4. OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF “THE BOOK OF THE FARM.”

“A book! O rare one!”
Be not as is our fangled world, a garment
Nobler than that it covers: let thy effects
So follow, to be most unlike our courtiers
As good as promise.”
Cymberline

A book for the special purpose of instructing young farmers, such as it should be, and such as they are entitled to expect from the hands of experienced agriculturists, is yet a desideratum in the agricultural literature of this country. I am disposed to question the ability of any one man to write such a work, as its accomplishment would require a rare combination of qualities. The writer would require, as a primary qualification, to be a highly experienced agriculturist, able to indite lucid instructions for conducting a farm. He should also be a clear-headed mechanician, to describe with minute distinctness the principles and construction of agricultural implements. He should, moreover, be an accomplished man of science, to explain to conviction the rationale of every operation. Onerous as the task thus appears, I shall, nevertheless, attempt to write such a book. ‘With adequate assistance, I trust I shall be able to overcome, at least, the practical difficulties of the undertaking; and, as to the scientific part, men of science have not yet brought Science to bear upon Agriculture in so satisfactory a manner as to justify them in contemning the rational explanations given of the various operations by practical men.– Could I but succeed in arranging the various operations as they successively and actually occur on a farm, in so lucid a manner as that any young farmer might comprehend the exact purport of each piece of work, as it developed itself in the field, I should certainly do him essential service — In accomplishing this, it is scarcely possible to invest with sufficiently at- tractive interest the descriptions of the minute details of the various operations, so that their aptitude to the purpose intended may be appreciated. Careful attention to these details–in themselves, I own, irksome–will the sooner enable the young farmer to understand thoroughly the connection of successive operations ; and by the understanding of which he will be forewarned of the approach, and be able to ascertain the import, of the particular end for which they are preparatory. Besides showing by anticipation the successive operations as they arrive, could I also give clear descriptions of the labor performed for each crop, as it is carried on simultaneously on a farm, I should achieve a still greater service for the young farmer. He would then clearly comprehend a difficult department of his art.

To accomplish these ends, I purpose to arrange the matter in the following manner, and for the following reasons. The entire business of a farm necessarily occupies a year; but that year embraces in some years more, and in others less, than twelve months. The agricultural year, moreover, both in its commencement and termination, does not correspond with that of the calendar; and those periods are determined in this way. The beginning and ending of every agricultural year are entirely dependent on the duration of the life of cultivated vegetables, which constitute the chief product of the farm. In the temperate regions of the globe, vegetable life becomes dormant, or extinct, according as the vegetable is perennial or annual, at the beginning of winter. The beginning of winter is therefore chosen, in the temperate zones, to commence the agricultural year, and, of course, the labors of the farm; and, when winter again approaches, the labors of the field have performed their annual revolution. The same sort of work is performed year after year. To understand those labors throughout the year is the chief aim of the young farmer; and to describe them to him satisfactorily is the principal object of this book.

Two modes of describing farm-business may be adopted. One is to arrange it under different heads, and describe all similar operations under the same bead, as has hitherto been done in systematic works on Agriculture. The other mode is to describe the operations as they actually occur, singly, in succession, as is to be done in this work. Both methods describe the general farm business, and both may be consulted for any particular part of the business. But how the relative position of any particular part of the business stands in regard to, and influences any other, can only be shown by the latter method, and it does so at a glance of the eye. Moreover, as some parts of farm business commence, and others terminate, at one or other period of the year, the latter method can clearly indicate, what the other cannot so well do, in which period any particular operation is commenced, continued, or terminated; and it gives the details of each operation much more minutely than the other method.

The agricultural year, like the common year, is distinctly and conveniently divided into seasons, which regulate all farm work. I have given the seasons as full an influence over the arrangements of the matter in this book as they really possess over the business-matter of the farm. The whole business-matter is divided into four parts, each bearing the name of the season that influences the operations that are performed in it. By this arrangement every operation, whether requiring longer or shorter time for completion, is described as it takes its turn in the fields. The work that occupies only a short time to begin and complete, in any one season, is described in a single narrative. Very few of the operations of a farm, however, are begun and completed in one of the seasons; some extending over the whole four, and most into two or three. Any piece of work that extends over almost all the seasons can, nevertheless, be described with great accuracy; for although, in its progress toward completion, it may altogether occupy an extended range of time, each season imposes a peculiar kind of operation toward the advancement of the work; which peculiar operation ceases, and a different kind is entered upon, at the season which concludes the work. These cessations of labor, connected with the same work which extends over several seasons, are thus net mere conveniences, but necessary and temporary finishings of work, which it would be improper to resume but at a subsequent and appropriate season. In this way all the more extensive pieces of work are gradually advanced, in progressive steps, season after season, until their completion: while the smaller are concurrently brought onward and completed, each in its proper season.

