The Cecil Whig., 1870-05-28
Hill Manuring.

If the earth be 10y chance washed away
from the roots of growing corn, and the
wonderful network exposed to view, ira
versing every inch of space from row to
row, we conclude it to be very absurd
thing to manure the crop by putting a
spoonful of some fertilizer at certain points
four feet apart. Whether these points
were just where the corn was planted, or
somewhere else, would seem to make no
manner of difference. What good reason
can there be for selecting one point in pref
erence to another, when every one seems
equally occupied by the busy feeders, OF is
there not indeed, more show Of reason for
putting it anywhere than just these points
from which the feeders diverge in search
of food? In hill manuring we put the
fertilizer Just where the roots make haste
to go away from.
Yet who can say that we should not ma
nure in OF on the hill. A single fact upsets
our wisest reasoning Oh such NATTER
We plant field of corn on well worked
and well manured ground, as we saw last
season, and through the field, on several
rows, small handful of prepared fertili-
ger is distributed to every three hills. In
ten days the rows thus treated showed a
darker color, then it shot up in advance of
those on each side, tasselled and showed
the silk about ten days sooner, ripened as
much earlier, and made perhaps twenty-five
per cent. more corn.
We give another fact. A correspondent
of this Journal writes: "The past season,
my corn field of eleven acres, was meadow
sward. turned over a few days before plant
ing, and all manured alike with common
farm-yard manure; the soil all rich gravelly
loam, that for two years previous had aver
aged at least two tons of hay to the acre.
| am thus particular for the reason that
would show sufficient strength to grow
some corn without the aid of foreign ferti-
lizers and fully equal to the average corn
land Of the State. -Four rows running
north and south through the centre of the
field, were planted at the same time and
under the same circumstances as the re-
mainder Of the field, minus the application
to each hill before planting of compost of
hen manure, plaster and ashes. From
these four rows l harvested 64 bushels of
corn or tritle over Il bushels to the row.
From the four rows Immediately adjoining,
l husked 12b bushels of sound corn, in
both instances being nearly equal. l am
aware that this proves difference hardly
credible; and yet the facts warrant me in
saying that nearly doubled my yield of
cofH ny applying WeIely tablespoonful
of the above to each hill; for so tritling
expense and labor, reaping large reward
indeed
In both of these cases it is to be noticed
that the ground was, what would be usually
thought, well manured otherwise, and the
hill dressing, it may be presumed, SO invig-
grated the plants, as to enable them to
receive full benefit from the outside manur-
ing. So we would reason; but it seems all
nonsense to reason at all about facts that
are themselves SO unreasonable-that is, to
our way of thinking. We learn in this, as
in SO many cases, how unwise it is to follow
our best devised theories and hypothesis,
and how much more safely the farmer oper-
ates who watches carefully the facts that
present themselves and makes them the
guide to his practice.
In making up our agricultural science.
the practical man has just this part Of the
work to do-treasure the facts that present
themselves and stand by them in preference
to the most cunningly devised theories
BY and by these stubborn facts make their
impression, and out of them are eveloped
principles, which shed broad and safe
light. american Farmer.