The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1850-1873, 1873-02-28
Old Pastures. or New

There are two opinions about pas
lures. One is that it is more profitable
to feed only newly seeded land, using
it not more than two years before plow-
ing it up for a re-seeding; and the
other to Jet it remain for many years,
allowing the surface to become fully
occupied by the native grasses, these
being supposed to be best adapted to
develop its power of production.
If we consider this question according
to the general practice of farming com
munities in this country, we can not
hesitate to decide that the greatest pro-
fit will follow the first-named method,
for there is no disputing the PROPOSE
ton that timothy, red-top, orchard
grass, and red clover, newly sown on
well-prepared and well-manured soil,
will produce much more forage land of
a highly nutritious kind) than Will
close turf of bluegrass, white clover,
ETC., which has for many years had full
possessions of the ground, and has had
no artificial stimulation. The differ
ence in amount will be much more than
enough to repay the cost of the break
ing up, manuring, and seeding.
1t is not now question whether the
COWS Will do better on one kind of pas
ture than on the other, only which viii
produce the largest money profit. Ii a
single COW were allowed to roam over
ten acres of short old pasture, picking
up her whole living in white clover and
the tender sprouts of blue grass, there
is no denying that she would give more
milk, more butter, and more cheese,
than she would if feeding, however
abundantly, on the cSarser grasses of
| an artificial pasture But our purpose
in farming is not to get the largest pos
sible yield from our land. The COWS
are only implements for converting the
products of the field into the salable
products of the dairy.
An average first-class cow coming in
in May will make 800 lbs of butter in
the season on good natural pasture, but
| she will require at least three acres of
land for her exclusive use. At Soc. per
h., the seasons produce will be $50, or
! $50 per acre. On a good artificial pas
| ture she may give only $50 lbs, worth
| S54, but she viii be fully supported by
! the produce of single acre. Suppos-
ing that one-third of the produce is
consumed by the interest on the extra
number OF cows, and by the cost Of
keeping up the pastures, which is sure
ly a very liberal allowance, we shall
have $50 instead of $40 as the return
per acre. In addition to this, we shall
! make ourselves much more independent
| of variations of the seasons, for we'll
worked rich meadow is far less injured
| by excessive drouth than any natural
pasture on the same soil could be. This
of itself, will often equal the drawback
we have allowed for extra cost.
To put the proposition in another
| form, we may expect, from the foregoing
| calculation, as large a cash profit from
| ten acres of artificial as from eighteen
acres of natural pasture, and there
would be far less risk of loss from unu-
sual drouth. It is not proposed, of
| course, that rough or waste lands should
be used for artificial pastures they
would not repay the cost only that
| such fields as are susceptible of prOfita-
| BILE subsection should not be left wild.
How nearly natural pastures may be
made equal SO artificial ones by the use
of the harrow and liberal top-dressings
in proposition not considered above.
The cost would generally be less than
that of re-seeding, and the result equal
| ly good. In any case, no pasture, old
or new, should ever be oveT-stocked.