Before proceeding farther, let me guard the young farmer against imbibing a misconception regarding the length of the seasons. In the year of the calendar, each season extends over a period of three calendar months; and the same three months every year compose the same season, whatsoever may be the nature of the weather. Every season of the calendar is thus of the same length. The seasons of the agricultural year, though bearing the same names as those of the calendar, are, on the other hand, not of the same length every year, but their duration is regulated by the state of the weather. The agricultural seasons have characteristic signs to distinguish them. The spring revives the dormant powers of vegetables; the summer enlarges their growth; the autumn develops the means of reproduction; and the winter puts a stop to vegetable energy. In the year of the calendar these characteristics are assumed to last just three months in each season; but in the agricultural year, notwithstanding that the characteristics of one season extend over or are contracted within three months, still that season bears its proper name, whether it encroaches on or is encroached upon by another season. The spring, for example, may be encroached on by the protraction of winter on the one hand, and the earliness of summer on the other; case in which results both a late and short spring–a state of spring which creates very bustling work to the farmer. So with the rest of the seasons. This elastic property in the agricultural seasons contradistinguishes them from the seasons of the calendar which possess no elasticity. The commencement, continuance, and termination of field work being, therefore, entirely dependent on the seasons of the agricultural year–and those seasons, in their turn, being as dependent on the weather–it follows that field operations are entirely dependent on the state of the weather, and not on the conventional seasons of the calendar. Whether an agricultural season be long or short, the work that properly belongs to it must be finished in it while it lasts. If it be of sufficient length, the work to be performed, admitting of a considerable latitude of time, may be well finished ; and, if not so finished, the crop runs the risk of failure. Should any season happen to be shortened by the weather, by the preceding season encroaching upon it, the work should be so far advanced during the preceding prolonged season that, when the proper season for its completion arrives–as arrive it will–the finishing may be accomplished before its expiring. Should any season be curtailed by the earliness of the succeeding one, and the weather improve, as in the case of summer appearing before its time, no apprehension need be entertained of accomplishing the finishing work in a satisfactory manner; but should the weather prove worse, as in the premature approach of winter upon autumn, then extraordinary exertions are required to avert the disastrous consequences of winter weather upon the crops. The unusual protraction of any of the seasons in which a work should be completed is attended with no risk, except that too frequently, from the consciousness of having plenty of time to complete the work, un- necessary delay is permitted, until the succeeding season unexpectedly makes its appearance. In such cases, procrastination is truly the thief of time. During the protraction of a season, much time is often wasted in waiting for the arrival of the succeeding one, in which a particular work is most properly finished; but, in a contracted season, a great part of the work is hurriedly gone through, and of course slovenly performed. The most perfect field-work is performed when the agricultural and conventional seasons happen to coincide in duration.

The greatest difficulty which the farmer experiences, when first assuming the management of a farm, is in distributing and adjusting Jabor. To accomplish this distribution and adjustment correctly, in reference to the work, and with ease as regards the laborer, a thorough knowledge is requisite of the quantity of work that can be performed in a given time by all the instruments of labor, animal and mechanical, usually employed. It is the duty of the young farmer to acquire this knowledge with all diligence and dispatch; for a correct distribution of the instruments of labor enables the work to be performed in the most perfect manner in regard to the soil–with the smallest exertion as regards physical force–and with the greatest celerity in regard to time; and, in the adjustment of those instruments, every one should just perform its own share of work. These essential particulars I shall point out, in their connection with the work in hand. In descanting on the distribution of labor, I shall incur the hazard of being prolix rather than superficial. The general reader may dislike the perusal of minute details; but the ardent student will receive with thankfulness the minutest portion of instruction, especially as he can only otherwise acquire this ind of instruction by long experience. The distribution and adjustment of labor is a branch of farm management that has been entirely overlooked by every writer on systematic Agriculture.

