Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Harry Lamé and the Online

  +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |                     TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES                           |
  |                                                                   |
  | Text printed in bold face in the original work is here transcribed|
  | between =, as in =text=. Text printed in italics in the original  |
  | work is represented by _text_. Text printed in small capitals is  |
  | represented here in ALL CAPITALS. Superscripts are indicated by   |
  | the caret character ^.                                            |
  |                                                                   |
  | Where the author used a different type face to indicate a shape   |
  | rather than a letter or symbol, the letters or symbols are trans- |
  | cribed between square brackets: [T], [Y] and [+].                 |
  |                                                                   |
  | More Transcriber's Notes may be found at the end of this text.    |
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

  SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

  IN

  FARM CULTIVATION.

  BY

  JAMES BUCKMAN, F.L.S., F.G.S.

  LATE PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY AND RURAL ECONOMY AT THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL
  COLLEGE.

  LONDON:
  ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
  1865.

  COX AND WYMAN,
  ORIENTAL, CLASSICAL, AND GENERAL PRINTERS,
  GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON, W.C.

  TO

  JOHN CHALMERS MORTON, ESQ.,

  _The talented Editor of the_ “AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE,”

  MANY OF THE FACTS AND OPINIONS ALREADY DETAILED
  IN WHICH INFLUENTIAL JOURNAL
  ARE HERE BUT REPEATED,

  THIS WORK

  IS DEDICATED

  AS A SMALL TOKEN OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT,

  BY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND,

  THE AUTHOR.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

HOW TO GROW GOOD ROOTS.

  CHAPTER                                                        PAGE

        I. On the Origin of Root Crops                              1
       II. On the Origin of Sorts of Roots                          9
      III. On Trueness of Sorts in Roots                           13
       IV. On Degenerate Roots                                     18
        V. Effects of Growing Seed from Degenerate Roots           23
       VI. On the Adulteration of Seed, more particularly of
           Turnips                                                 29
      VII. On the Art and Mystery of Turnip-seed Adulteration      37
     VIII. General Conclusions                                     49

PART II.

HOW TO GROW GOOD GRASSES.

       IX. On the Nature of Meadows and Pastures                   51
        X. On the Species of Meadow Grasses                        56
       XI. On Meadow Plants other than Grasses                     73
      XII. On the Weeds of Pastures                                78
     XIII. On the Irrigated Meadow                                 87
      XIV. On the Laying Down of Permanent Pastures                92
       XV. On the Management of Permanent Pastures                 98
      XVI. On the Management of Lawns                             102

PART III.

HOW TO GROW GOOD CLOVERS.

     XVII. On the Nature and Properties of the Clover Family of
           Plants                                                 109
    XVIII. On the Farm Species of Clovers                         113
      XIX. On the Varieties of Red Clovers                        121
       XX. On the Clover Allies                                   125
      XXI. On Clover Sickness                                     137
     XXII. On the Weeds of Clovers                                148
    XXIII. On the Parasites of Clovers                            156

PART IV.

HOW TO GROW GOOD CORN.

     XXIV. Nature of Corn                                         161
      XXV. Wheat: its Origin and Acclimatization                  163
     XXVI. The Wild Oat as the Origin of the Cultivated Varieties 168
    XXVII. On the supposed Origin of Barley and Rye               176
   XXVIII. Epiphytical Parasites (Vegetable Blights) of Corn
           Crops                                                  180
     XXIX. Insects (Animal Blights) affecting Corn Crops          192
      XXX. Science in the Cultivation of Corn                     204
     XXXI. On Harvesting Corn                                     213

PART V.

HOW TO GROW GOOD FENCES.

    XXXII. On the Nature of Fences                                217
   XXXIII. On the Plants for “Live” Fences                        220
    XXXIV. On the Hearing and Planting of Hedges                  227
     XXXV. Weeds of Hedge-row Fences                              234
    XXXVI. On Hedge-row Timber                                    239
   XXXVII. On the Vermin of Fences                                246
  XXXVIII. On the Management of Hedge-row Fences                  254
    XXXIX. Covenants with regard to Fences, &c.                   259

PART VI.

HOW TO GROW GOOD TIMBER.

       XL. On the Value of Timber for Ornament and Profit         265
      XLI. On the Kinds of Timber best adapted for different
           Situations                                             274
     XLII. On the British Oak                                     278
    XLIII. On the Chestnut and Walnut                             291
     XLIV. On the Elm                                             296
      XLV. On the Ash, Beech, and other White-wooded Trees        302
     XLVI. On Soft-wooded Forest Trees                            313

PART VII.

HOW TO GROW GOOD ORCHARDS.

    XLVII. On the Apple and Pear as Orchard Fruits                319
   XLVIII. On the Production and Choice of Fruit Trees            328
     XLIX. On the Gathering and Storing of Fruit                  338
        L. On Cider-making and Management                         345
       LI. On the Uses and Economy of Cider and Perry             351

  POSTSCRIPT                                                      357

THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

OF

ROOT CULTIVATION.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE ORIGIN OF ROOT CROPS.

Few people who have studied the matter attentively but have arrived at
the conclusion that those plants which we cultivate for their roots were
not naturally endowed with the root portion of their structure either of
the size or form which would now be considered as essential for a
perfect crop plant. Thus the parsnip, carrot, turnip, beet, &c., as we
find them in nature, have nowhere the large, fleshy, smooth appearance
which belongs to their cultivated forms; and hence all the varieties of
these that we meet with in cultivation must be considered as
_derivatives_ from original wild forms, obtained by _cultivative
processes_; that is, collecting their seed, planting it in a prepared
bed, stimulating the growth of the plants with manures, thinning,
regulating, weeding, and such other acts as constitute farming or
gardening, as the case may be.

Hence, then, it is concluded that such plants as are grown for their
roots have a peculiar aptitude for laying on tissue, and thus increasing
the bulk of their “descending axis,” that is, that portion of their
structure which grows downwards—root. Besides this, they are remarkable
for their capability of producing varieties—a fact which, united with a
constancy in the maintenance of an induced form, renders it exceedingly
easy to bring out new sorts which will maintain their characteristics
under great diversities of climate, soil, and treatment.

The facility with which different sorts of roots may be procured
can readily be understood from the many varieties, not only of
_turnip_—which may perhaps be considered as an original species—but also
of swede, which is a hybrid of the turnip and rape plant. Of the former
we have more than thirty sorts grown by the farmer, and as many
peculiar to the garden; whilst there are probably more than twenty
well-recognized sorts of swedes. Of beets, with mangel-wurzel, we have
almost as great a variety; so also of carrots. Of parsnips we have fewer
varieties, to which may now be added the new form called the Student
parsnip, the growth of which is so interesting that we shall here give a
short history of its production, as an illustration of the origin of
root crops.

In 1847 we collected some wild parsnip seed from the top of the
Cotteswolds, where this is among the most frequent of weeds. This seed,
after having been kept carefully during the winter, was sown in a
prepared bed, in the spring of 1848, in drills about eighteen inches
apart. As the plants grew they were duly thinned out, leaving for the
crop, as far as it could be done, the specimens that had leaves with
the broadest divisions, lightest colour, and fewest hairs. As cultivated
parsnips offer a curious contrast with the wild specimens in these
respects, we place the following notes, side by side, on the root-leaves
of plants of the same period of growth.

      1st. WILD PARSNIP.            |     2nd. STUDENT PARSNIP.
                            Ft. in. |                          Ft. in.
  Whole length from the             | Whole length from the
  base of the petiole to            | base of the petiole to
  the apex of the leaf       0   8  | the tip of the leaf       2   0
  Breadth of leaflets        0   0¾ | Breadth of leaflets       3   0¼
  Length of ditto            0   1  | Length of leaflets        0   6½
  Petiole and leaflets,             | Petiole and leaflets
  hairy. Colour, dark               | without hair. Colour,
  green.                            | light green.

[Illustration: _Figures 1 and 2._—Roots of Wild Parsnips. Natural size.]

We have before remarked that neither in size nor form are the wild roots
at all comparable with the cultivated ones. Our figures 1 and 2 were
taken from fine roots of the wild parsnip of the first year’s growth;
that is to say, just at the same time as a crop parsnip would be at its
best. They were purposely taken from specimens obtained from the same
district as the seed with which our experiments were commenced.

Our first crop of roots from the wild seed presented great diversities
in shape, being for the most part even more forked than the originals,
but still with a general tendency to fleshiness. Of these the best
shaped were reserved for seeding; and having been kept the greater part
of the winter in sand, some six of the best were planted in another plot
for seed. The seed, then, of 1849 was sown in the spring of 1850, in a
freshly-prepared bed, the plants being treated as before, the results
showing a decided improvement, with tendencies in some examples in the
following directions:—

     1st. The round-topped long-root, having a resemblance to the
     Guernsey parsnip. (_Panais long_ of the French.)

     2nd. The hollow-crowned long-root. “Hollow-headed” of the gardener.
     (_Panais Lisbonais_ type.)

     3rd. The short, thick turnip-shaped root. “Turnip-rooted” of the
     gardener. (_Panais rond_ form.)

These three forms were all of them much mis-shapen, with forked roots,
that is, _fingers and toes_; but still each of them offered
opportunities of procuring three original varieties from this new
source.

