run where they list, and find their own support in the woods, without any care of the owner; and in many plantations it is well if the proprietor can find and catch the pigs, or any part of the farrow, when they are young to mark them; for if there be any marked in a gang of hogs, they determine the proprietary of the rest, because they seldom miss their gangs; but as they are bred in company, so they continue to the end; except sometimes the boars ramble."-Beverley, 262. Jones: " Hogs will run fat with certain roots of flags and reeds, which abounding in the marshes they root up and eat. But Indian corn is their best food; and their pork is famous, whole Virginia shoats being frequently barbacued in England; their bacon is excellent, the hams being scarce to be distinguished from those of Westphalia."-Pages 41, 42. Burnaby: "The Virginia pork is said to be superior in flavor to any in the world."-Hist. Reg. V. 38. A certain amount of these several kinds of stock would be necessary to the comfortable subsistence and clothing of the planters' family, and to the maintenance of that hospitality for which he was distinguished from of old. Oxen, as well as horses, would also be required for draught. Up to this point it was for a long season not difficult to rear them. Beyond this, in his peculiar circumstances, it became a secondary object; and in that proportion were the animals neglected, and the degeneracy which followed was hastened by another cause, which would be greater or less in different localities.

"Wild bulls and cows," says Clayton, "there are now in the uninhabited parts, but such only as have been bred from some that strayed and became wild, and have propagated their kind and are difficult to be shot, having a great acuteness of smelling. The common rate of a cow and calf is fifty shillings, be she big or little, they are never curious to examine that point." Perhaps not; yet were there other points worthy of notice, and which we think could not have been wholly overlooked even by the careless Virginians. Colonel Robert Carter, of the Northern Neck, in 1723, while cheapening an estate which he wished to purchase with the stock upon it, gives an unfavorable account of the cattle, horses, and hogs; but one which we should hardly think applicable to the whole province, or even the greater part of it at that time.-Southern Planter, II. 40.

Mr. Jefferson, in combating the absurd prejudice of Count de Buffon, "that as an incident of the climate, all animals degenerated in America," denies the law, while he admits the fact, ascribing it to neglect and insufficient food-the which as we have seen is no matter of conjecture-and adds: "It may be affirmed with truth, that in those countries, and with those individuals in America, where necessity or curiosity has produced equal attention as in Europe to the nourishment of animals, the horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs of our continent are as large as those of the other. There are particular instances, well attested, where individuals of this country have imported good breeders from England, and have improved their size in some years."Notes on Virginia, 59.

There is also a curious passage in Adam Smith, which not only confirms this reasoning, but will serve to show that America is not the

INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE UPON STOCK.

87

only country whose people, while intently pursuing certain objects, have overlooked others which were both desirable and attainable; where similar consequences have resulted from like neglect, and have been retrieved by the same means.

"The want of manure, and the disproportion between the stock employed in cultivation, and the land which it is destined to cultivate, are likely to introduce in the English colonies in North America, a system of husbandry not unlike that which still continues to take place in so many parts of Scotland. Mr. Kalm, the Swedish traveler, when he gives us an account of the husbandry of some of those colonies, as he found it 1749, observes accordingly, that he can, with difficulty, discover there the character of the English nation, so well skilled in all the different branches of agriculture. They make scarce any manure for their corn fields, he says; but when one piece of ground has been exhausted by continual cropping, they clear and cultivate another piece of fresh land; and when that is exhausted, proceed to a third. Their cattle are allowed to wander through the woods and other uncultivated grounds, where they are half-starved; having long ago extirpated almost all the annual grasses by cropping them too early in the spring, before they had time to form their flowers, or to shed their seeds. The annual grasses were, it seems, the best natural grasses in that part of North America; and when the Europeans first settled there, they used to grow very thick and to rise three or four feet high. A piece of ground which, when he wrote, could not maintain one cow, would in former times, he was assured, have maintained four, each of which would have given four times the quantity of milk which that one was capable of giving. The poorness of the pasture had, in his opinion, occasioned the degradation of their cattle, which degenerated sensibly from one generation to another. They were probably not unlike that stunted breed which was common all over Scotland thirty or forty years ago, and which is now so much mended through the greater part of the low country, and not so much by a change of the breed, though that expedient has been employed in some places, as by a more plentiful method of feeding them."-Wealth of Nations, B. I. Ch. XI.