Constant attention on the part of the young farmer to the minutiae of labor evinces in him that sort of acuteness which perceives the quickest mode of acquiring his profession. The distribution of the larger pieces of work may proceed satisfactorily enough under the skill of ordinary work-people; but the minuter can best be adjusted by the master or steward. The larger operations would always be left in a coarse state, were the smaller not to follow, and finish them off neatly. There are many minor operations, unconnected with greater, which should be skillfully performed for the sake of their own results; and they should be so arranged as to be performed with neatness and dispatch. Many of them are frequently performed concurrently with the larger operations; and, to avoid confusion, both their concurrent labors should harmonize. Many of the minuter operations are confined to the tending of live-stock, and the various works performed about the farmstead. Attention to minutiae constituting the chief difference betwixt the neat and careless farmer, I have bestowed due consideration on them. They form another particular which has been too much overlooked by systematic writers on Agriculture.

Implements of husbandry may be considered the right hand of the farmer; because, without their aid, he could not display the skill of his art. Modern mechanical skill has effected much by the improvement of old, and the invention of new implements. Modifications of construction and unusual combinations of parts are frequently attempted by mechanics ; and, though many such attempts issue in failure, they nevertheless tend to divulge new combinations of mechanical action. It is desirable that all mechanists of implements should understand practical Agriculture, and all farmers study the principles of mechanics and the construction of machines, so that their conjoined judgment and skill might be exercised in testing the practical utility of implements. When unacquainted with farming, mechanists are apt to construct implements that are obviously unsuited to the work they are intended to execute; but having been put together after repeated alterations, and, probably, at considerable expense, the makers endeavor to induce those farmers who are no adepts at mechanics to give them a trial. After some unsatisfactory trials they are thrown aside.– Were farmers acquainted with the principles of mechanics, the discrimination which such knowledge would impart would, through them, form a barrier against the spread of implements of questionable utility, and only those find circulation which had been proved to be simple, strong, and efficient. It may be no easy matter to contrive implements possessing all those desirable qualities; but, as they are much exposed to the weather, and the ground upon which they have to act being ponderous and uncouth, it is necessary they should be of simple construction. Simplicity of construction, however, has its useful limits. Most farm operations being of themselves simple, should be performed with simple implements; and all the primary operations, which are simple, requiring considerable power, the implements executing them should also be strong; but operations that are complicated, though stationary, require to be performed with comparatively complicated machinery, which, being stationary, may be used without derangement. Operations that are both complicated and locomotive should be performed with implements producing complicated action by simple means, in order to avoid derangement of their constituent parts.– This last is a difficult, if not impossible problem, to solve in practical mechanics. The common plow approaches more nearly to its practical solution than any other implement; yet that truly wonderful implement, executing difficult work by simple means, should yet be so modified in construction as to permit the plowman to wield it with greater ease. These considerations tend to show that the form and construction of implements of husbandry, and the circumstances in which they may be used, are still subjects affording ample scope upon which mechanical skill can exercise itself.

Implements have not received in works on Agriculture that consideration which their importance demands. The figures of them have been made by draftsmen who have evidently had no accurate conception of the functions of their constituent parts. The descriptions given of those constituent parts are generally meager, and not unfrequently erroneous; and as to the best mode of using implements, and the accidents to which they are liable, one would never discover that there was any peculiarity in the one, or liability to the other. In order to avoid both these classes of errors, much care has been bestowed in this work in delineating the figures, and giving descriptions of all the implements requisite for conducting a farm.

To ensure accuracy in these respects, I consider myself fortunate in having acquired the assistance of Mr. James Slight, Curator of the Machines and Models in the Museum of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, whose high qualifications as a describer and maker of machines are duly appreciated in Scotland. His son George, yet a very young man, is a beautiful delineator of them, as the drawings of the cuts and engravings in the work amply testify. And having myself paid close attention to the applicability of most of the implements used in farm operations, I have undertaken to describe the mode of using them–to state the quantity of work which each should perform, the accidents to which each is liable, and the precautions which should be used to avoid accidents. With our united efforts, I have confidence of giving such an exposé of farm implements as will surpass every other work of the kind. We have the advantage of having the field to ourselves. To assist the right understanding of the implements, they are represented by figures.