As an example of progress, we offer the following engraving of a
specimen of our Round-topped parsnip of 1852. Fig. 3.

This it will be seen has strong, fleshy forks, and a tendency to form
divided tap-roots; otherwise the shape is greatly improved, and the skin
is tolerably smooth.

At this time our stock was for the most part fleshy and soft on boiling;
the flavour, too, though much stronger than that of the usual esculent
parsnip, was rather agreeable than otherwise.

This matter of flavour is a subject of interest, as most lovers of the
parsnip, as a garden esculent, had got to complain of this root becoming
more and more tasteless. That this was so our own experience most fully
confirms; we have now, however, mended this root very materially in this
respect.

Our experiments were only carried on with examples of the Hollow-crowned
form, which following out from year to year, we at length obtained so
perfect in form, clean in outline, delicate in skin, and unexceptionable
in flavour, that we were induced to cause its seed to be distributed
through the medium of the trade.

[Illustration: _Fig. 3._—Round-topped Parsnip, five generations from
wild root.]

In 1881 we sowed a parcel of seed in our own garden obtained from the
Messrs. Sutton, after having received from them the following notes upon
the growth of the roots in their grounds:—

     We are happy to tell you that in lifting some of each of all the
     varieties of parsnips in our trial-ground, your “Student” was
     decidedly the best shape, varying in length, but always clean and
     straight.

[Illustration: _Fig. 4._—Student Parsnip of 1861. Two-thirds of natural
size.]

The engraving (Fig. 4) is taken from our garden stock of 1861, as being
a common shape of this new variety. It is not quite so long and slender
as the usual Long-horned parsnip, but its clean unbranched outline and
solidity of structure recommend it as a good variety, whilst its flavour
has been highly extolled by the lover of this, to some, favorite root.
In size it is scarcely large enough for a field crop, but though not at
present recommenced for the farm, its history may well serve to explain
the origin of crop plants, as derived from the cultivation and
improvement of wild species.[1]

[1] It may here be noted that the Student parsnip took the first prize
for this root at the International Show at the Horticultural Society’s
Gardens in 1862.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE ORIGIN OF SORTS OF ROOTS.

As crop plants are derived from wild ones, as the effect of cultivation,
it follows as a matter of course that these will be varied, both in form
and constitution, according to the circumstances under which they have
been produced. Thus we may expect that any attempts to ennoble a wild
root in different countries would not, even if successful, be sure to
bring about the same results. Much depends even upon the individual root
with which our trial may be started, and more upon the judgment employed
in selecting the stock from which the experiments are to be continued.

That position and soil may make a great difference may be inferred from
the fact that the attempts to improve the wild parsnip and carrot have
met with varied success. De Candolle is reported to have tried to
improve the carrot with success, whilst with the parsnip he utterly
failed; whilst Professor Lindley, in Morton’s “Cyclopædia of
Agriculture,” tells us that M. Ponsard has ascertained that “the wild
parsnip becomes improved immediately when cultivated, and that
experiments in improving its quality promise well:” how well, indeed,
may be seen from the foregoing chapter. But still, we utterly failed
with the wild carrot. Having collected seeds of the _Daucus Carota_ (the
common wild carrot) from some fine specimens growing on the road-side
between Cirencester and Cheltenham, they were subjected to experiment at
the same time as the parsnip, but with little, if any, favourable
result. Upon this plant Professor Lindley observes as follows:—

     That the hard-rooted wild carrot is really the parent of our
     cultivated varieties, remarkable as they are for the succulence and
     tenderness of their roots, has been experimentally proved by M.
     Vilmorin, who succeeded in obtaining by cultivation perfectly
     tender, eatable roots, from seeds saved from plants only three or
     four generations off the wild species.

Still, a modern French naturalist of great experience, M. Decaisne,
tells us that he has tried to ennoble the wild carrot, and has not
succeeded; and from this he draws the conclusion that our cultivated
forms were created specially for the use of man. As we should suppose
that very few botanists agree to this theory, we shall let the facts we
have already brought forward stand in maintenance of its opposite,
namely, that cultivated forms are derived from wild species often
apparently very different; but at the same time it may be well to state,
that in all probability some of the discrepancies of experimenters may
have arisen from some confusion in the species operated upon.

In 1860 we gathered some seed of the _Daucus maritima_ (sea-side carrot)
at Bognor, which, on being sown in a prepared plot the following spring,
certainly resulted in fairly succulent roots, which on being cooked were
pronounced by our party of four to be excellent. While on this subject,
it may be mentioned as not a little remarkable, that so many of our
garden esculents should be derived from sea-side plants. Thus, probably
carrot, but certainly celery, sea-kale, asparagus, and cabbage. This
would seem to point to the fact that cultivation requires a complete
change of the circumstances necessary to maintain a wild condition; and
hence cultivated plants can only be kept up by the labours of a
cultivator.

Now, as regards the sea-side carrot, we are after all inclined to the
belief that it is the parent of the cultivated varieties, whilst, on the
other hand, we view the _Daucus Carota_ (the wild inland carrot) as a
probable descendant from the cultivated or garden stock; and if this be
so, the _Daucus maritima_ is the original species from which both the
wild and cultivated races have descended. Bentham, indeed, carries this
view a little further, the following remarks tending to throw doubts
upon the carrot in any form as being a true native. Under the heading of
_Daucus Carota_ he says:—

     Probably an original native of the sea-coasts of modern Europe, but
     of very ancient cultivation, and sows itself most readily, soon
     degenerating to the wild form, with a slender root, and _now_ most
     abundant in fields, pastures, waste places, &c., throughout Europe
     and Russian Asia; common in Britain, especially near the sea.
     _Flowers the whole summer and autumn._ A decidedly maritime
     variety, with the leaves somewhat fleshy, with shorter segments,
     more or less thickened peduncles, more spreading umbels, and more
     flattened prickles to the fruits, is often considered as a distinct
     species.

Seeing then that crop plants are derivatives from a wild stock, we can
readily understand how the varying circumstances attendant upon the
development of the former should tend to the production of varieties,
and this merely as the result of the treatment of the fairly derived
legitimate seed. If, again, we take these variations for the purpose of
obtaining hybrids, we need not wonder at the infinite variety of sorts
which can be brought about, but rather that any sort could be maintained
in that trueness of character or in that state of permanency which we
sometimes find to be the case.

CHAPTER III.

ON TRUENESS OF SORT IN ROOT CROPS.

The importance of trueness and purity of seed arises from the evenness
of growth of a good genuine strain; while if this quality be wanting we
have some parts of our crop growing well, whilst others get on but
poorly. Thus a free-growing plant beside one over which it has got the
advantage, maintains it for the most part through the whole period of
growth. Again, some sorts are of value for being early, others for
lateness of growth, and some kinds are better fitted for early than late
sowing; if, therefore, we have a mixture in these respects, we may at
least expect a partial failure; for whichever is _best_ for our purpose,
if mixed will be accompanied by those which are not so good. A want of
trueness to sort may arise principally from the following causes:—

1st. Want of selection in seeding bulbs.

2nd. Hybridization.

3rd. A mixture of seeds.

1st. The propriety of selecting the specimens from which seed is to be
grown is admitted by all: by the seedsman, who always advertises his
turnip and swede seed, for example, as being “from selected bulbs;” and
by the farmer, as this announcement is only made to induce him to buy.
It is not only important that the roots should be selected, but that
they should be stored and then planted in a fresh soil; for as these
latter are among the _cultivative processes_ by which sorts have been
obtained, so should they be repeated in order to ensure a continuance of
the induced condition. Seeding upon the same soil and in the same bed in
which the seed is sown is hardly the way to keep up a form induced by
cultivation, as this is exactly what would be done by the plants in a
state of wildness.

In selecting roots for seeding, care should be taken to choose
good-shaped examples, in which a clean unbranched bulb, not too large,
with a small tap-root and a small top, confined to a single central bud;
a branched root and a many-headed top being true signs of degeneracy.
And no less so is neckiness in swedes and mangels, as well as a coarse
corrugated skin in roots of all kinds.

Taking such points as these into consideration, how absurd must appear
most of the huge mis-shapen roots to which prizes are usually awarded at
shows, where the specimens are chosen for size, and trimmed up with the
knife, to make them look more presentable. As an evidence of the
mistaken principles upon which prizes are awarded to bundles of roots,
let any one seed such examples, and we will venture to assert that such
seed would produce a large proportion of degenerate examples, without
affording so good a crop as would seed, from middle-sized but
well-shapen specimens.

2nd. Some of the forms of roots, and more especially those belonging to
the _Brassicaceæ_, such as turnips and swedes, seem to have a wonderful
facility for hybridizing; and this not only to the extent of one sort of
turnip with another, but sports may be caused by the fertilization of
the turnip with rape and its congeners. Indeed, the hybrid with turnip
and rape is doubtless the origin of the Swedish turnip; but there is
reason to believe that mixtures may accidentally be made with such wild
plants as charlocks and mustards, the growth of which in the vicinity of
a seeding crop tends to the production of degeneracy. Seeding-patches,
then, and the ground about them, cannot be kept too clean.

Again, if trueness be aimed at, there should be no mixture of sorts in
seeding examples; all of the same kind should be selected for
seeding-plots, as even one or two of a wrong sort may result in a very
mixed sample, as it would seem that sometimes strange plants exert more
than ordinary influence.

