New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-28


wbs, compared with that Of the European.
For some part of this ds:ect, our farmers are
not 10 be blamed They lack the capital sccumu-
lated IN Europe through hundreds Of years Of cult
vst;os. But for much of this bad and improbable
farming. they should be held responsible The hrst
great evil, on this head IL m the desire TO own
largo farms, without the necessary capital to secure
good cultivation The next radical defect is in not
properly understanding the true principles OF their
business; for Agriculture Is based upon certain IN
erring and unchangiDg laws, easy to understand
and simple TO follow. Yet, if disregsrded, or but
ndiferently carried out the business becomes i'm
poverishing, both 10 the soil and its owner
The experience of ages has demonstrated the
truth that no system Of agriculture worthy CIV
ilzed people can be permanently prosperous when
the value Of the annual animal product Of the farm
does not equal that Of the vegetable product.
When the vegetable product is greater in value than
the animal the condition Of agriculture will be
found unsatpfactoy and NE country poor. The
cause Of this is simple. The main reliance Of the
farmer for means TO aneorate the condition Of his
soT, TO maintain and increase its fertility must
ever be upon the manure made by the domestic
animals which are kept upon his farm. ANY and
all other schemes for keeping up the fertility of the
soil over all the country will end in disappointment
and serious loss.
In no part of Europe is agriculture so prosper
Gus as in Flanders, and portions of Holland; and
any American farmer who has travelled through
those countries, could not help being astonished at
the large number of animals which are kept, and
the quantity Of grain which is produced upon .
farm Of ordinary size, or what would be called so
here. We will give single instance, By no means
rare, except that the quantity of the land is larger
than the average of Flanders farms, being about
one hundred and thirty acres. About one-fourth
was in permanent pasture; the remainder arabic OF
which thirty acres were in wheat, ten rye, four
teen oats, fourteen clover, ten fax twelve COLA,
three beans, three barley and six potatoes-or one
! hundred and two acres lightweight in crops. The
stock of this farmer consisted of seventeen COWS,
five calves, five heifers, nine cart-horses, and three
| ccls-thirty nine head in all Everything grown
upon the farm was consumed upon it, except the
wheat, fax and COLA, or rspe-seed. The wheat
averaged thirty FIVE bushels TO the acre. And now
for his secret: his urine cistern is twenty feet
square and seven feet deep, and considered much
| too small though there was another under his
manure pile in the yard The urine cistern is an in
| dispensible adjunct TO the farm; it is found
throughout all the Low Countries. Sometimes it is
only tub or hogshead sunken In the ground
upon the small farms of three or four acres, while
upon the larger ones it is of a capacity for thou
sands Of gallons.
But. leaving these old countries, whose agriculture
has been for centuries in advance OF all the rest OF
| Europe, let US turn to England and France, and
contrast the results of their different systems Of
agriculture. England has no advantages in soil or
climate which France does not possess. On the
contrary, France can easily produce all that En-
gland does but has many advantages in her wine
tobacco, Indian corn olesginous and textile crops
| over ENGLAND. The whole British Islands contain
s1tytwo millions of acres, and support thirty five
millions Of sheep. France contains one hundred
and six millions of acres, aud supports the same
number In proportion to its acres, France should
sustain sixty millions of sheep. But if we compare
England proper with France the difference becomes
still more striking England proper, on her thirty
millions of acres, supports thirty millions OF sheep
or one to each acre. while France devotes three
acres to each sheep.
During the past eighty years, France has done
comparatively nothing to improve her sheep ex-
cept to import the Merino from Spain. She has
neither improved her breeds nor developed their
size or weight. Wool has been her primary object,
and not meat England on the other hand has
made meat, rather than wool, the primary object.
So successful has she been in that particular, that
her sbee, average, in net weight Of meat, eighty
pound, each, while the French sheep average but
forty pounds each. England slaughters Of her flock
tea mHions annually, giving her people eight hun
dred millions Of pOuads of meat. The French
sheep NOT being precociOus, France slaughters an
nually eight millions, giving but three hundred and
| twenty million pounds Of meat. Allowing the meat
10 be equal i. value, though it is claimed that the
advantage is in favor Of the English sheep, We find
| that the return from sheep-isrm in Eadand Is six
times greater than that from French farm Of eqga
| area.
In respect " cows, France possesses four mil
| Eons and Great Britain three moDs. The French
work their cows and pure them TO labor, so that
they become a strong, hardy race, but lose their
best milking properties, and at least one half are
| not really milk cows, while all the BBgsh are.
England gets double the milk from her three NIL
lions of COWS that France does from her four mil
lions Owing to the number Of manufsc turing
towns and cities with which England is crowded,
the farmer sells his milk for four cent, the quart,
while the price o. mix in France is only two cents
-