So much for the practical, and now for the scientific portion of the work. Agriculture may, perhaps, truly be considered one of the experimental sciences, as its principles are, no doubt, demonstrable by the test of experiment, although farmers have not yet been able to deduce principles from practice. It is remarkable that very few scientific men have, as yet, been induced to subject agricultural practice to scientific research; and those of them who have devoted a portion of their time to the investigation of its principles have imparted little or no satisfactory information op the subject. This unfortunate result may probably have arisen from the circumstance that Agriculture has so intimate a relation to every physical science that, until all those relations are first investigated, no sufficient data can be offered for a satisfactory scientific explanation of its practice The difficulty of the investigation is, no doubt, much enhanced by husbandry being usually pursued as a purely practical art, because the facility of thus pursuing it successfully renders practical men indifferent to Science. They consider it unnecessary to burden their minds with scientific research, while practice is sufficient for their purpose. Could the man of practice, however, supply the man of science with a series of accurate observations on the leading operations of the farm, the principles of those operations might be much elucidated; but I conceive the greatest obstacle to the advancement of scientific Agriculture is to be sought for in the unacquaintance of men of science with practical Agriculture. Would the man of science become acquainted with practice, much greater advancement in scientific Agriculture might be expected than if the practical man were to become a man of science, because men of science are best capable of conducting scientific research, and, being so qualified, could best understand the relation which their investigations bore to practice; and, until the relation betwixt principles and practice is well understood, scientific researches, though perhaps important in themselves, and interesting in their results, tend to no practical utility in Agriculture. In short, until the facts of husbandry be acquired by practice, men of science will in vain endeavor to construct a satisfactory theory of Agriculture on the principles of the inductive philosophy.

If this view of the present position of the science of Agriculture be correct, it may be expected to remain in a state of quiescence until men of science become practical agriculturists, or, what would still prolong its state of dormancy, until farmers acquire scientific knowledge. It is a pity to damp the ardor of scientific pursuit where it is found to exist; but, from what I have observed of the scanty services science has hitherto conferred on Agriculture, and knowing the almost helpless dependency of farming on the seasons, I am reluctantly impelled to the belief that it is less in the power of science to benefit Agriculture, than the sanguine expectations of many of its true friends would lead farmers to believe. It is wrong to doubt the power of science to assist Agriculture materially; and it is possible, in this age of successful art, that an unexpected discovery in science may yet throw a flood of light on the path of the husbandman; but I am pretty sure, unless the man of science become also the practical husbandman, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to discover which department of the complicated art of husbandry is most accessible to the research of science.

Hitherto, as it appears to me, Agriculture has derived little benefit from the sciences, notwithstanding its obvious connection with many of them. A short review of the relation which the physical sciences bear to Agriculture will render this opinion more reasonable. In the first place, the action of the electric agency in the atmosphere and on vegetation is yet as little understood in a practical sense as in the days of Franklin and of Ellis. No doubt, the magnetic and electric influences are now nearly identified; but the mode of action of either, or of both, in producing and regulating atmospherical phenomena, is still ill understood; and, so long as obscurity exists in regard to the influence of their elementary principles, the history of atmospherical phenomena cannot advance, and the anticipations of atmospherical changes cannot be trusted.

Geologists, at first engaged in ascertaining the relative positions of the harder rocks composing the crust of the earth, have only of late years directed their attention to the investigation of the more recent deposits; but, even with these, they have afforded no assistance in the classification of natural soils and subsoils. They have never yet explained the origin of a surface-soil, almost always thin, though differing in thickness, over sub- soils composed of different kinds of deposits. They have never yet ascertained the position and structure of subsoil deposits, so as to inform the farmer whether land would be most effectually drained with drains running parallel with, or at right angles to, the courses of valleys and rivers.

Systematic botany can only be useful to Agriculture in describing the natural plants which are indigenous to different soils. Botanists have successfully shown the intimate relation subsisting betwixt plants and the soils on which they grow; but much yet remains to be ascertained of the relation betwixt different soils and trees, and the effects of different subsoils on the same kind of tree. Planting cannot be pursued on fixed principles, if planters are unacquainted with this knowledge; and, until a fixed and generally received classification of soils and subsoils is deter- mined on, it is impossible to comprehend, by description, what particular soil or soils the plants referred to affect.