Of course, the putting seeding-patches of different sorts side by side
is to be reprehended. If more than one sort be seeded in a season, it is
advisable to place the patches as remote from each other as possible.
And we would here remark, that, for seeding, the roots should, as a
rule, be farther apart than when grown for bulbs, both in rows and in
sets; as, if too close, the stems grow up thin instead of robust, and a
smaller seed, with a tendency to the growth of smaller roots, will be
the result.

3rd. Mixtures of seeds should be avoided for the reason assigned, that
“sorts” do not usually grow evenly; and when one sees (as is by no means
infrequent) a patch of swedes overshadowed by a mixture of some large
early turnip,—the Tankard, for example, our crop of swedes will
certainly suffer for it, even supposing the turnip to be as useful as
the swede, which is seldom the case.

Mixtures, again, do not come up at the same time; sorts may differ in
this respect, but especially do old and new seeds vary as to their
germinating powers: two-year-old seeds taking four or five days more to
come up than a new sample; thus giving a greater chance for the ravages
of the flea-beetle than where the seed all comes up quickly.

Now, as a practical application of these remarks, we here quote from an
article in the _Agricultural Gazette_ of May 24th, 1862.

     Who among seedsmen does not profess to offer the seeds of swedes
     and turnips from _selected bulbs_? And though it is quite true that
     the practice is not so universal as is the profession of it, yet
     the general assumption of its being so on the part of seed growers
     and sellers is an admission that it would be for the advantage of
     the buyer of seeds were the roots from which seeds are to be grown
     carefully selected. And on the other hand, let the observant
     agriculturist take a journey on any of our great lines of railway
     (in early summer), and he will be struck with the many patches of
     bright yellow flowers which he will not fail to notice on either
     hand. In nine cases out of ten, these are fields or portions of
     fields of turnips, either the Swedish or common kinds, which, from
     the abundance of keep, it has been thought would be more profitable
     to seed than to eat off, especially as they have so rapidly grown
     out of the way. Are these patches of selected bulbs? We happen to
     know, from a more than ordinarily careful examination, that not one
     _per cent._ of seeding-patches are from selected roots; but they
     are seeded just as they grew, and we do not know of a single
     instance where in such seeding the objectionable roots have been
     removed; but we do know of plenty of cases where the worst part of
     a field has been saved for seed, doubtless as the most profitable
     way of dealing with it under the circumstances wrought out by the
     spring of 1862.

     Of course, this will all come into the market, and too much of it,
     under a stereotyped declaration of ‘_from selected bulbs_.’ That
     all the seed grown in 1862 will be sown in 1863 is simply
     impossible; but no matter, it will find a market somehow, some
     time. With such facts as these before us, who can wonder that any
     plant should become degenerate? Let some of the seed of this year
     be watched, and we will answer for its evil results; and if these
     be facts, it then behoves the farmer to look well to pedigree in
     the matter of his seed.

     But even here, his forethought must not end; for however select the
     parent may be, there is still something in ‘bringing up;’ for,
     however good the _sort_ of turnip, we shall not grow its seed in
     perfection by selection merely, but we should _transplant_
     well-chosen roots, and so put them in a new scene, away from
     subjects which might contaminate them. This is indeed to bring them
     up in a _good school_, for which their seed will amply repay the
     trouble and expense.

CHAPTER IV.

ON DEGENERATE ROOTS.

If the reader revert to page 6, Fig. 3, he will see that the progress
from a wild to a better root-form is marked by a more fleshy, but still
a much forked, or finger-and-toed example. Now as it is held that a
clear unbranched outline is essential to a well-formed root crop of
every kind, whenever a crop becomes fingered-and-toed, it is looked upon
as a disease. It must be understood that we are here speaking of
finger-and-toe as distinct from anbury, which latter is a decidedly
diseased condition, whether caused by insects or resulting, as some
affirm, from a defect in the soil.

The difference in the two states may be briefly summed up as follows:—

        FINGER-AND-TOE.            |           ANBURY.
  Root simply branched or forked,  | Root infested with irregular
  with tapering fleshy rootlets;   | nodular protuberances, or with
  occurs in turnips, parsnips,     | tumours suspended by roots,
  carrots, and mangold. (See       | having very much the aspect of
  figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,    | rows of ginger; occurs in
  10.)                             | turnips alone. (See fig. 12.)

The example of a root at page 6 is a good form of a parsnip progressing
from wildness to a better cultivated form. We now offer an engraving
(fig. 5) of a hollow-crowned crop parsnip, fingered-and-toed, and
evidently of a very objectionable form, as it will be seen on
comparison how nearly alike are figs. 3 and 5.

[Illustration: _Fig. 5._—Finger-and-toed degenerate Parsnip. Half nat.
size.]

Now, as every degenerate crop of parsnips will be found to offer a large
proportion of such roots as fig. 5, we seem bound to conclude that,
inasmuch as our fig. 3 _represents a root in progress towards
ennobling_, so fig. 5 is that of a root declining to its level,—in other
words, degenerating; seed, therefore, that produces such roots can only
come from a poor stock.

Our next fig. (6) is of a parsnip that had prematurely flowered. Sending
up flowered stems the first year, in the case of a biennial, can only be
looked upon as an instance of degeneracy. Plants that “run,” as it is
termed, being comparatively useless, the best use, indeed, that can be
made of them being that of pulling them up and giving them to the pigs.

Now this propensity is always accompanied with forked roots, more
especially in carrots, which roots are even more degenerate than those
represented in figs. 3 and 5, as those were fleshy and succulent; but
when the roots of runners are examined, they are always found to be
tough and woody, and, in fact, they very nearly resemble the wild
examples.

[Illustration: _Fig. 6._ Carrot of First Year run to Seed. Half nat.
size.]

Fig. 7 is taken from a carrot that has run, and its rough, woody,
nodular, forked root is fully apparent.

[Illustration: _Fig. 7._ Forked Carrot run to seed. Half nat. size.]

[Illustration: _Fig. 8._ Forked Belgian Carrot. Half nat. size.]

Fig. 8, from a specimen of White Belgian carrot, forked as it is, is yet
not uncommon; still, here the divided roots are succulent. This differs
from the annual or run-to-seed roots, as this is a real biennial; but
its other mark of degeneracy, besides that of finger-and-toe, was in its
possessing a top (removed for experiment before the drawing was made) of
many buds or heads. Now a _multiheaded_ root, whether in turnips,
carrots, parsnip, or mangel, is another sign of degeneracy, especially
in the carrot or mangel, as the wild examples are remarkable for this
condition; and in ennobling these roots, one of the difficulties is to
get rid of this propensity. Hence, at root shows all forked examples of
bulbs, multiheaded and necky examples, should be rejected; they are,
however, sometimes made so fat with manuring that they pass muster for
size, which indeed seems to be the great quality required at shows:
which is a serious mistake, as being no sort of criterion of the state
of a field of roots, unless it be an adverse one: as a 10 lb. malformed
root, with its huge top, will require more ground to grow than will half
a dozen roots averaging 2 lbs. each; whilst the latter are certain to be
better and will keep longer.

CHAPTER V.

EFFECTS OF GROWING SEED FROM DEGENERATE ROOTS.

That the seed of malformed roots would be likely to produce a poor crop
was a subject admitted by all; but neither the form nor extent of the
mischief resulting therefrom had been stated upon the authority of exact
experiment. In order, therefore, to arrive at direct evidence upon a
point upon which so much of practical importance depends, we carefully
carried out the following experiments.

[Illustration: _Fig. 9._ A Malformed or Degenerate Parsnip. Two-thirds
of nat. size.]

On the 26th of March, 1860, we selected two roots from a store, namely,
one of a Student parsnip from our own stock and one of a Skirving’s
swede. Before committing these to the ground for the growth of seed, we
made careful portraits of the two roots, of which that of the parsnip
will be found in fig. 9, that of the swede in fig. 10.

[Illustration: _Fig. 10._ A Malformed or Degenerate Swede. Two-thirds of
nat. size.]

Now had we been going to grow the best of seed, we should of course have
selected the best-shaped roots for our purpose; but in this case, as
will be seen, the most viciously formed examples were chosen.

Both of the examples whose portraits we have here given, were planted in
our private garden (where, it is right to say, they were the only
seeding specimens), in due time their seed ripened, which was carefully
collected and stored.

Early in April, 1861, these seeds were sown in our experimental plots,
_without manure_, in the following order:—

  Plot _a._ Seed obtained from the malformed parsnip, fig. 9.

       _b._ Seed of Student parsnip of the same year as that of
            plot _a_.

       _c._ Seed of malformed swede.

The plot _b_ was sown by way of comparison, and we can only regret that
no plot of good swede seed was sown with the same object, and we must,
therefore, compare with a piece of swedes in an adjoining field.

The following are the tabulated results:—

  TABLE OF RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS.

