Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-01-28

taken. mo an salu ue. 'IAuy hom
they say so;" you ask any of our old farmers,
and they will tell you that broomstraw i'm
poverishes land worse than almost anything
else."
Remember, this man was an anti-book
farmer, one of your real practical fellows
Now l will make the assertion, and dare any
one to prove to the coutrary-by experience,
science or anything else-that one crop OF
wheat will exhaust land more than fve-yes
l might safely say, ten crops of broomsedge
allowing both crops too, to be removed
from the land after they are matured.
Broomsedge produces so little seed-in
weight-that it takes from the soil very lit
tie of those precious iugredieuts-the phos-
phates-of which wheat and all plants that
produce seed suitable for the food of man
and beast, require so large an amount of;
and are so indispensable to the full develop
ment of their kernel, aud which abound in
all fertile soils.
Says Liebig, again ga greater quantity
of the phosphates is removed in the seeds
and straw of one crop of wheat, than would
be removed in three or four crops of barley
or oats. The weight of the ashes of crop
of the seed of wheat, is to that of oats, as
81 1866; the phosphates contained in them
as 26:l0. Perhaps there are present, per-
sons who are ready to exclaim, 81 don't be-
lieve word of il; why have always heard
it said that oats are great exhausters of land,
certainly much more so than wheat" One
reason have heard assigned for this opinion,
is their rapid growth--their maturing in
much shorter time than wheat. If an in
habitant of the torid zone were shown lump
of ice, and told it was water he would be
very apt to make the same reply-''1 don't
believe it." would like to know by what
sorto logicor arithmetic it can be shown, that
if one man eats loaf of bread in one hour,
he eats less than another man who eats small
ler loaf in half an hour.
Iallude to this opinion about oats being
greater exhausters of the soil than wheat,
to show that it is fallacy-must be fall
lacy-the general received opinion to the
contrary, Notwithstanding. Science points
to the truth, or is destined to do so in such
matters, as unerriugly as the needle does to
the pole. Science has exposed and re-
moved many such fallacies that have been
handed down to US, founded only in ignor-
ance and a blind credulity-a sort of
superstitious belief in the simple "say SO "
of those who have gone before US. And
although the only way to remove this sort of
credulty and superstition, and to set us to
for ourselves, or to acquire the
power to resist their effects, is to obtain a
knowledge Of true scientific principles, and
this knowledge cannot be obtained without
reading and study; yet We have planters a.
mong us-intelligeut men too-who ridicule
the very idea of book farming as some are
pleased to call it. Yes, even deprecate read
ing anything on the subject of agriculture.
Some are disposed to ridicule agricultural
societies, and every thing, and every body
connected with them. One man-aud am
not sure but he is member of our Society
whom I asked to subscribe foran agricutur-
al paper, replied to me, "No SIR, beg to be
excused if I were to do so, and read it, |
would expect to have to buy corn next year,
certain" Here too, allow me to relate an
anecdote bearing on this subject.
An old gentleman, to whom had read an
article in an agricultural paper on the sub
ject of hillside ditching, observed, " that
is just my notion about it; the fellow that
wrote that piece knows something about the
business would like to avethat paper
l wonder where can get it." replied to
him that he could get twelve of them or one
dollar. "Pshaw ~ said he, 81 wouldn't give
fig for all your agricultural papers ; (only
I would like to have that one;) those who
write in them don't know any thing practi-
cally, about what they write; it is all theory
with them You perceive the old gentleman
was an o"t md ont anti-book farmer, and
would not admit that he mig ght meet with
other articles, on other subjects, that would
be of interest Or profit to him; or, perhaps,
like our member, he was afraid it would
cause him to have to buy corn. J. will ad-
NIT that the best overseer | ever had as a
practical planter, or farmer, di7nt know a
letter in the book, and according to the
logic of anti-book farmers, it was his ignor-
aucc of books altogether, which made him
such No, the secret of his success, was an
indomitable energy and perseverance, in
connection with pretty good observation and
retentive memory-his ignorance had moth
ing to do with it; he would have been still
better manager if he had Of had more
sense-book sense-on the subject. The
more the reading and science, the worse the
farmer; ergo, the less the reading and the
greater the ignorance, the better the farmer;
that is their logic.
Well it may be in agriculture, as in every
thing else, ga little learning is dangerous
thing" but is there any sense or reason in
saying that knowledge Of the principles
of any business Or art, incapacitates man
for successfully prosecuting that business, Or
practicing that art successfully? Common
sense would say no; such sentiments are a
disgrace to the age in which We live. All
will admit that there are many things yet to
be learned, and many improvements yet
necessary to be made in agriculture. 10
IL ..=;...ixla. nd AaGnitn