Botanical physiology has developed many remarkable phenomena, and explained most of the important functions of plants–investigations which tend to give a clearer insight into the growth of crops. In this department of science, too much discussion to be of benefit to Agriculture has, as I conceive, been expended on what really constitutes the food of plants. Whether the food is taken up by the plant in a gaseous, a solid, or a liquid state, may in itself be a very interesting inquiry, but it tends to no utility in Agriculture so long as no manures are supplied to crops in a gaseous or liquid state. All that can practically be done in supplying food to plants, is to observe the increased quantity of their secretions in a given condition from an increased given quantity of manure, Thus may the increased quantities of mucilage, farina, gluten, in the various cultivated plants, be observed. It is of little moment to the farmer whether the manure administered is taken up by the crops in a gaseous, liquid, or solid state, since all these secretions are elaborated from the same manure. The anatomical structure of plants, the situations, soils, and manures which crops affect, the secretions which they elaborate, and the prolificacy and value of their products, are the results that most interest the farmer; and, if botanical physiologists desire to benefit Agriculture they must direct their attention to the emendation and increase of products. Again, the results from the cross impregnation of plants of the same kind, so as to produce valuable permanent varieties, may confer as valuable a boon on Agriculture as the successful crossings of different breeds of livestock have already conferred by increasing their value. Many varieties of plants having their origin in this way have been brought into notice, and some are now established and extensively cultivated; but most of the varieties in use have been obtained from casual impregnations effected by Nature herself, and not by the efforts of man to obtain varieties possessing superior properties, as in the case of the domesticated animals. Thus botanical physiology might confer great benefit on Agriculture, if its views were directed to increasing the prolificacy of valuable plants already in cultivation, and introducing others that would withstand the modes of culture and changes of climate incidental to this country.

But there is one view in which botanical physiology may be of use to Agriculture, and that is, in ascertaining correctly the nature, properties, and relative values of plants. To show the importance of such an investigation, a case may here be specified. A variety of rye-grass, called Italian, has been lately introduced into this country. It is found to be a very free grower in this climate; and it is highly acceptable to all kinds of live-stock, whether in a green or dried state. Could this grass be rendered certainly perennial, it would be an invaluable acquisition to the pastures of this country. Its character, however, is rather capricious, for in some places it disappears after two years’ cultivation, while in others it displays undiminished vigor of growth for four or five years, and may perhaps continue so to do for an indefinite period of time. Judging by these various results, it is probable that there is more than one variety of the plant, and distinguishing varieties seem to be known to foreigners. Keeping in view the existence of varieties, if different varieties were affected differently by the same locality, there would be nothing in the phenomenon to excite surprise; but when the same variety, derived from the same stock, and placed in similar circumstances, exhibits different instances of longevity, there must be characteristics of the plant still unknown to cultivators. In this dilemma, the assistance of the botanical physiologist would be desirable to discover those latent characteristics. It would be desirable to know the conditions that regulate the existence of plants into permanent and temporary varieties–a property of plants at present involved in mystery. Hitherto, no practical explanation of the subject has been proffered to the farmer; and so long as he shall be permitted to discover the true properties of plants for himself, botanical physiology cannot be regarded by him as of much use to Agriculture.

The Italian rye-grass exhibits in its nature an anomaly that no other variety of rye-grass does. The annual rye-grass, as it is commonly called, is seldom seen in the ground, even to the extent of a few plants, in any kind of soil, and under any treatment, after the second year; and the perennial is as seldom observed to fail in any circumstances, except when it may have been too closely cropped by sheep to the ground too late in autumn, when it generally dies off in the following spring. But the Italian may be annual or perennial in the same circumstances. Farmers cannot account for such an anomaly. High condition of good soil may tend to prolong, while the opposite state of poor soil may tend to shorten, its existence. But why those circumstances should not produce the same effects on all varieties of rye-grass, it is for science to explain.

Entomology might be made to serve Agriculture more than it has yet done. In this department of science farmers might greatly assist the entomologist, by observing the minute, but varied and interesting, habits of insects. The difficulty of comprehending the true impulses of insects, as well as of identifying species in the different states of transformation, render the observations of farmers less exact than those of entomologists who have successfully studied the technicalities of the science. The field of observation in the insect creation being very wide, and there being comparatively but few explorers in it, a large portion of a man’s life would be occupied in merely observing species and their habits, and a much larger in forming general deductions from repeated observation. The result would be, were farmers to study entomology, that a long period must elapse ere the habits of even the most common destructive insects, and the marks of their identity, would become familiarized to them. In consequence of this obstacle to the study of the farmer, the obligation ought to be the greater to those entomologists who daily observe the habits of insects in the fields and woods, and simplify their individual characteristics; and at the same time devise plans to evade their extensive ravages, and recommend simple and effective means for their destruction. The English farmer, living in a climate congenial to the development of insect life, painfully experiences their destructive powers on crops and woods; and, although in England entomologists are ever vigilant and active, yet their efforts easily to overcome the tenacity of insect life, with a regard to the safety of the plant, have hitherto proved unavailing.

