Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-29
THE NAN VINO Loves TO FARM

To the Union and American:
In my last I promised to give my
opinion why that old field with the
same mineral plant food did not yield
with the new field. These two fields
were a part of my farm IN Indiana.
The subsoil was entirely different from
the balance of the farm. 1t was the
highest land, very level I called it the
beech fiat. There were walnut, poplar,
ash, hickory, oaks mixed with the
beech, and the timber was large; soil
good, but the roots lay close to the
surface; subso1 greyish and hard and
tough ike putty, The tract contained
twenty acres. One-half was then an
old d~eadening. 1 put it under culti-
walton and deadened the other half.
For the first three or four years this
field brought good crops, whether the
seasons were wet or dry. After that
We could see quite a falling off if the
seasons were wet. The first season
this field was In corn, the second in
wheat, the next two in clover-wheat
following clover, and this rotation of
crops was strictly adhered to, and
whenever it was plOwed after the first
season, the subsoil pillow followed.
The third SEASON we put it In corn.
The new field was also in corn. 1t
had been IN corn the year before for
the first time. 1t was subsoiled that
year. The season turned out to be a
wet one. The yield of the new field
was fully eighty bushels to the acre,
while the yield Of the old field was not
over half so much. The whole process
of blowing and tillage had been the
same. l had thought that the rotation
of crops wal sufficient to keep the fer
tility Of the soil good in the old field,
but the difference in the yield that sea-
son set me to thinking. l had a very
dear friend that lived IN our county
town, who was a fine scholar and good
chemist, and frequently telling me
what the science of Analysing the soils
would do for the farmer. 1t was that
class OF theorists who did the principal
writing for the agricultural papers of
those days. / had frequently told him
that agricI lture had to have its hair
Drained theorists that would assume to
teach that which they knew practically
nothing about, as well as politics, re-
ligion or n other occupation or pro-
fession. However, 1 had derived some
very valuable information from this
mans writings, so l concluded to send
for him, and see what explanation he
could give for the difference IN
the crops IN these two fields.
We travelled over the two
fields in different directions with
spade In hand examining the soil aud
subsoil here and there. Explained how
each field had been cultivated from the
start, and all the particulars as to the
culture Of that season. After we re-
turned to the house, he told me that to
him the case was a plain one, and that
science would now show me so plainly
what was the cause Of this difference in
yield of crops, and how to apply the
remedy, that l would never again call
HIM a theorist Of nonsense. l laughed
and he said there could be nothing
palmer to his mind than that the plant
food that produced corn IN the old field
was nearly exhausted. The next day,
| per agreement. I took the dirt from
fifty different places In each field, thor
Oughly mixed each lot to itself on the
barn floor, placed each lot in separate
boxes. and sent to him. When anal
yzed, he found there was no difference
that would amount to anything in
plant food for corn or wheat. He
came out the next day with his own
wagon. Seemed for the first time
10 be out Of humor. Said he