivators who seldom read, admitted the truth of my proposition, it would avail but little for improving our agricultural operations and the only prospect of its being usefully disseminated, is through that class of farmers who have received their first opinions of improving soils, from books, and whose subsequent plans and practices have grown out of those opinions. If poor natural soils cannot be durably or profitably improved by putrescent manures, this truth should not only be known, but be kept constantly in view, by every farmer who can hope to improve with success. Yet it is a remarkable fact, that the difference in the capacities of soils for receiving improvement, has not attracted the attention of scientific farmers-and the doctrine has no direct and positive support from the author of any treatise on agriculture, English or American, that I have been able to consult. On the contrary, it seems to be considered by all of them, that to collect and apply as much vegetable and animal manure as possible, is sufficient ro ensure profit to every farmer, and fertility to every soil. They do not tell us that numerous exceptions to that rule will be found, and that many soils of apparent good texture, if not incapable of being enriched from the barn-yard, would at least cause more loss than clear profit, by being improved from that Many authorities might be adduced to prove that I have correctly stated what is the fair and only inference to be drawn from agricultural books, respecting the capacity of poor soils to receive improvement. But a few of the most strongly marked passages in Arator will be fully sufficient for this purpose. The venerated author of that work was too well acquainted with the writings of European agriculturists, to have mistaken their doctrines in this important particular. A large portion of his useful life was devoted to the successful improvement of exhausted, but originally fertile lands. His instructions for producing similar improvements are expressly addressed to the cultivators of the eastern parts of Virginia and North Carolina, and are given as applicable to all our soils, without exception. Considering all these circumstances, the conclusions which are When it is assumed that the silence of every evidently and unavoidably deduced from his work, distinguished author as to certain soils being inca- may be fairly considered, not only as supported by pable of being profitably enriched, amounts to ig- his own experience, but as concurring with the norance of the fact, or a tacit denial of its truth-general doctrine of improving poor soils, maintainit may be objected that the exception was not omitted from either of these causes, but because it was established and undoubted. This is barely possible: but even if such was the case, their silence has had all the ill consequences that could have grown out of a positive denial of any exceptions to the propriety of manuring poor soils. Every zealous young farmer, who draws most of source. ed by previous writers. At page 54, third edition of Arator, “inclosing” (i. e. leaving fields to receive their own vegetable cover, for their improvement during the years of rest,) is said to be "the most powerful means of fertilizing the earth"—and the process is declared to be rapid, the returns near, and the gain great. Page 61. "If these few means of fertilizing "the country [cornstalks, straw, and animal dung,] | ence in the capacities of soils for improvement, but were skilfully used, they would of themselves consider a deficiency of clay only to cause the "suffice to change its state from sterility to fruit- want of power to retain manures. The general "fulness."-" By the litter of Indian corn, and of excess of sand in our poor lands might warrant "small grain, and of penning cattle, managed this belief in a superficial and limited observer. "with only an inferior degree of skill, in union But though clay soils are more rarely met with, "with inclosing, I will venture to affirm that a they present, in proportion to their extent, full as "farm may in ten years be made to double its much poor land. The most barren and worthless "produce, and in twenty to quadruple it. " soils in the county of Prince George, are also the stiffest. A poor clay soil, will retain manure longer than a poor sandy soil-but it will not the less certainly lose its acquired fertility at a somewhat later period. When it is considered that a much greater quantity of manure is required by clay soils, it may well be doubted whether the improvement of the sandy soils would not be attended with more profit-or more properly speaking, with less actual loss. No opinions could be more strongly or unconditionally expressed than these. No reservation or exception is made. I may safely appeal to each of the many hundreds who attempted to obey these instructions, to declare whether any one considered his own naturally poor soils excluded from the benefit of these promises-or whether a tithe of that benefit was realized on any farm composed generally of such soils. In a field of mine that has been secured from grazing since 1814, and cultivated on the four shift rotation, the produce of a marked spot has been measured every fourth year (when in corn) since 1820. The difference of product has been such as the differences of season might have caused-and the last crop (in 1828) was worse than those of either of the two preceding rotations. There is no reason to believe that even the smallest increase of productive power has taken place. It is far from my intention, by these remarks, to deny the propriety, or to question the highly beneficial results, of applying the system of improvement recommended by Arator, to soils originally fertile. On the contrary, it is as much my object