There are several considerations which should induce a doubt, whether matters in Virginia had ever reached a pass so low as that here spoken of. While certain favorable circumstances in our situation would operate to retard the progress of degeneracy, direct efforts to arrest it, were probably made by many. Our climate is milder; our winter shorter: the offal of Indian corn in winter, and the marshes and forests from spring to autumn, which were in effect unappropriated commons, offered resources unknown in bleak, treeless Scotland. These unfavorable reports proceed from foreigners, generally of England, where the rearing of cattle has for ages been a primary object, and who were prone to dwell on size as an indispensable test of excellence. We may, therefore, qualify their testimony by the experience and reasoning of one of their own countrymen, whose authority on this subject is deservedly high. Sir J. S. Sebright, in his essay on "The Art of Improving Domestic Animals," says: "Many causes combine to

prevent animals in a state of nature, from degenerating; they are perpetually intermixing, and, therefore, do not feel the bad effects of breeding in-and-in. The perfections of some correct the imperfections of others, and they go on without any material alteration, except what arises from the effect of food and climate. The greatest number of females, will of course, fall to the share of the most vigorous males; and the strongest individuals of both sexes, by driving away the weakest, will enjoy the best food, and the most favorable situations, for themselves and for their offspring. A severe winter, or a scarcity of food, by destroying the weak and the unhealthy, has all the good effect of the most skillful selection. In cold, barren countries no animals can live to the age of maturity but those who have strong constitutions; the weak and unhealthy do not live to propagate their infirmities, as is too often the case with our domestic animals. To this I attribute the peculiar hardiness of the horses, cattle, and sheep, bred in mountainous countries, more than to their having been inured to the severity of the climate."-American Farmer, VII. 370.

These remarks are very suggestive, and not inapplicable to the Virginia cattle of that day, many of which were virtually in the state here described. The probability is, that then, as afterwards, all large herds were divided into two classes, which received widely different treatment. Work oxen and the best milkers among the cows would be favored in winter with more and better food and shelter, and not prepared for the butcher until age had rendered them otherwise useless. Cows of inferior quality would be milked only in summer, and on the approach of winter would be left, with other cattle of their own grade, to harder fare. The common range would ordinarily be sufficient to recruit them in the mild season, and with little extra food to fit them for the shambles; and accordingly from this class were obtained their principal supplies of beef. Nor were the animals of either class left to mix at random. The same authority defines the art of breeding as "the selection of males and females intended to breed together, in reference to each other's merits and defects." There can be no doubt that the ancient Virginians understood this art in its application to horses. And this was true of the whole colonial era. They were at great expense in procuring those of the best blood from abroad, and showed great constancy and sagacity in preserving and improving their qualities. It is difficult to believe that those who were so successful here should wholly fail to apply the same principles in rearing other animals. No doubt they often erred in judgment, as this branch of the subject was not then reduced to a science; but the matter was not wholly left to chance or caprice. The three great desiderata in cattle were recognised then as now. Of oxen they would soon learn by experience which were the most hardy, strong, and tractable; of cows which yielded the largest tribute to the dairy; and, as beeves were stalled then as now, which of them most readily took on fat. Observation would show that these several qualities were more conspicuous in animals of particular families, and interest would suggest that from such should be selected the males and females intended to perpetuate the race.

IS OUR NATIONAL AGRICULTURE DETERIORATING?

89

It must be owned that among our people were many superficial observers who attached but little importance to the mere form of animals, and who supposed that, in the case of cattle and hogs especially, any defects which had been induced by a stint of food would be corrected by a more liberal supply. This error was widely prevalent, and was embodied in the proverb, "English feed makes English breed." But there were enough of the other class to redeem Virginia from the reproach of entirely neglecting so important a branch of husbandry.