                                          lb. oz.
  Plot _a_. 75 roots, forming the crop }
  from seed of the malformed           }   7   4
  parsnip (fig. 8) weighed in all      }

  Plot _b_. 63 roots forming the crop  }  14   0
  from seed of good Student parsnips   }

  Plot _c_. 70 roots of swedes from    }
  seed of malformed plant (fig. 10.)   }  19   8

            70 roots from a row in the }
  field, at a distance of about 30     }  35   0
  yards                                }

The roots from plot _a_ may be described as small, though not so much
fingered-and-toed as we had expected; still there was only about half
the crop when compared with plot _b_, which latter, indeed, was only
small in weight, which may be accounted for from being grown without
manure. During their progress of growth the difference was very
perceptible—the small leaves of _a_ contrasting most unfavourably with
the broader, brighter coloured ones of _b_.

As regards the swedes, they were indeed a very poor crop, presenting all
the evils of degeneracy—neckiness, for which it will be seen that their
parent was distinguished—want of a bulboid form; none of the 70 roots
being better than a thin tap-root, and these were forked, shapeless, and
fingered-and-toed in endless variety. Their spindle-shaped roots were
quite remarkable, and they were the rule, although in good seed, however
bad the soil, they would have been the exception. Those in the field
hard by were bulboid, and averaged half a pound each—no great weight, as
the land in which they were grown is only second-rate. They, however,
were grown with manure, to which, of course, much of the difference is
due, and yet not so much as may fairly be imputed to the difference in
seed. From these experiments we conclude:—

     1st. That a degenerate stock will, as a rule, result from the
     employment of degenerate or badly-grown seed.

     2nd. That besides ugly, malformed roots, degenerated seed does not
     produce nearly the weight of crop of good seed, under the same
     circumstances of growth.

     3rd. That by means of selection we may produce roots that are
     well-shaped, and have the capabilities of affording the best crop.

     4th. That by designedly selecting malformed degenerate roots for
     seeding, we may produce a seed that will result in as great or
     greater degeneracy.

“That these are important conclusions”—we quote from the _Agricultural
Gazette_—“few will be disposed to deny. They have most interesting
bearings on the subject of vegetable physiology, and consequently should
be studied by the farmer.”

It is a practice much to be desired, that not only should a proper
choice be made of seeding examples, but that there be a change of
situation, and, if possible, a time of storage before being planted for
seed. These are all cultivative processes, and to the care with which
they are carried out must we look for permanence in our derivative
root-crops.

It cannot be too strongly urged, that, as an efficient sort of root has
only been arrived at as the result of great care—that is, by successful
breeding,—so every care must be taken for its maintenance. Defect in
seed results in defect in the produce of that seed; and downward
tendencies of this kind are common results of even most careful
cultivation. With carelessness in this respect we must not be surprised
at rapid degeneracy.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE ADULTERATION OF SEEDS, MORE PARTICULARLY OF TURNIPS.

In order to make the experiments which illustrate this chapter tell
their tale to the fullest extent, we would set out with the two
following postulates:—

     1st. All well-grown, well-preserved new seeds should be _capable_
     of germinating to the extent of at least 90 per cent.

     2nd. Seeds in general, and more especially turnip seeds, as usually
     delivered to the farmer, are generally _incapable_ of germinating
     to the extent of from 25 to 30 per cent., and very frequently even
     more.

We shall hereafter see, that this want of germinating power is too often
the result of mixing charlock, Indian rape, and the like, by way of
adulteration, which latter are killed to prevent “their telling tales.”
But to our experiments:—

A number of tin cases were made of the following proportions: Length, 15
inches; width, 10 inches; depth, 4 inches. These, which were well
perforated at the bottom, were divided across into ten equal parts, each
of which was filled to within an inch of the rim, with a mixture of fine
mould and silver sand. In these, seeds of different sorts of turnips
were sown, and the whole was put into a bed of sand in our
forcing-house. We could, however, see no difference in the results, nor
could we trace any in the germinal or cotyledon leaves of swedes,
turnips, or charlock. But, of course, samples of turnip-seed could not
be tested as to freedom from charlock by this experiment, because
charlock is killed before being mixed with the turnip.

Now, seeing that we could get no trustworthy results by this kind of
experiment, it struck us that our germination-pans might be used to test
the germinating power, not only of the samples we had obtained for a
different purpose, but of others also. We first, then, counted a hundred
of each of the following sorts of seeds, and carefully dibbled them in a
fresh mixture of soil, in September, 1860; the results, which were as
carefully noted from day to day, are shortly given in the following
table:—

TABLE 1.—_Germination of Ten Sorts of Turnips._

  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  |   |                                     | Came up |No. of|         |
  |No.|       Name, Copy of Label.          |per cent.| Days.|         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  | 1 | Mousetail, 1859                     |    96   |  10  |         |
  | 2 | Pomeranian, or White Globe, 1859    |    86   |  11  |         |
  | 3 | Nimble Green Round, 1859            |    96   |   7  |         |
  | 4 | Lincolnshire new Red Globe, 1860    |    90   |   9  |         |
  | 5 | Yellow Tankard, 1859                |    92   |   9  |         |
  | 6 | Smart’s Mousetail, 1860             |    98   |   7  |         |
  | 7 | Green-topped Stone, 1860            |    84   |   8  |         |
  | 8 | Sutton’s Imperial Green Globe, 1860 |    98   |   9  |         |
  | 9 | Green-topped Scotch, 1860           |    90   |   9  |         |
  |10 | Early Six-weeks, 1860               |    90   |  10  |         |
  |   | Came up                            =|    92   |      |         |
  |   | Failed                             =|     8   |      |         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+

We would remark upon these results, that the temperature of the house
was kept at between 60° and 70°, and the greater part of the seeds came
up in four days; the numbers for the days, then, have reference to the
time occupied before all that would germinate came up. Now this table is
not a little instructive, as showing that samples of turnip-seed can be
got in which only a very few of the seeds fail to germinate; but as
experience had taught us that these samples by no means represented the
usual market condition of turnip-seeds, in order to test this we begged
to be allowed permission to take samples direct from the bags of a
retail seedsman as they were exposed in his shop, and the following
results will speak for themselves.

It should, however, be here premised that the samples were not grown by
the seedsman, but were said to be just as received from the wholesale
dealers.

TABLE 2.—_Germination of Ten Sorts of Turnip Seeds from Market Samples._

  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  |   |                                     | Came up |No. of|         |
  |No.|           Copy of Label.            |per cent.| Days.|         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  | 1 | Norfolk Green round                 |    76   |   9  |}        |
  | 2 | White Globe                         |    78   |  15  |}        |
  | 3 | Early Grey-topped Stone             |    80   |  10  |}        |
  | 4 | Red Tankard, or Pudding             |    62   |  11  |}Taken   |
  | 5 | Orange Jelly                        |    52   |  15  |}from the|
  | 6 | Norfolk Round Red                   |    80   |  10  |}bags by |
  | 7 | Purple-topped yellow Scotch         |    76   |  11  |}the     |
  | 8 | White Dutch                         |    64   |  12  |}Author. |
  | 9 | Early Green top                     |    64   |  13  |}        |
  |10 | Yellow Tankard Pudding              |    48   |  12  |}        |
  |   | Came up                            =|    68   |      |         |
  |   | Failed                             =|    32   |      |         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+

Eight samples of swedes from the same source are in the next table
associated with a sample of Skirving’s swede, grown in our own garden
(8), of the following table, and another of turnip (9), grown on a
neighbouring farm. We may remark upon the last-named sample, that we had
observed the growth of this seed, which was from a very poor crop, half
of which had decayed on the ground with the early frost of 1860, and the
rest, without transplanting or selection of any kind, was allowed to
seed. Now, as this whole crop was so degenerated that it ought never to
have been seeded at all, we were anxious to get some of the seed from
the bulk, in order to test from its growth this year whether it will not
bring forth a degenerate progeny. Its germinating qualities will be seen
from the table, and yet it is by no means the worst sample, which seems
to show that the others are not naturally bad, but so by mixture.

TABLE 3.—_Germination of Swedes, &c., from Market Samples, &c._

  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  |   |                                     | Came up |No. of|         |
  |No.|           Copy of Label.            |per cent.| Days.|         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  | 1 | Ashcroft’s improved Purple Top      |    58   |  12  |}        |
  | 2 | New Bangholm                        |    96   |  10  |}        |
  | 3 | Skirving’s Liverpool                |    62   |  16  |}        |
  | 4 | Green Top                           |    78   |  10  |}Taken   |
  | 5 | Marshall’s improved Purple Top      |    90   |  10  |}from the|
  | 6 | Hewer’s Improved White              |    68   |  17  |}bags by |
  | 7 | Green Major                         |    86   |  10  |}the     |
  | 8 | Skirving’s Swede (own grown)        |    96   |  10  |}Author. |
  | 9 | Green Top Turnip, neighbour’s farm  |    78   |   6  |}        |
  |10 | Fosterton Hybrid Turnip             |    64   |  10  |}        |
  |   | Came up                            =|    77·6 |      |         |
  |   | Failed                             =|    22·4 |      |         |
  |   | Failed of seedsman’s specimens     =|    24·8 |      |         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+

Now, as “0 0 0” seed is supplied to customers under the designation here
given, for the purpose of mixing, it is of little consequence whether it
be used by the wholesale house or the retail dealer; if, however, it be
employed by both, we should, indeed, get a bad sample.