to maintain the facility of restoring to worn lands their natural degree of fertility, by vegetable applications, as it is to deny the power of exceeding that degree, however low it may have been. It is true that the capacity of a soil for improvement is greatly affected by its texture, shape of the surface, and its supply of moisture. Dry, level, clay soils, will retain manure longer, than if they were sandy, hilly, or wet. But however important these circumstances may be, neither the presence or absence of any of them can cause the differences of capacity for improvement. There are rich and valuable soils with one or more of all these faults-and there are soils the least capable of receiving improvement, free from objection as to their texture, degree of moisture, or inclination of their surface. Indeed the great body of our poor ridge lands, is more free from faults of this kind, than soils of far greater productiveness usually are. Unless then some other and far more powerful obstacle to improvement exists, why should not all our woodland be highly enriched, by the hundreds, or thousands, of crops of leaves which have successively fallen and rotted there? Notwithstanding this vegetable manuring, which infinitely exceeds all that the industry and patience of nian can possibly equal, most of our woodland remains poor-and this one fact (which at least is indisputable,) ought to satisfy all of the impossibility of enriching such soils by putrescent manures only. Some few acres may be highly improved, by receiving all the manure derived from the offal of the whole farm-and entire farms, in the neighborhood of towns, may be kept rich by continually applying large quantities of purchased manures. But no where can a farm be found, which has been improved beyond its original fertility, by means of the vegetable resources of its own arable fields. If this opinion is erroneous, nothing is easier than to prove my mistake, by adducing undoubted examples of such improvements having been made. One more quotation will be offered, because its recent date and the source whence it is derived, furnish the best proof that it is still the received opinion among agricultural writers, that all soils may be profitably improved, by putrescent manures. An article in the American Farmer, of October 14th, 1831, on "manuring large farms," by the editor, contains the following expressions. By proper exertions, every farm in the "United States can be manured with less expense "than the surplus profits arising from the manure "would come to. This we sincerely believe, and "we have arrived at this conclusion from long " and attentive observation. We never yet saw "a farm that we could not point to means of ma"nuring, and bring into a state of high and pro"fitable cultivation at an expense altogether in"considerable when contrasted with the advan"tages to be derived from it." The remainder of the article shows that putrescent manures are But a few remarks will suffice on the capacity principally relied on to produce these effects: for improvement of worn lands, which were orimarsh and swamp mud are the only kinds referred ginally fertile. With regard to these soils, I have to that are not entirely putrescent in their action, only to concur in the received opinion of their fitand mud certainly cannot be used to manure ness for durable and profitable improvement by every farm. Mr. Smith, having been long the putrescent manures. After being exhausted by conductor of a valuable agricultural journal, as a cultivation, they will recover their productive powmatter of course, is extensively acquainted with er, by merely being left to rest for a sufficient time, the works and opinions of the best writers on ag- and receiving the manure made by nature, of the riculture; and therefore, his advancing the fore- weeds and other plants that grow and die upon the going opinions, as certain and undoubted, is as land. Even if robbed of the greater part of that much a proof of the general concurrence of pre-supply, by the grazing of animals, a still longer ceding writers, as if the same had been given as a digest of their precepts. Some persons will readily admit the great differ time will serve to obtain the same result. The better a soil was at first, the sooner it will recover by these means, or by artificial manuring. Qu soils of this kind, the labors of the improving far- On some part of most farms touching tidemer meet with success and reward-and when-water, either muscle or oyster sheils are found ever we hear of remarkable improvements of poor mixed with the soil. Oyster shells are confined to land by putrescent manures, further inquiry will the lands on salt water, where they are very abunshow us that these poor lands had once been rich. dant, and sometimes extend through large fields. The continued fertility of certain countries for Higher up the rivers, muscle shells only are to be hundreds or even thousands of years, does not seen thus deposited by nature, and they decrease prove that the land could not be, or had not been, as we approach the falls of the rivers. The proexhausted by cultivation: but only that it was portion of shelly land in the counties highest on slow to exhaust and rapid in recovering-so that tide-water, is very small-but the small extent of whatever repeated changes may have occurred in these spots does not prevent, but rather aids, the each particular tract, the whole country taken to- investigation of the peculiar qualities of such soils. gether always retained a high degree of produc- Spots of shelly land, not exceeding a few acres in tiveness. Still the same rule will apply to the extent, could not well have been cultivated differrichest and the poorest soils-that each exerts ently from the balance of the fields of which they strongly a force to retain as much fertility as nature formed parts-and therefore they can be better gave them-and that when worn and reduced, compared with the worse soils under like treateach may easily be restored to its original state, ment. Every acre of shelly land is, or has been, but cannot be raised higher, with either durability remarkable for its richness, and still more for its or profit by putrescent manures, whether applied durability. There are few farmers among us who by the bounty of nature, or the industry of man. have not heard described tracts of shelly soil on Nansemond and York Rivers, which are celebrated for their long resistance of the most exhausting system of tillage, and which still remain fertile, notwithstanding all the injury which they must have sustained from their severe treatment. We are told that on some of these lands, corn has been raised every successive year, without any PROPOSITION 2. The natural sterility of the help from manure, for a longer time than the soils of Lower Virginia is caused by such soils owners could remember, or could be informed of, being destitute of calcareous earth, and their be- correctly. But without relying on any such reing injured by the presence and effects of vegeta-markable cases, there can be no doubt but that every CHAPTER IV. EFFECTS OF THE PRESENCE OF CALCAREOUS ble acid. EARTH IN SOILS. acre of our shelly land has been at least as much tilled, and as little manured, as any in the country; and that it is still the richest and most valuable of all our old cleared land. without exhibiting spots in which shells are visible, so that the eye alone is sufficient to prove the soil of such places to be calcareous. The similarity of natural growth, and of all other marks of character are such, that the observer might very naturally infer that the former presence of shells had given the same valuable qualities to all these soils-but that they had so generally rotted, and been incorporated with the other earths, that they remained visible only in a few places, where they had been most abundant. The accuracy of this inference will hereafter be examined. The means which would appear the most likely to lead to the causes of the different capacities of soils for improvement, is to inquire whether any The fertile but narrow strips along the banks of known ingredient or quality is always to be found our rivers, (which form the small portion of our belonging to improvable soils, and never to the un-highland of first rate quality,) seldom extend far improvable-or which always accompanies the latter, and never the former kind. If either of these results can be obtained, we will have good ground for supposing that we have discovered the general cause of fertility, in the one case-or of barrenness, in the other: and it will follow, that if we can supply to barren soils the deficient beneficial ingredient-or can destroy that which is injurious to them—that their incapacity for receiving improvement will be removed. All the common ingredients of soils, as sand, clay, or gravel-and such qualities as moisture or dryness-a level, or a hilly surface-however they may affect the va- The natural growth of the shelly soils, (and of lue of soils, are each sometimes found exhibited in those adjacent of similar value,) is entirely differa remarkable degree, in both the fertile and the ent from that of the great body of our lands. steril. The abundance of putrescent vegetable Whatever tree thrives well on the one, is seldom matter might well be considered the cause of fer- found on the other class of soils-or if found, it tility, by one who judged only from lands long un- shows plainly by its imperfect and stunted conder cultivation. But though vegetable matter in dition, on how unfriendly a soil it is placed. To sufficient quantity is essential to the existence of the rich river margins are almost entirely confined fertility, yet will this substance also be found inad-the black or wild locust, hackberry or sugar nut equate, as its cause. Vegetable matter abounds in all rich land, it is admitted; but it has also been furnished by nature, in quantities exceeding all computation, to the most barren soils we own. But there is one ingredient of which not the smallest proportion can be found in any of our poor soils, and which, wherever found, indicates a soil remarkable for natural and durable fertility. This is calcareous earth. These facts alone, if sustained, will go far to prove that this earth is the cause of fertility, and the cure for barrenness. tree, and papaw. The locust is with great difficulty eradicated, or the newer growths kept under on cultivated lands; and from the remarkable rapidity with which it springs up, and increases in size, it forms a serious obstacle to the cultivationof the river banks. Yet on the woodland only a mile or two from the river, not a locust is to be seen. On shelly soils, pines and broom grass cannot thrive, and are rarely able to maintain even the most sickly growth. Some may say that these striking differences of growth do not so much show a difference in the constitution of the soils, as in their state of fertility -or that one class of the plants above named delights in rich, and the other, in poor land. No plant prefers poor to rich soil-or can thrive better on a scarcity of food, than with an abundant supply. Pine, broom grass, and sorrel, delight in a class of soils that are generally unproductive--but not on account of their poverty-for all these plants show, by the greater or less vigor of their growth, the abundance or scarcity of vegetable matter in the soil. But on this class of soils, no quantity of vegetable manure could make locusts flourish, though they will grow rapidly on a calcareous hillside, from which all the soil capable of supporting other plants, has been washed away. In thus describing and distinguishing soils by their growth, let me not be understood as extending those rules to other soils and climates than our own. It is well established that changes of kind in successive growths of timber have occurred in other places, without any known cause-and a difference of climate will elsewhere produce effects, which here would indicate a change of soil. Some rare exceptions to the general fertility of shelly lands are found where the proportion of calcareous earth is in great excess. Too much of this ingredient causes even a greater degree of sterility than its total absence. This cause of barrenness is very common in France and England (on chalk soils,) and very extensive tracts are not worth the expense of cultivation, or improvement. The few small spots that are rendered barren here, are seldom (if ever) so affected by the excess of oyster or muscle shells in the soil. These effects generally are caused by beds of fossil sea shells, which in some places reach the surface, and are thus exposed to the plough. These spots are not often more than thirty feet across, and their nature is generally evident to the eye; and if not, is so easily determined by chemical tests, as to leave no reason for confounding the injurious and beneficial effects of calcareous earth. This exception to the general fertilizing effect of this ingredient of our soils, would scarcely require naming, but to mark what might be deemed an apparent contradiction. But this exception, and its cause, must be kept in mind, and considered as always understood and admitted throughout all my remarks, and which therefore it is not necessary to name specially, when the general qualities of calcareous earth are spoken of. In the beginning of this chapter, I advanced the important fact that none of our poor soils contain naturally the least particle of calcareous earth. So far, this is supported merely by my assertion-and all those who have studied agriculture in books, will require strong proof before they can give credit to the existence of a fact, which is either unsupported, or indirectly denied, by all written au thority. Others, who have not attended to such descriptions of soils in general, may be too ready to admit the truth of my assertion-because, not knowing the opinions on this subject heretofore received and undoubted, they would not be aware of the importance of their admission. It is true that no author has said expressly that every soil contains calcareous earth. Neither has any one stated that every soil contains some silicious, or aluminous earth. But the manner in which each has treated of soils and their constitu3 17 ent parts, would cause their readers to infer, that neither of these three earths is ever entirely wanting-or at least that the entire absence of the calcareous, is as rare as the absence of silicious or aluminous earth. Nor are we left to gather this opinion solely from indirect testimony, as the following examples, from the highest authorities, will prove. Davy says, "four earths generally abound in soils, the aluminous, the silicious, the calcareous, and the magnesian"*—and the soils of which he states the constituent parts, obtained by chemical analysis, as well as those reported by Kirwan, and by Young, all contain some proportion (and generally a large proportion) of calcareous earth. Kirwan states the component parts calcareous earth, and he supposes that proportion of a soil which contained thirty-one per cent. of neither too little nor too much. Young mentions soils of extraordinary fertility containing seventeen and twenty per cent., besides others with smaller proportions of calcareous earth-and says that Bergman found thirty per cent. in the best soil he examined. Rozier speaks still more strongly for the general diffusion, and large proportions of this ingredient of soils. In his general description of earths and soils, he gives examples of the supposed composition of the three grades of soils, which he designates by the terms rich, good, and middling soils: to the first class he assigns a proportion of one-tenth, to the second, onefourth, and to the last, one-half of its amount, of calcareous earth. The fair interpretation of the passage is that the author considered these large proportions as general, in France-and he gives no intimation of any soil entirely without calcareous earth.§ American writers also suppose the general presence of this ingredient of soil: but their opinions on this subject are merely echos of European descriptions of soils. They seem neither to have suspected that so important a difference existed, nor to have made the least investigation by actual analysis, to sustain the false character thus given to the soils of our country. [Appendix D.] composition of soils, derived from the general deWith my early impressions of the nature and scriptions given in books, it was with surprise, and some distrust, that when first attempting to analyze soils, in 1817, I found most specimens destitute of calcareous earth. The trials were repeated with care and accuracy, on soils from various places-until I felt authorized to assert without *Davy's Agr. Chem. Lecture 1. † Agr. Chem. Lect. 4.-Kirwan on Manures-and Young's Prize Essay on Manures. t Kirwan on Manures, article Clayey Loam. coinposition of soils: Rich soil; silicious earth, 2 parts; see that it is the largest proportion of aluminous earth, we know that independently of their harmony of comthat constitutes the greatest excellence of soils; and position, they require a sufficiency of depth."-From the article "Terres," in the "Cour Complet d'Agriculture Pratique, etc. par L'Abbé Rozier, 1815. |