Chemistry is somehow imagined to be the science: that can confer the greatest benefits on Agriculture. This opinion seems confirmed in the minds of most writers and agriculturists, and especially the English, most probably from the circumstance of an eminent chemist having been the first to undertake the explanation of agricultural practice on strictly scientific principles. Sir Humphry Davy has, no doubt, been the cause of bestowing on that science the character, whose influence was imagined to be more capable of benefiting Agriculture than its eulogists have since been able to establish. He endeavored to explain with great acuteness many of the most familiar phenomena of Agriculture, when in possession of very limited acquaintance with practical facts; and the result has been, that while his own chemical researches have conferred no practical benefit on Agriculture–his conclusions being in collision with practice–the field of observation and experiment which he explored and traversed has since been carefully avoided by succeeding chemists, in the conviction, no doubt, that wherein he failed they were not likely to succeed. The idea seemed never to have struck them that Sir Humphry had attempted to enforce a connection betwixt Chemistry and Agriculture which both were incapable of maintaining. Viewing the relation betwixt them merely in a practical point of view, I can see no very obvious connection betwixt tilling the soil and forcing crops by manure for the support of man and beast–which is the chief end of Agriculture–and ascertaining the constituent parts of material bodies, organic and inorganic–which is the principal business of Chemistry. A knowledge of the constituent parts of soils, or plants, or manures, now forms a necessary branch of general chemical education, but how that knowledge can improve agricultural practice, has never yet been practically demonstrated. No doubt, Chemistry informs us that plants will not vegetate in pure earths, and that those earths constitute the principal basis of all soils; but as pure earths are never found in soils in their ordinary state, farmers can have no chance of raising crops on them. It may be true, as Chemistry intimates, that plants imbibe their food only when in a state of solution; but what avails this fact to Agriculture, if fact it be, when manures are only applied in a solid state? It may be quite true, as Chemistry declares, that plants cannot supply, from their composition, any substance they have not previously derived from the air, earth, or decomposed organic matter; but of what practical use to Agriculture is this declaration, as long as farmers successfully raise every variety of crop from the same manure? Chemistry may be quite correct in its views with regard to all these particulars, but so is practice, and yet both are very far from agreeing; and as long as this constitutes the only sort of information that Chemistry affords, it is unimportant to the farmer. He wishes to be shown how to render the soil more fertile, manures more effective, and crops more prolific, by the practical application of chemical principles.

There are many writers, I am convinced, who recommend the study of Chemistry to farmers little acquainted with the true objects of chemical research, and not much more with practical Agriculture. At all events, they expatiate, only in vague generalities, on the advantages of analyzing soils, manures, &c. but do not attempt to demonstrate how any practice of husbandry may certainly be improved by the suggestions of Chemistry. The truth is, until chemists become thoroughly acquainted with agricultural facts, they cannot see the bearings of chemical principles on agricultural practice, any more than the most uncouth farmer; and until they prove the farmer’s practice in any one instance wrong, and are certain of its being put right by their suggestions, there is no use of lauding Chemistry as a paramount science for Agriculture.

In this view of the science, I would rather underrate the ability of Chemistry to benefit Agriculture than excite the fallacious hopes of the farmer by extolling it with undue praise. At the same time, were a chemist to recommend suggestions promising a favorable issue, that might tend to excite a well-grounded hope in chemical assistance, and I am sure the suggestions would even be fairly tried by farmers who entertain pretty strong suspicions against science. If, for example, on carefully analyzing a plant in common culture, it was found to contain an ingredient which it could not obviously have derived from the manure or the soil, were a suggestion made to mix a quantity of that particular ingredient with the soil or manure, it would at once be cheerfully put to the test of experiment by farmers. If, on the other hand, were the same chemist to suggest making heavy clay land friable by the mechanical admixture of sand, the physical impracticability of the proposal would at once convince the farmer that the chemist had no adequate notion of farm work. And yet propositions as absurd as this have frequently been suggested to farmers by writers who are continually maintaining the ability of Chemistry to benefit Agriculture. But let me appeal to facts–to ordinary experience.

I am not aware of a single agricultural practice that has been adopted from the suggestions of Chemistry. I am not speaking unadvisedly while making this unqualified statement. In truth, I do not know a single operation of the farm that has not originated in sheer practice. But is it not somewhat unreasonable to expect improvement in agricultural practice, and still more, an entirely improved system of Agriculture, from the suggestions of Chemistry? Some chemical results may appear to bear analogy to certain operations of the farm, such as the preparation of manures; but such analogies, being chiefly accidental, are of themselves insufficient grounds upon which to recommend chemical affinity as the principle which ought to regulate a system of practically mechanical operations. How can the most familiar acquaintance with the chemical constituents of all the substances found on a farm, suggest a different mode of making them into manure, inasmuch as practice must first pronounce the treatment to be an improvement, before it can really be an improvement, whatever Chemistry may suggest? Besides, Chemistry, with all its knowledge of the constituent parts of substances, cannot foretell, more confidently than practice, the results of the combinations with the soil, of the substances analyzed among themselves, and the combined effects of these and the soil upon cultivated plants. I am aware that hints may be suggested by science which may prove beneficial to practice; but unless they accord with the nature of the practice to which they are proposed to be applied, they are certain of proving unserviceable. Many hints thrown out at random have frequently been put to the test of experiment; but to experimentize on hints is quite a different thing in farming from that sort of farming which is proposed to be entirely based on theoretical suggestions, whether of Chemistry or of any other science.

For these reasons, I conceive, Chemists would be more usefully employed in following than in attempting to lead practical Agriculture. If it were practicable, it would certainly be very desirable for the farmer to be assured that his practice was in accordance with chemical principles; if, for example, it could be explained on chemical principles why a certain class of soils better suited to a certain kind of crop than other classes, and why animal manure is better suited than vegetable to a certain kind of crop; when Chemistry shall explain why certain results are obtained by practice, it will accomplish much, it will elucidate that which was before obscure in principle. Were chemists to confine the first stage of their investigations of agricultural matters to this extent, farmers would be much gratified with the assurance of their practice being in unison with the principles of chemical science; and this would tend more than any other circumstance to inspire them with confidence in the utility of that science. This is the position which Chemistry, in my opinion, should occupy in relation to Agriculture; for how successful however it may be in assisting other arts, such as dyeing, soap-making, and ink-making, it assists them both by synthesis and analysis; whereas it can only investigate agricultural subjects by analysis, because every substance employed in Agriculture, especially a manure, is used by farmers in the state it is found in the markets, without reference to its chemical constituent parts; and, when used, should an analytical or synthetical process go on among those parts, or with the soil, with which they are intimately brought into contact, the process going on in the soil would change the chemical composition of the whole, and place them beyond the reach of chemical research. The investigation of the soil after the removal of the crop might then be curious, but nothing more. In this investigation the farmer, the vegetable physiologist, and the chemist, would all disagree as to the extent of the influence exercised by the favorite substance of each in producing the crop. In settling the question, however, the farmer would have the same advantage over his rivals, in taking possession of the crop as the reward of his practical skill, as the lawyer who, in announcing the judgment of the court to two contending parties, gave a shell to each, and kept the oyster to himself.

Of all the sciences, mechanics have proved the most useful to Agriculture. If implements may be characterized as the right hand of Agriculture, mechanical science, in improving their form and construction, may be said to have given cunning to that right hand; for, mechanical science, testing the strength of materials, both relatively and absolutely, employs no more material in implements than is sufficient to overcome the force of resistance, and it induces to the discovery of that form which overcomes resistance with the least power. Simplicity of construction, beauty of form of the constituent parts, mathematical adjustment, and symmetrical proportion of the whole machine, are now the characteristics of our implements; and it is the fault of the hand that guides them, if field-work is not now dexterously, neatly, and quickly performed. In saying thus much for the science that has improved our implements to the state they now are, when compared with their state some years ago, I am not averring they are quite perfect. They are, however, so far perfect as to be correct in mechanical principle, and light in operation, though not yet simple enough in construction. No doubt many may yet be much simplified in construction; and I consider the machinist who simplifies the action of any useful implement, thereby rendering it less liable to derangement, does a good service to Agriculture as the inventor of a new and useful implement.

These are the principles which determine the arrangement adopted in this book. In applying these principles, as the seasons supremely rule the destiny of every farming operation, so to them is given full sway over the whole arrangement. This is accomplished by describing every operation in the season it should be performed, and this condition necessarily implies the subdivision of the arrangement into four seasons. Authors of Farmers’ Calendars divide their subject-matter into calendar or fixed months, being apparently inattentive to the influences of the seasons, Such an arrangement cannot fail to create confusion in the minds of young farmers; as any operation that is directed to be done in any month, may not in every year, be performed in the same month, on account of the fluctuating nature of the seasons.

In adopting the seasons as the great divisor of the labors of the farm, the months which each season occupies are not specified by name, because the same season does not occupy the same number of months, nor even exactly the same months, in every year. The same work, however, is performed in the same season every year, though not, perhaps, in the same month or months.

In arranging the seasons themselves, the one which commences the agricultural year, which is Winter, has the precedence. The rest follow in the natural succession of Spring, Summer, and Autumn; in which last all farming operations, having finished their annual circuit, finally terminate. A few remarks, illustrative of its nature, and the work performed in it, are given at the commencement of each season. By comparing these introductory remarks, one with the others, the nature of the principal operations throughout the year may be discovered; and, by perusing them in succession as they follow, an epitome of the entire farm operations for the year may be obtained.

Throughout the four seasons, from the commencement of winter to the end of autumn, the operations of the farm, both great and small, are described in a continued narrative. This narrative is printed in the larger type (long primer), The reader will soon discover that this narrative does not extend uninterruptedly through the whole pages–portions of smaller type (brevier) intervening, and apparently interrupting it. On passing over the small type, it will be perceived that it is really written, and may be perused without interruption. The object of this plan is to permit the necessary descriptions of all the operations, performed in succession throughout the year, to be read in the large type, to the exclusion of every other matter that might distract the attention of the reader from the principal subject. A peristrephic view, so to speak, of the entire operations of the farm is thus obtained. The leading operations, forming the principal subjects of the narrative, are distinguished by appropriate titles in CAPITALS placed across the middle of the page. The titles are numbered, and constitute, in the aggregate, a continuous succession, running through all the seasons. The leading operations thus easily attract the eye. Wood-cut figures of implements, and other objects, requiring no detailed descriptions, and representing at once their form and use, are inserted in the paragraph which alludes to them in the narrative.

Implements that require detailed descriptions to explain, and complicated figures to represent them; reasons for preferring one mode to another of doing the same kind of work; and explanations of agricultural practice on scientific principles–together constituting the subsidiary portion of the work–are given in paragraphs in the medium-sized type (brevier), and this matter is that which apparently interrupts the principal narrative. Each paragraph is numbered within parentheses, the same as in the principal narrative, and these paragraphs carry on the numbers arithmetically with the paragraphs of the principal narrative. When references are made from the large to the small type, they are made in corresponding numerals. The words most expressively characteristic of the illustration contained in the paragraph are placed in italics at or near the beginning of it.

Marking all the paragraphs with numerals greatly facilitates the finding out of any subject alluded to–saves repetition of descriptions when the same operation is performed in different seasons–and furnishes easy reference to subjects in the index.

Wood-cut figures of the intricate implements and other objects requiring detailed descriptions, are placed among the descriptions of them in the brevier type. The portraits of the animals given are intended to illustrate the points required to be attended to in the breeding of the domesticated animals. The portraits are taken from life by eminent artists. The wood-cuts are enumerated as they occur in the order of succession, whether they belong to the large or the small type, and each wood-cut is designated by its distinctive appellation–both the numeral and appellative being requisite for quick and easy reference.

The matter in the small type appears somewhat like foot-notes in ordinary books; but, in this instance, it differs in character from foot-notes, inasmuch as it occurs in unbroken pages at the end of the description of every leading operation. By this plan the principal narrative is not interfered with, and both it and its illustrations may be perused before the succeeding leading operation and its illustrations are taken into consideration. This plan has the advantage of relieving the principal narrative of heavy foot-notes–the perusal of which, when long, not only seriously interrupts the thread of the narrative, but causes the leaves gone over to be turned back again; both interferences being serious drawbacks to the pleasant perusal of any book.

Foot-notes required either for the principal narrative or illustrations are distinguished by the usual marks, and printed at the bottom of the page in the smallest type used in this work.

The paragraphs containing the matter supplied by Mr. Slight are en-closed within brackets (thus, L). and attested by his initials, J. S.