As regards the seedsman’s samples in the Tables 2 and 3, we are quite
unable to give exact details of their history, but we have reason to
believe that the stock whence they were taken was purchased in the
ordinary course of business from different “wholesale houses,” as,
though the tradesman whence the samples came combines the business of
“nurseryman” with that of seedsman, we happen to know that he is not a
grower of seeds, at least of turnip seeds. The average, then, of
eighteen samples of turnips and swedes from this source is that 28 _per
cent._ are non-germinating seeds. The next samples are from people in a
large way of business, who are not mere retailers, but to whom we must
accord all the immunities of the trade as seed-growers, wholesale and
retail seed-merchants, &c.

Before giving the tables with the results as regards these samples, it
is necessary to state that they were not sent to us direct, but were
forwarded through a farmer to whom they were sent in the ordinary small
packet samples.

We would further remark, that as all that would germinate took so few
days about it, being an average of six days, whilst those of Table 1,
being seeds partly of 1859 and partly of 1860, occupied nine days, and
those of Table 2, whose date we do not know, eleven days; in all
probability the seeds in question were tolerably new, most probably of
the last seed season.

TABLE 4.—_Germination of Ten Samples of Turnips._

  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  |   |                                     | Came up |No. of|         |
  |No.|           Copy of Label.            |per cent.| Days.|         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  | 1 | Green Globe                         |    62   |   8  |}        |
  | 2 | Dale’s Hybrid                       |    84   |   4  |}        |
  | 3 | Red Globe                           |    90   |   6  |}Turnips |
  | 4 | Orange Jelly                        |   100   |   4  |}from    |
  | 5 | White round, or Norfolk             |    42   |   5  |}sample  |
  | 6 | Green Tankard                       |    50   |   6  |}papers  |
  | 7 | Scarisbrick (_sic_)                 |    88   |  11  |}communi-|
  | 8 | White Globe                         |    74   |   4  |}cated.  |
  | 9 | Golden Yellow                       |    82   |   4  |}        |
  |10 | Green round                         |    30   |   6  |}        |
  |   | Came up                            =|    70·2 |      |         |
  |   | Failed                             =|    29·8 |      |         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+

The specimens in next table were obtained in like manner as those of
Table 4.

TABLE 5.—_Germination of Samples of Common and Swede Turnips._

  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  |   |                                     | Came up |No. of|         |
  |No.|       Name. Copy of Label.          |per cent.| Days.|         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+
  | 1 | White Stone or Stubble              |    46   |   6  |}        |
  | 2 | Red Tankard                         |    60   |   5  |}Swedes &|
  | 3 | White Tankard                       |    60   |   4  |}Turnips |
  | 4 | Yellow Tankard                      |    88   |   5  |}from    |
  | 5 | Green Top Yellow Scotch             |    84   |   6  |}sample  |
  | 6 | Purple Top  ditto                   |    62   |   8  |}papers  |
  | 7 | Tankard-shaped Swede                |    74   |   7  |}communi-|
  | 8 | White-fleshed  ditto                |    84   |   8  |}cated.  |
  | 9 | Skirving’s Improved Purple Top ditto|    64   |   8  |}        |
  |10 | Lawhead Green Top                   |    80   |   7  |}        |
  |   | Came up                            =|    70·2 |      |         |
  |   | Failed                             =|    29·8 |      |         |
  +---+-------------------------------------+---------+------+---------+

Of these samples we see that within a fraction of 30 per cent. is the
average of non-germinating seeds, and this is only so low on account of
two or three unusually good samples, the general range being from 20 to
30 per cent. of non-germinating seeds for the last twenty samples.

If we compare No. 5, Table 2, with No. 4, Table 4, we see a difference
in the Orange Jelly Turnip; in the former little more than half came up,
in the latter every seed. This is of importance, as showing what genuine
seed may be, the latter being doubtless as unmixed as the former was
mixed.

Now as regards the charge of mixing, we are not going to make it without
some evidence. In looking over the tables we have now given, it will be
seen that genuine seed has but a small per-centage of non-germinating
seeds—say from 5 to 10 per cent.; but not only the examples herein
referred to, with hosts of separate ones which have fallen under our
notice, show a general amount of dead seeds, of from 20 to 30 per cent.
For these figures compare Table 1 with Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. In those
of the first lot the samples were sent direct to us from a seedsman, and
their behaviour shows us clearly enough that good seeds are to be
obtained, but the other tables are as clear that from _some_ seedsmen,
at any rate, though inferior samples, they are as good as are actually
sold.

That seeds are mixed we have, then, good internal evidence; but we are
also in possession of facts more conclusive upon this important point,
and we shall in this next chapter endeavour to enlighten our readers as
to the art and mystery (especially) of turnip-seed adulteration.

Confining our present remarks to turnip seeds, we assert that if farmers
will try the germinating powers from the _bulk_ of the seed which may be
sent to them, they will find pretty nearly one-third to be rubbish. It
is of no use to try from samples, except in comparison with bulk; and if
all the farmers of Great Britain did this, and would communicate the
results, what an extraordinary tale would be unfolded, more especially
if the evidence be completed by notes on the purity or otherwise of the
crop grown from such seeds!

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE ART AND MYSTERY OF TURNIP-SEED ADULTERATION.

It has already been shown that turnip-seed is largely adulterated; it
remains now to point out the nature of the admixtures, which may be
summed up under the following heads:—

     1st. Old seeds are mixed with new.

     2nd. Charlock, “Indian rape,” and other seeds of the _Brassicaceæ_,
     are mixed with genuine seed.

1st.—The crops of seeds vary so much in their produce per acre, in one
year, as compared with another, that in most years there is a
superabundance of some kinds and a scarcity of others.

Now, as most seeds are of comparatively little use except for sowing,
the surplus stock can only be disposed of at extremely low prices.
Accordingly some wholesale seedsmen buy large quantities in the “glut
season,” as it is termed, and store them until the same articles fail in
crop. For instance, swede and turnip seeds, 1857 crop, could be bought
everywhere at from 15 to 20 shillings per bushel; but owing to the
destruction of the roots in the winter of 1859, seedsmen in 1860 had to
pay the growers 50s. per bushel. Now, in 1860 there were wholesale
houses selling those seeds which they had by them for the same price.
Such people can, it is true, warrant their seeds to be genuine, as they
well know how much turnip-seeds deteriorate by keeping; the mixing of
this with good seed is still a species of adulteration; and if not mixed
at all, we can then only say that the evil is so much the greater.

As an evidence of the amount of deterioration caused to turnip-seeds by
keeping, we here re-produce the table of trials of ten sorts of good
seeds made in September, 1860, in contrast with experiments from the
same sample, in the same month of the present year (1862), premising
that the samples were kept in what we should consider a dry but not too
warm a temperature.

TABLE 6.—_Germination of Ten Sorts of Turnips._

  +---+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
  |   |                                     |Came up |Came up |
  |No.|       Name. Copy of Label.          | 1860.  | 1862.  |
  |   |                                     |Percent.|Percent.|
  +---+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
  | 1 | Mousetail, 1859                     |   96   |   46   |
  | 2 | Pomeranian or White Globe, 1859     |   86   |   44   |
  | 3 | Nimble Green Round, 1859            |   96   |   94   |
  | 4 | Lincolnshire New Red Globe, 1860    |   90   |   58   |
  | 5 | Yellow Tankard, 1859                |   92   |   62   |
  | 6 | Smart’s Mousetail, 1860             |   98   |   92   |
  | 7 | Green-topped Stone, 1860            |   84   |   88   |
  | 8 | Sutton’s Imperial Green Globe, 1860 |   98   |   80   |
  | 9 | Green-topped Scotch, 1860           |   90   |   86   |
  |10 | Early Six-weeks, 1860               |   90   |   70   |
  |   | Came up (average)                  =|   92   |   72   |
  |   | Failed                             =|    8   |   28   |
  +---+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+

These figures are interesting as showing that though the different sorts
are not affected equally, yet the seed of 1859 failed on the average to
the extent of 38·8 per cent., as against 24·6 for the seed of 1860, and
28 as the average of the whole samples. Such is the great difference
between two and three year old seeds.

2nd.—Even the above _genuine seeds_ (!) are not unfrequently mixed, and
we may now examine the nature of some of these mixtures. Charlock and
Indian rape are all _prepared_ for this purpose: that is to say, they
are rendered incapable of germinating before mixture—“Dead men tell no
tales.” Now rubbish, so prepared, is well known in the trade as 000
seed. Under this denomination all seedsmen know it, and it can be
procured by the trade at about 7s. per bushel.

With respect to this 000 seed, we direct attention to the following
letter addressed to a most respectable firm.

     SOUTHAMPTON, _April 27, 1860_.

     GENTLEMEN,—Being in possession of a new and improved method of
     killing seeds without the use of any chemicals, so that the seed
     when in a 000 state has not that unpleasant smell it has when
     killed by the old method, and does not look perished if it be
     crushed. A man by the new process may kill ten or twelve quarters
     per day, and the apparatus is so constructed that it is impossible
     for a single seed to leave it alive; and one great advantage is,
     that if you want a sack of 000 seed in a hurry you may kill a sack
     of rape or turnip, or any seed, and have it fit for use in an hour.
     Seed in the process of killing increases in measure and weight, and
     when you send it out to be killed, of course, the seed-killers keep
     the extra weight and measure. If you think it worth your attention,
     I will send you a small working model, so that you may kill a few
     pounds of kale or cauliflower, or any small seeds in a few minutes,
     and instructions for making a large one on receipt of a Post-office
     order for £2.

     Yours truly,

     ——

To this the Messrs. Sutton append the following remarks:—

     The writer of the above being unknown to us, we had the curiosity
     to call at the address given, and ascertained that it was no
     “hoax,” but was assured by the “inventor” that he had supplied
     several tradesmen with the apparatus, and that he was _formerly_ in
     the seed trade himself. We may add, that we have since heard from
     the same individual at another sea-port town to which he has
     removed.

Having got possession of this circular, and being desirous of becoming
acquainted with so notable an invention, we lost no time in setting on
foot a negotiation for the possession of the secret, and having traced
the inventor in his removal from Southampton to Gosport, we then had
letters addressed to him upon the subject, and, if promises had been of
any avail, we might possibly at this time have been in possession of a
very improved and expeditious method of making 000 seeds, only that we
have learnt the undesirable nature of pay beforehand.

Our next inquiry was for a sample of 000 seed itself; but, although it
is well known in the trade, we have hitherto failed in procuring it. We
had hoped that our seedsmen might have been able to procure some through
some of their friends. The result was, that we made application to a
most respectable London firm, receiving the following reply:—

     LONDON, _February 27, 1861_.

     SIR,—In reply to your favour received this morning, we take leave
     to say that we shall have pleasure in complying with your request
     for a sample of 000 turnips, if we can obtain it. But we do not
     keep it ourselves, nor do we know the parties who prepare it, it
     being something of a trade secret. We will, however, apply to some
     of our friends here to let us have a small quantity, but doubt if
     they will let us have it, as it is a matter they are rather chary
     respecting, and _although perfectly well known and understood in
     the trade, they do not care to have it known beyond_, and our
     asking for a small quantity will be sure to lead to the question,
     “What do we want it for?” We could obtain a large quantity without
     hesitation.

     We remain, &c.,

     ——

The sentence we have placed in italics will be quite sufficient to show
how well the matter of 000 seeds is understood in the trade, and how
easy it is to get bushels of it, no questions being asked, while a small
quantity, required only for investigation, may be refused.

It appears, then, that the machinery exists by which any one in the seed
trade may quietly and easily commit enormous frauds. And it is plain
that the very notoriety of this machinery, together with the condition
of many of the samples of seed which we have examined (see Chap. VI.)
prove that this machinery actually is employed by many seedsmen to the
great injury of their customers.

We cannot, then, be doing wrong in urging any one to make trial of the
seeds he is about to buy before he sows them, or even before he
purchases them. Where the experience of a number of years already
exists, the character of the seedsman is a guarantee for the good
quality of his goods, and experience of this kind is indeed a more
perfect carrying out of the system of preliminary trial or experiment,
which we recommend especially to all new customers.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE INJURIES CAUSED BY INSECTS.

Root-crops are especially liable to injury from the depredations of
insects. Thus the turnip may have its seed more or less destroyed by
weevils. Immediately the seed appears above the ground, commences the
attack by the turnip flea-beetles. The bulb is pierced by beetles,
ending in those excrescences called “turnip-warbles;” and there is
reason to think that even the root-fibrils are in some soils made the
depositories of the eggs of insects, which give rise to extraordinary
malformations.

Carrots and parsnips are liable to have the best-grown root made useless
by its being pierced and eaten by the larvæ or grubs of a small fly,
known as the _Psila rosæ_.

Even the mangel-wurzel, which has been so strenuously recommended as a
substitute for the turnip on account of its freedom from insect attacks,
and connected with which Curtis only describes a single insect, a
leaf-miner, called _Anthomyia Betæ_, upon which he remarks that “these
insects will seldom cause any loss to the mangel-wurzel crops should
they ever abound to any extent.” In spite, however, of this, we find
that the increased growth of this crop has caused a corresponding
increase in the insect, to such an extent that, during the last two
seasons, many crops have entirely failed from its depredations; as
witness the following communication to the _Agricultural Gazette_ for
August 23rd, 1862:—

     My mangel crop was drilled the 17th May, and came up most
     favourably. On Monday, the 2nd June, I asked my bailiff what was
     the matter with it; he said, “Oh, it was a sharp frost last night;”
     but on examination I found that instead of frost the leaves had
     within them a maggot, which had caused the plant to brown and die
     off. The late rains and growing weather have enabled the plant
     somewhat to revive, and also fresh plants to come up (for I had
     drilled 7 lb. per acre), but found to-day several leaves with
     maggots in them. My man told me “a quantity had eaten themselves
     out of the leaf and dropped;” and that he saw “a vast number of
     sparrows picking up those maggots.” I send you herewith some plants
     I brought up from the farm. My idea is that the seed was damp and
     bred the maggots, or that the leaves had been “struck with a fly,”
     and then the maggot followed. You will please let me have your
     ideas upon these points.—S. S.

The maggot, or larvæ, here described is that of a fly called the
_Anthomyia (Pegomyia) betæ_, mangel-wurzel fly. An allied species will
sometimes be found on the common dock-leaves, mining their galleries
between the dermal cells of the leaves.

We have for some time observed the increase of this pest, and we are
prepared to state that now we seldom see a crop that is not greatly
injured by its attacks. Mr. Curtis thinks that the best method to
destroy them is to employ boys to crush the leaves between the thumb and
fingers at the part where the larvæ can be seen; and with this we fear
we must for the present be content, unless we could devise some means to
take the fly before its eggs are laid in the leaves.

We need not here dwell at length upon the natural history of those pests
of the turnip—the _Haltica nemorum_ (striped flea-beetle), and _H.
concinna_ (black flea-beetle), as the nature of their ravages are
tolerably well known. Thus much, however, may be said; namely:—

     _a._ These insects are called fleas because they have the power of
     hopping on being disturbed, much after the manner of a flea.

     _b._ They have some five or six broods each year; the earlier ones
     probably being bred on charlocks and other weeds of the same
     natural order as the turnip; and hence, then, charlocks are pests,
     not only as being weeds, but as breeding-places for one of our most
     mischievous insects.

     _c._ They migrate from their weed-haunts to the first crop of
     turnips, where much of their mischief may be prevented by simply
     dusting over the young plants with any fine powder, road-dirt
     answering the purpose as well as anything else.

Various devices have been employed for keeping away and killing these
little creatures. We have used a contrivance for catching them, which
may be described as follows:—

Some thin board (or boards), making a surface of about 4 feet long by 2
feet wide, is furnished at one end with a pair of light wheels of just
sufficient diameter to lift the board about 2 or 3 inches above the
plants. To the other end may be attached two crooked handles in such a
manner that the machine can be wheeled flatly over the plants, or if
four wheels be employed, one at each corner, a single handle can be used
either to push or pull the implement. When used, it should have its
underside painted over with tar or any handy viscid substance.

This should be used on bright days, the operator pushing it over the
rows of turnips, so as, if possible, not to throw his shadow before. The
middle of the day will be best, not only for this reason, but also
because these creatures feed more actively at that time.

Now, our experience in the use of this simple contrivance on small
experimental plots convinces us that a small boy could easily keep under
the enemy in a good-sized field.

But now comes a very important question for consideration. Cannot we do
more than kill a few of these creatures? cannot we adopt such plans as
will render our _crops_ tolerably safe from their depredations? We think
so, and to this end advise the following method of proceeding:—

Let each turnip-grower prepare for the enemy by sowing from the eighth
to a quarter of an acre of turnips in a sunny part of the farm as early
as the first week in April. These patches would quickly attract all the
turnip flea-beetles from the wild _cruciferæ_ on which the first broods
seem to depend, and in this small compass they can be killed in detail
with the simple contrivance just described, so that when the real crop
comes up there will be none, or at least only a few, beetles to emigrate
to it; whereas, as we now manage, by the time the crop of turnips is
sown, enough of the creatures are too often bred to render it necessary
to sow two or three times before we can secure a crop.

_Anbury_ is an affection to which only the different sorts of turnips
are liable, in which case it differs from finger-and-toe, with which it
has been very much confounded, as this latter occurs in all kinds of
roots; namely, turnips, carrots, mangel-wurzel, &c., as well as both the
common and Swedish turnips.

[Illustration: _Fig. 11_ (Fig. 8 repeated). Finger-and-toe Carrot. Half
natural size.]

As a sample of an extreme case of finger-and-toe—_digitate_ root,—we
repeat the following figure of a Belgian carrot, in which it will be
seen that the forks gradually taper to the extremities; in fact, the
whole, instead of being a succulent fleshy tap or _fusiform_ root, in
which case it could readily be stored, is divided in fingers-and-toes,
which are liable to break off, and this renders the product next to
useless. Now, this affection may occur in any soil, as it is the result
of a degeneracy in the stock of the plant; but in the affection now to
be described the case is wholly different, as here the bulk of the swede
(fig. 12) is affected with rough, cancerous knobs, whilst the rootlets
support irregular knobs of a like kind, which have more the aspect of
suspended rows of ginger than fingers-and-toes.

Roots so affected soon rot, and have a fœtid odour, so that they are not
only useless themselves, but communicate canker and decay to the whole
store. In the putrid mass will be found maggots and flies and beetles of
different kinds; but as yet naturalists are not agreed as to whether the
nodules of disease are caused by insects, or whether these creatures are
merely attracted by the fœtid matter. We are, however, inclined to the
belief that some insects are connected with the diseased appearance in
the first place, whilst others afterwards step in to fatten upon the
decaying matter, induced by the first lot; but still it must be
confessed that the subject requires much more attention than it has yet
received, in order to settle these important questions.

Still it may be observed that one point has been universally admitted;
namely, that anbury only occurs to any extent in sandy soils, where
there is an absence of lime, a good dressing of which mineral is the
best safeguard against this affection. Still, in soils that are liable
to anbury, we should not recommend the continuance of turnip-growing, or
at least not so frequently in the rotation as has hitherto been the
case, and more especially as the soils which produce anbury to the
greatest extent are just those best adapted for parsnips and carrots,
which, if not wholly, may occasionally be very profitably grown in the
place of the turnip.

[Illustration: _Fig. 12._ Swede affected with Anbury. Nat. size.]

Having given a few notes on the more prominent forms of insect attacks
to which root crops are liable, we would now close this chapter, as
details of all the insect pests would occupy more space than we can here
allot to the subject; but to those who would inquire further upon this
fertile theme, we would advise the perusal of “Farm Insects,” by J.
Curtis, Esq., F.L.S., &c.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

To render our subject as complete as possible, we direct attention to
the following practical conclusions, to which our whole argument upon
the science of root-growing points:—

     First.—Cultivated roots are improved wild ones, only to be obtained
     by gardening on the small, or farming on the large scale; this
     gardening or farming being carried on by certain operations at
     certain seasons which we have comprehended under the term of
     cultivation processes.

     Second.—The difference in sort of roots is caused either by
     cross-breeding as the result of accident or design, or of the
     education of some particular propensity which has been acted upon
     by the intelligent seed-grower.

     Third.—The maintenance of sorts in purity depends upon careful
     selection of the right variety for the seeding examples.

     Fourth.—The preservation of a good outline or shape of root can
     only be maintained by selecting those of good _form_ to seed from;
     for, as running to seed, multiform top, forkiness, “finger-and-toe”
     in roots, is evidence of wild growth, so, then, cultivated plants
     assuming this form are considered as degenerate, and seed from such
     roots produces a malformed and poor crop.

     Fifth.—The difficulties of getting good seed—whether of trueness to
     sort, from carefully selected bulbs, or free from adulteration
     either of old with new seed, or a mixture of charlock and others of
     the same family—are very great. Where, however, good seed can be
     depended upon, it is much cheaper, though at a considerable
     increase of first seeds cost, as not only quality but the quantity
     of live so considerably depends upon the truth and honesty of the
     seedsman.

     Sixth.—Injuries from insect attacks, though serious as affecting
     the yield, are yet not due to the seed; and anbury, if it be due to
     insects, only occurs in the turnip-crops, and then in particular
     soils. The true insect attacks to be averted by simultaneous
     action.

     In fine.—_Good seed, of a true sort,—care in growth,—and a
     watchfulness of enemies, includes the_ SCIENCE _and_ PRACTICE _of
     Root Cultivation._

[Illustration: FURNISH YOUR HOUSE WITH THE BEST ARTICLES AT

DEANE’S

A.D 1700

GENERAL FURNISHING IRONMONGERY WAREHOUSE

AN ILLUSTRATED CATALOGUE POST FREE ON APPLICATION

LONDON BRIDGE

DEANE & C^o. (OPENING TO THE MONUMENT) 46, KING WILLIAM S^T. CITY]

     =FARM AND GARDEN SEEDS=

     =CARRIAGE FREE.=

     Bangholm Swede,

     East Lothian Swede,

     Ward’s Beauty Swede,

     Dropmore Swede,

     Marshall’s Champion Swede,

     Green-top Swede,

     White Swede,

     Improved Skirving’s Swede,

     White and Red Globe, and Norfolk Turnip,

     Scotch Yellow Turnip,

     Dobito’s Yellow Oval Mangel,

     Ward’s Ditto,

     Improved Yellow Globe Ditto,

     Improved Orange Globe Ditto,

     Improved Long Red Mangel,

     Improved Long Yellow Mangel,

     Improved Red Globe Mangel,

     Improved White Field Beet,

     Red Clover, Cowgrass,

     White, Yellow, and Alsike Clovers.

     Pacey’s Perennial Rye-grass, and other sorts.

     Italian Rye-grass, Foreign and English Seed.

     Natural Grass Seeds, in mixture or separate, suitable for various
     soils and localities.

     Light Rye-grass and other Cheap Grasses, for sowing on Railway
     Banks and Waste Places.

     _Orders for Exportation promptly attended to._

     PETER LAWSON, & SON, THE QUEEN’S SEEDSMEN,

     28, KING STREET, CHEAPSIDE, NEAR THE GUILDHALL, and

     15, LAWRENCE LANE, LONDON, E.C.

     ESTABLISHED 1821.

     SPECIAL MANURES.

     GRIFFIN, MORRIS, AND GRIFFIN,

     Invite Attention to their Manures which are successfully used in

     FORTY-SEVEN BRITISH COUNTIES.

     =MANURES FOR ALL KINDS OF ROOT CROPS.=

     Surprising results are produced by the use of their well-known

     GRASS MANURES,

     =TURNIP, POTATOE, AND MANGOLD MANURES.=

     Agriculturists are invited to send for an Annual Circular,
     containing List of Prices, Particulars of Premiums, &c.

     CERES WORKS, WOLVERHAMPTON, _January_, 1863.

     =THE LONDON MANURE COMPANY,=

     ESTABLISHED 1840,

     =Supply Peruvian Guano, Nitrate of Soda, Dissolved Bones,
     Superphosphate of Lime,=

     AND ALL ARTIFICIAL MANURES GUARANTEED GENUINE.

     116, Fenchurch Street.

     EDWARD PURSER, Secretary.

     MILLER & JOHNSON

     =Manufacture Special Manures for Root, Corn, and Grass Crops=,

     Which they guarantee to be of the highest quality.

     WORKS: NORMANDY WHARF, ROTHERHITHE;

     OFFICES: 25, MARK LANE, LONDON.

     =EDITIONS FOR 1863.=

     =_NOW READY,_=

     THE SHILLING PEERAGE.

     THE SHILLING BARONETAGE.

     THE SHILLING KNIGHTAGE.

     THE SHILLING HOUSE OF COMMONS.

     Containing the Birth, Accession, and Marriage of each personage,
     his Heir (Apparent or Presumptive), Family Name, Political Bias,
     and Patronage; as also a Brief Notice of the Offices which he has
     hitherto held, his Town Address and Country Residences.

     =Compiled by EDWARD WALFORD, M.A., Balliol College, Oxford.=

     LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

     =FARMERS OF ENGLAND,=

     Read the

     =MAGNET,=

     The largest and best Agricultural and Family Gazette, and the best
     London newspaper especially devoted to Agriculture and the Interest
     of the Land.

     The MAGNET is published every Monday evening, after the close of
     the London Corn and Cattle Markets, and in time for post.

     Important to Auctioneers and other Advertisers from its large and
     influential circulation. Price 4½d. only. Stamped for circulation
     by post.

     OFFICE, 19, EXETER STREET, STRAND, LONDON.

     =In Monthly Parts, at 5s. each.=

     =ENGLISH BOTANY.=

     EDITED BY

     =J. T. B. SYME, F.L.S., &c.=

     =The first Volume of this splendid Work is now ready.=

     IT CONTAINS ALL THE

     =Rues, Anemones, Crowfoots, Spearworts, Waterlilies, Poppies,
     Fumitories, Mustards, Rockets, Stocks, Lady’s Smocks, Cresses,=

     AND OTHER PLANTS RANKED UNDER THE ORDERS RANUNCULACEÆ, BERBERACEÆ,
     NYMPHIACEÆ, PAPAVERACEÆ, AND CRUCIFERÆ.

     ALL THE DRAWINGS ARE LIFE-SIZE, AND COLOURED TO NATURE BY HAND
     PAINTING.

     =Vol. I. contains seven numbers at 5s. each,=

     OR COMPLETE, BOUND IN CLOTH, 38s.

     “Mr. Syme’s English Botany will be the most complete Flora of Great
     Britain ever brought out. This great work will find a place
     wherever botanical science is cultivated and the study of our
     native plants with all their fascinating associations held
     dear.”—_Athenæum_.

     LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

     _Royal 8vo., price £1. 14s._

     =THE GRASSES OF GREAT BRITAIN=

     (Completion of). Now ready, in 1 vol., containing life-size,
     full-coloured Drawings, with magnified Organs, of 144 British
     Grasses, and Observations on their Natural History and Uses.
     Described by C. JOHNSON. Illustrated by J. E. SOWERBY.

     _Complete, bound in cloth, price £1. 7s._

     =THE USEFUL PLANTS OF GREAT=

     BRITAIN: a Treatise upon the principal Native Vegetables capable of
     Application as Food or Medicine, or in the Arts and Manufactures.
     By C. P. JOHNSON. Illustrated by J. E. SOWERBY. 300 Coloured
     Illustrations.

