Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-08-10

then the greatest, and undergoes most
rapid decomposition in the soil. Others
90 not plow In clover until late in the
Ian and after it has been pastured. The
reasons given for thus practice are: Isf,
snas turning in the clover green makes
the SOL sour, and has 8 tendency to pro-
oace sorreL 2. 1t has bad influences on
subsequent crops. 8. IL waiting uutil
ran, you have The advantage of pasturin0.
and II the cattle are kept upon the naS1
tnTe, as they should, everything the f;ald
/ produces is returned to it. Mo-s 80
Sonaceous matter is returned 10 The SOL
What youlose in the tops, you gain IN
the roots of the clover, which have four
or five months longer to grow. 5. Better
crops follow. Soma of the best farmer
In Pennsylvapis follow this method ali
together. Others still wait until the fol
lowing spring, and turn ia the clover Just
as it begins to grow.
Mr.. j. Harris says in the american
AgricuItltrist, s-
In 1864 l ploughed up field of clover
anu planted corn. In 1866, planted corn
again, and used the cultivator very freely
Doth years to kill the weeds. In 1866,
sowed barley, followed by wheat, and
seeded down into clover the following
spring. In 1867, moved the clover for
hay, and the second crop for seed. In
1868, moved it again for hay. After the
hay was off we plowed half the field.
and allowed the other hslf to produce a
second crop of clover. Il was q wet
season, and the second crop of clover
grew splendidly. l think it would have
made ton of hay per acre. This clover
we pLo10ed under.
The next spving 167l) the whole field
was cultivated, but not plOughed, and
sown with barley. could see no differ~
ence in the growth of barley on the part
ploughed Immediately after hay harvest.
and that when the clover was allowed To
grow and then ploughed under. After
the barley, the field was ploughed and
Sown to winter wheat. 50 far, can see
no difference in the color or growth of
the wheat.
There was no more labor expended on
the one part of the field than on the
other. The only difference was, that one
was Ploughed before the clover com
menced TO grow, and the other after the |
clover had attained its growth. The
is, that notwithstanding
me fact that large growth
Oh clover was ploughed under,
mere Was no more nitrogen or other
plant-food IN the soil on one part of the
held than on the other. The PLAINTIFF
organized IN the clover was simply taken
out CT the soil and was merely returned /
when plowed under. Had the mart of
The field plowed Immediately after har-
vest been narrowed, cultivated. and then
piowed again in the fall, and otherwise
exposed to the decomposing influence of
me atmosphere, l believe more plant
food would have been developed from the
'oil than on the part where the clover
vas allowed growth. This probably
would not be the Case in poor, sandy
and; but l have no doubt that CLAW
oams, which abounded in latent miami
God, would become richer from being
worked and eexposed to the atmosphere
han from the mere growth of clover. If
here is any evidence to the contrary
would Ike to have it produced.
believe IN clover. Noone has written
more IN its favor as a renovating crop.
We cannot grow too much of it. BIT il
mould al be consumed on the farm, and
addition, the clay land farmer should
fall faLlow" as much land Gs he can. II
m satisfied, though admit the evidence
not conclusive, that fall-fallOwing is
nore IN accordance with the facts of sci
ntific farming than the practice of pillow
lg under clover.