It is also pertinent to remark, that many large proprietors in the eastern counties, and of those who had done most to improve the breed of horses, during the colonial period, held and cultivated estates higher up the country and nearer the frontier, where the natural range, or pasture of the fields, was better than at their places of residence; where they could more easily carry out judicious plans in regard to stock, and from whence, in fact, they drew a great part of their supplies in this kind. Attention to this subject varied with individuals and fluctuated at different times, but never wholly subsided. From the era of the successful efforts of Bakewell and Culley in improving the sheep and cattle of England, we might suppose that some of the zeal inspired by their methods and principles would extend to Virginia, and give a renewed impulse to the same interest here. And this we learn was the case.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

1.-IS OUR NATIONAL AGRICULTURE DETERIORATING!

THE Hon. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, delivered some remarks the other day in Congress, upon a proposition to endow with the public lands, Agricultural Colleges in the several States. Without expressing any opinion in regard to the proposition, we cannot refrain from introducing some of his views which demonstrate a declining ratio of increase in agricultural development, and a condition of things very far from gratifying in regard to the improvement and exhaustion of soils among us. Of the decline in Northern agriculture we have furnished evidence on previous occasions in the pages of the Review. Mr. Morrill says:

The prosperity and happiness of a large and populous nation depend

1. Upon the division of the land into small parcels.

2. Upon the education of the proprietors of the soil.

Our agriculturists, as a whole, instead of seeking a higher cultivation, are extending their boundaries; and their education, on the contrary, is limited to the metes and bounds of their forefathers.

If it be true that the common mode of cultivating the soil in all parts of our country is so defective as to make the soil poorer year by year, it is a most deplorable fact, and a fact of national concern. If we are steadily impairing the natural productiveness of the soil, it is a national waste, compensated only by private robbery. What are the facts?

In New England, the pasture-fed stock is not on the increase, and sheephusbandry is gradually growing of less importance, excepting, perhaps, in Vermont and New Hampshire. The wheat crop, once abundant, is now inconside

rable. The following table will exhibit something of the depreciation of the

crops in ten years:

2,014,111 1,090,132 35,180,500 19,418,191

In many of the Southern States the decreasing production is equally marked.

These facts, after all proper allowances for errors and a short crop, establish, conclusively, that in all parts of our country important elements in the soil have been exhausted; and its fertility, in spite of all improvements is steadily sinking. The number of acres of land in use in the State of New York, in 1825, was 7,160,967; in 1855, the number had increased to 26,758,182 acres; but the number of sheep had decreased so that there were nearly three hundred thousand less than there were thirty years ago; and within a period of five years the decrease has been nearly fifty per cent., while the decrease in the number of horses, cows, and swine, is above fifteen per cent. In 1845 the product of wheat was 13,391,770 bushels. It has steadily declined since, until the product of the past year did not exceed 6,000,000 bushels. The average yield of corn per acre in 1844 was 24.75 bushels; but in 1854 it was only 21.02 bushels.

The planting lands of Southern States have also greatly deteriorated, and some new fertilizer, beyond rotation of crops, is anxiously sought. The average crop of wheat in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina for 1850, was only seven bushels per acre. In Alabama and Georgia but five bushels per acre. And even the largest of any State in the Union, that of Massachusetts, was but sixteen bushels per acre; and this, with the leanest soil, proves her agricultural science far in advance of her sister States. While the crop of cotton in the new lands of Texas and Arkansas was seven hundred to seven hundred and fifty pounds per acre, it was but three hundred and twenty pounds per acre in the older cultivated fields of South Carolina.

In a Southern journal I find the following statement:

"An Alabama planter says that cotton has destroyed more than earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Witness the red hills of Georgia and South Carolina, which have produced cotton till the last dying gasp of the soil forbade any further attempt at cultivation; and the land, turned out to nature, reminds the traveler, as he views the dilapidated condition of the country, of the ruins of ancient Greece."

In Virginia, the crop of tobacco in 1850 was less than that of 1840, by over eighteen million pounds. No crop has proved more destructive to the fertility of the soil than the tobacco crop, and this staple commodity, unless a cheap and effective remedy can be found, must be either banished or it will banish the cultivators. In this State, where tobacco, corn, and wheat have been continued for a century, many districts are no longer cultivated. Liebig says, "that from every acre of this land, there were removed in the space of one hundred years, twelve hundred pounds of alkalies, in leaves, grain, and straw." In a letter of General Washington, dated August 6, 1786, to a friend (Arthur Young) in England, he writes: