stances, namely, that the work undertaken is new, and the means were not provided for visiting the various parts of the State to obtain the facts in regard to the condition of agriculture.

TOO LARGE FARMS.

First. Our farms are too large. This is one of the evils accompanying slavery. Slaveholders have evidently regarded it necessary to have large farms, in order to keep their increasing forces employed, and in case their old fields became exhausted, to turn their attention to new ones. In this respect they were undoubtedly right, for slavery is certainly incompatible with "improved agriculture," in the modern acceptation of this term. Improved agriculture requires the application of a degree of intelligence, even in the laborer, that has not been considered consistent with slavery. How often have improved implements been laid by for years, because there was not intelligence enough in the slaves to use them, and often not enough in the masters to put them together properly so that they would work? It is not pleasant to tell unwelcome truths, but it is better sometimes that they should be told. As the country becomes older, and with the change in our labor system, if we would farm profitably we must farm well. There must be a radical change in the mode of culture hitherto generally practiced. We must avail ourselves, to a greater extent, of the advantages of labor-saving machinery. We must adopt such a system of thorough culture as will produce the best results with the least proportionate expenditure, and at the same time preserve and increase the fertility of our soils; and such a system is inconsistent with the too common practice of "skim culture" of a large number of acres.

A writer in the Missouri Republican, in treating of this subject recently, says:

"The superior advantages of cultivating small parcels of land well, over large quantities poorly taken care of, is patent to any one who has given the subject proper consideration, and it needs no new ideas upon the subject to prove it, but it should be impressed upon our farmers as often as possible, many of whom, brought up to work slaves, found them as much as they could attend to, and thought it necessary to have large quantities of land to keep them at work, and raise food to support them, and many, no doubt, who had good land and negroes, made money easy enough-but that day is past, and a quite different and better system will now have to be adopted to make farming profitable. I know it is not profitable to farm here in the same manner as in England, Lombardy or the Netherlands, in consequence of the difference in price of labor and amount of capital used; but a medium course should and must be pursued to make farming pay well in this State.

"Besides making clear what is this medium course, I have a few original ideas which I shall introduce-not theories hard to prove or

put in force, but plans that have been well tried, and that I am sure will pay our farmers well.

"The first thing, then, to consider is the quantity of land. This, of course, is to be regulated by the amount of help at your command, and I should lay it down for a rule that where a man calculates to do most of the work himself, with perhaps a little help haying and harvesting, forty acres is enough, and fifteen acres extra for every good hand he can employ. Less than this would be better than more. I would here remark and impress on St. Louis county farmers the absolute necessity of every farmer fencing in a pasture, well set in blue and herds grass or clover, at least two acres for each head of large stock (more particularly for cows), for good stock cannot be kept up or made profitable being let run in the road-neither can you expect plenty of milk or good butter without a cow gets good and regular feed without much traveling. Among the advantages of small farms, besides bringing land to a good state of cultivation, may be mentioned its certain effect in increasing the density of population, value of land, facilities of education, creating better society, small towns, reducing taxation, and in fact making the country better and more wealthy.

"I know many will think it almost ridiculous to speak to them about cultivating such "small patches"-men that have been used to having one or two hundred acres of land about half cultivated; about the same amount with nothing particular on it, and a few hundred in woods; but let them commence by selling half, and with the money purchase good stock, build substantial fences and plenty of outbuildings to store their crops and cattle, plant vineyards and orchards, and they will find great pleasure and profit in having plenty of good animals and produce to forward to market, and will find more satisfaction in knowing they have a large balance at the bankers than in owning the few hundred acres that separate them from their neighbors.

"These small farms are the secret of the beauty of the scenery of New York and other well cultivated States. What Missourian that has traveled through the Genessee valley but would wish to see such a well filled country in this State; yet we would have a better here if small farms be cultivated well, instead of the way land is mostly used in this country. If the advice I give in these papers and the hints so often brought before the public by the Missouri Republican be heeded, we will soon have the handsomest, as well as the most profitable section of country to be found in the United States.

"Besides what I have mentioned about the profit of this mode of farming, there is another light in which we may view the subject, and that is on the point of religion, the aim and end of which is to do right. No matter what creed we belong to, we must all agree on this. And, may I ask, is it right to take or keep land from those that need it and could and would cultivate it-keeping land idle that would yield something, and but half cultivating land and exhausting it-is it right to waste the bounties of Providence? It is true char

ity to do good in everything, in farming and in the management of business, to make the greatest amount of good we can to the world. There is not much charity or religion in "skinning" large portions of land, and at your death leaving it worthless for many generations. But there is some in 'causing a blade of grass to grow.' There is more sin, perhaps, than farmers ever dream of in bad farming."

The "infatuation of much land" has not been peculiar to the slave States, although it may have existed there in a greater degree. It is a wide-spread evil. A correspondent of the American Agriculturist, some seven or eight years ago, wrote as follows:

"In my peregrinations through the land, in search of a farm, I find the passion for real estate, in the shape of more territory, is almost universal. It is about as strong in the Yankee with his three hundred acres, and two men, as in the planter with his five thousand acres and fifty negroes-each having at least five acres lying idle to one worked with any profit. The passion prevails not only among the dominant class in the rural districts, but may be said to pervade all classes. Multitudes in the city, who hardly get time to step in the country at all, own large estates there, and capitalists who never expect to work an acre of land, own whole townships. The motive of vanity also has something to do with this passion for land. A man may own bank stock or invest in note of hand, and make very little show of his wealth. But land has breadth of surface. It is a means of measuring personal importance by the acre, eagerly grasped by multitudes who have no other claim to the consideration of their fellows. Some buy for show, some for fear of future want, some for present security, while only a few purchase to subdue and cultivate. Only so much land as we can till and make better' is the motto for every farmer. All beyond this is a nuisance that calls for abatement."

The justice of the writer's remarks is everywhere perceptible. Farmers own too much land, cultivate too much land, and pay too little attention to improvement in cultivation. A few years ago it was not difficult to raise one hundred bushels of wheat from three acres of land. Now it can scarcely be done in the older settled localities from six acres. Consequently, the farmer generally increases the number of acres in cultivation in order to make up the deficiency in product. There is a downward tendency in this that should be arrested. The same amount of labor and capital, with more judicious cultivation, would produce as large results from at least one-third less land, and prevent deterioration of the soil.

The general complaint among the thousands who have recently been in the State to buy land, is that the farms offered for sale are too large. It is believed to be the true policy of our large landholders to sell off portions of their lands in small tracts, even at low rates, to thrifty farmers, who will improve them, thereby increasing the value of the remainder. We think it the duty of many of our farmers, to themselves and to the State, to sell off portions of their large estates.

They will thus benefit the State, by aiding to populate it with industrious and thrifty citizens. They will benefit themselves, by the increased prosperity they will bring around them, and by having more means to employ in improving more thoroughly their smaller farms.

DEEP PLOWING.

Second. Our culture is almost invariably too shallow. This is one of the natural evils of cultivating too much land. Farmers generally do not plow as deeply as they suppose. They will find by measuring accurately on the land side, that four inches will appear to be quite a deep furrow. When land is plowed only two or three inches deep, as stated in some county reports, if the land is rolling and the subsoil compact, the rains will soon wash what little loose soil there is off into the stream, and by the time such land is fairly subdued it will be nearly worn out; whereas, if the land is deeply tilled, it will absorb the water and gain in fertilizing materials which are brought down from the atmosphere by the rains.

About a dozen years ago, by the influence of Professor Swallow, formerly State Geologist, a few farmers in Boone county were induced to try sub-soil plowing. Major Rollins, who plowed from fourteen to sixteen inches deep, reported as follows: "The increase of each crop, I should estimate, amounted to twenty-five per cent.," and "the increased profit of cultivation by the system of deep plowing at from twenty to thirty per cent."

Eli E. Bass, Esq., who sub-soiled his land, says his "crops were doubled, and the profits doubled" by this system of cultivation.

Professor Swallow says that "several fields thus sub-soiled did not even wilt beneath the unprecedented drouth of that season, while those adjoining were badly burned."

Yet, in the county report from Boone this year, it is stated that subsoil plowing has been tried in only a few instances. Will the farmers of Boone admit that sub-soil plowing has been tried in that county and proved a failure? We apprehend not. But we must admit that farmers are sometimes the slowest persons in the world to learn. And if a farmer happens to have the good fortune to have been born in Old Virginia, he is generally the slowest of all farmers in adopting "new fangled notions."

UNDER-DRAINING.

Good farming consists chiefly in deep plowing, under-draining and manuring. Missouri farming is greatly deficient in all these respects. Under-draining is not necessary for all soils, neither will it be expedient at present, probably, to under-drain some soils that do need it, situated at a distance from market, where labor is scarce, and where there is an abundance of new unbroken soil at low prices. But the time has come when it will pay to under-drain our retentive

soils, which have been longest in cultivation and command a high price, near large markets. Let Old Virginians laugh as they please about "tubing the land;" it is being tried, and will win its way into. favor. A tile factory has been established in St. Louis during the present year, for supplying the demand, which has heretofore been supplied from the East.

The advantages of under-draining have been summed up in a few words, as follows:

1. It removes stagnant waters from the surface.

2. Removes surplus water from under the surface.

3. Lengthens the seasons.

4. Deepens the soil.

5. Warms the under soil.

6. Equalizes the temperature of the soil during the season of growth.

7. Carries down soluble substances to the roots of plants.

8. Prevents "freezing out," or "heaving out."

9. Prevents injury from drouth.

10. Improves the quality and quantity of crops. 11. Increases the effect of manures.

12. Prevents rust in wheat and rot in potatoes.

MANURING.

In regard to manuring, our farmers, to a great extent, are blind to their interest. They annually send the products of their fields to market, returning nothing to the soil, without seeming to be aware that they are thus annually disposing of their "capital in trade." If it is the deliberate intention of a farmer to exhaust his soil, sell out and buy new, such a course is consistent. But if it is his intention to make a permanent home for himself and his children, then it is much better economy to keep up the fertility of his land than to wait till it is exhausted, and suffer the expense and difficulties of renewing it. The best land in the world can be exhausted unless it is so situated as to be subject to overflow. The fertility of almost any land may be maintained, even without barn-yard manure or the manures of commerce, by means of deep tillage, rotation of crops, and occasionally plowing in a crop of clover or other green crop. But all the manure of the barn-yard and the house should be carefully saved and properly distributed upon the soil, instead of being wasted, as it too generally is.

Nature's laws are nicely balanced, and as inexorable as wise. The carbonic acid exhaled from the lungs of animals is absorbed by the leaves of plants, while the leaves give off oxygen, without a supply of which animals could not live. Thus, an equilibrium is maintained in the atmosphere, essential to the health and life of both plants and animals. Again: vegetation contributes the chief food of the animal