     _Fcap. 8vo., price 6s._

     =THE BRITISH FUNGI (a Plain and Easy=

     Account of). With especial reference to the Esculent and other
     Economic Species. By M. C. COOKE. With Coloured Plates of 40
     Species.

     _Also, by the same Author_,

     =A MANUAL OF BOTANIC TERMS. Fcap. 8vo.=,

     upwards of 300 Illustrations, 2s. 6d.

     =MANUAL OF STRUCTURAL BOTANY, for=

     the use of Students and Classes. 200 Illustrations, 1s.; bound in
     cloth, 1s. 6d.

     _Fully Illustrated, price 2s. 6d. plain, 4s. coloured._

     =THE BRITISH FERNS (a Plain and Easy=

     Account of); together with their classification, arrangement of
     general structure, and functions, directions for in-door and
     out-door cultivation, and for drying. By Mrs. LANKESTER.

     _Small edition_, 11¾ _in. by_ 8½ _in.; large edition_, 17½ _in. by_
     11 _in._

     =THE FERN COLLECTOR’S ALBUM: a=

     Descriptive Folio for the Reception of Natural Specimens;
     containing on the right-hand page a description of each fern, the
     opposite page being left blank for the collector to affix the dried
     specimen; forming, when filled, an elegant and complete collection
     of this interesting family of plants. Handsomely bound, price One
     Guinea.

     A Large Edition, without descriptive letter-press, handsomely
     bound, One Guinea.

     _Fully Illustrated, 4s. coloured by hand, 2s. 6d. plain._

     =WILD FLOWERS WORTH NOTICE: a=

     Selection from the British Flora of such Plants as are most
     attractive from their Beauty, Uses, or Associations. By Mrs.
     LANKESTER, Author of “A Plain and Easy Account of British Ferns.”

     _Fcap. 8vo., 3s. 6d._

     =HORSE WARRANTY: a Plain and Comprehensive=

     Guide to the various points noted, showing which are essential and
     which are unimportant.

     LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

     =THE LONDON MANURE COMPANY,=

     ESTABLISHED 1840,

     =Supply Peruvian Guano, Nitrate of Soda, Dissolved Bones,
     Superphosphate of Lime,=

     AND ALL ARTIFICIAL MANURES GUARANTEED GENUINE.

     116, Fenchurch Street.

     EDWARD PURSER, Secretary.

     =MILLER & JOHNSON=

     =Manufacture Special Manures for Root, Corn, and Grass Crops,=

     Which they guarantee to be of the highest quality.

     WORKS: NORMANDY WHARF, ROTHERHITHE;

     OFFICES: 25, MARK LANE, LONDON.

     _Second Edition, crown 8vo., price 6s._

     =Subtle Brains and Lissom Fingers.=

     Being some of the Chisel-marks of our Industrial and Scientific
     Progress; and other Papers.

     =By ANDREW WYNTER, M.D., M.R.C.P., London.=

     Contains 39 Articles, amongst which will be found—

     Fraudulent Trade Marks.—A Day with the Coroner.—Undersea
     Railroad.—Vivisection.—Restoration of our Soil.—Railways the Great
     Civilizers.—Physical Education.—The Clerk of the Weather.—Village
     Hospitals.—Air Traction.—Illuminations.—Boat Building by
     Machinery.—Doctors’ Stuff.—Small Pox in London.—Excursion
     Trains.—Early Warnings, &c.

     _Sixth Edition, crown 8vo., cloth, price 6s._

     =Our Social Bees;=

     PICTURES OF TOWN AND COUNTRY, AND OTHER PAPERS.

     =By ANDREW WYNTER, M.D.=

     Containing 45 entertaining and instructive Articles, among which
     will be found—

     London Smoke.—Mock Auctions.—The Suction Post.—Our Peck
     of Dirt.—The Artificial Man.—Britannia’s Smelling Bottle.—The
     Post-office.—Commercial Grief.—Aërated Bread.—Needlemaking.—
     Preserved Meats.—Wenham Lake Ice.—Turkish Baths.—Who is Mr.
     Reuter?—Candlemaking.—London Stout.—Sewing Machines.—Physical
     Antipathies.—Ocean Horticulture.—Brain Difficulties.—Human Hair,
     &c.

     _Sixth Edition, crown 8vo., cloth, price 6s._

     =Curiosities of Civilization.=

     =By Dr. ANDREW WYNTER.=

     Reprinted from the Quarterly and Edinburgh Reviews.

     CONTENTS:—

     The London Commissariat.—Food and its Adulterations.—
     Advertisements.—The Zoological Gardens.—Rats.—Woolwich Arsenal.—
     Shipwrecks.—Lodging, Food, and Dress of Soldiers.—The Electric
     Telegraph.—Fires and Fire Insurance.—The Police and the
     Thieves.—Mortality in Trades and Professions.—Lunatic Asylums.

     LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

     =Price 2s. 6d. Illustrated by the Best Artists.=

     THE

     Popular Science Review,

     =A QUARTERLY MISCELLANY=

     =Of Entertaining and Instructive Articles on Scientific Subjects.=

     EDITED BY HENRY LAWSON, M.D.,

     _Professor of Physiology in Queen’s College, Birmingham, and one of
     the Lecturers on Natural Science under the “Science and Art
     Department of the Committee of Council on Education.”_

     THE POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW is, as its name implies, a Review
     conveying scientific knowledge in such a simple and popular form,
     that all who read may understand. There is at the present day a
     numerous and increasing class of intelligent readers who, without
     being scientific, are nevertheless greatly interested in scientific
     progress. They would willingly become acquainted with scientific
     truths, but are too often deterred from the pursuit of such studies
     by the abstruse or technical language in which these truths are
     conveyed. In order to meet the requirements of this portion of the
     community, every available means has been adopted to procure the
     most accurate information on all subjects of which the journal
     treats. No pains or expense has been spared to secure the most
     skilful artists to illustrate its pages.

     Each number contains systematic, instructive articles (illustrated
     when needful) on subjects connected with some of the following
     sciences, viz.:—

  ASTRONOMY,    |  GEOGRAPHY,     |  MINERALOGY,
  BOTANY,       |  GEOLOGY,       |  PHYSICS,
  CHEMISTRY,    |  METALLURGY,    |  ZOOLOGY,
  ETHNOLOGY,    |  MICROSCOPY,    |  &c. &c., and

     SCIENCE applied to the Arts, Manufactures, Commerce, and
     Agriculture.

     LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.

  ANDREWS, W., M.R.I.A. (Vice-       |GOSSE, PHILIP H., F.R.S.
  President of the Zoological Society|HOGG, JABEZ, M.R.C.S., F.L.S.,
  of Ireland).                       |&c.
  ANSTED, Professor, F.R.S., F.G.S.  |HOUGHTON, Rev. W., F.L.S.
  BOND, Prof. F., M.B., F.C.S.       |HUNT, ROBERT, F.R.S.
  (Hartley Institute, Southampton).  |JESSE, E., F.L.S.
  BREEN, JAMES, F.R.A.S.             |JONES, Prof. RYMER, F.R.S.
  BUCKLAND, F., F.Z.S.               |KING, Prof. W. (Queen’s College,
  BUCKMAN, Prof. JAMES, F.L.S.,      |Galway).
  F.G.S.                             |LANKESTER, E., M.D., F.R.S., &c.
  COLLINGWOOD, C., M.A., M.B., F.L.S.|LANKESTER, Mrs.
  COOKE, M.C.                        |LEWES, GEORGE H.
  COULTAS, HARLAND.                  |PLUES, Miss M.
  CROOKES, WILLIAM, F.R.S.           |PHIPSON, J., M.B., PH.D., F.C.S.
  DE QUARTREFAGES, Professor.        |SEEMANN, B., PH.D., F.L.S., &c.
  FAIRBAIRN, W., LL.D., F.R.S.       |TUSON, Prof., F.C.S. (Royal Vet.
  FRASER, W., M.D., F.L.S.           |Col.).
  GORE, GEORGE.                      |VOELCKER, Prof., F.C.S.
                                     |(Agricultural Coll.,
                                     |Cirencester).

     And other writers who take a prominent part in Scientific
     Literature.

     “One of the pleasantest and freshest of the
     Quarterlies.”—_Examiner._

     “This is a wonderful half-crown’s worth; its text, as well as its
     excellent and accurate illustrations, show it to be one of our
     cheapest and best periodicals. In this its second, as in its first
     number, it is fully up to the very highest standard fixed by its
     conductors. We wish it every success, and we heartily commend it to
     such of our readers as take an interest in the various phases of
     popular science.”—_Standard._

     “M. C. Cooke writes ably on Microscopic Fungi parasitic on living
     plants. Aided by exquisite plates, he unfolds a curious page of
     botanical history, and the study of which is of great importance.
     These Microscopic Fungi are the dread of the farmer and the
     gardener. When the origin and growth of these parasites are better
     understood, a cure for their destructiveness may be
     found.”—_Bradford Observer._

     =The “Popular Science Review” appears in October, January, April,
     and July, price Half-a-Crown.=

     _Price to Subscribers, 10s. per Annum, Carriage Free._

     LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY, W.

     =SCIENCE AND PRACTICE=

     IN

     =FARM CULTIVATION.=

     BY

     JAMES BUCKMAN, F.L.S., F.G.S.

     No. 2.

     =HOW TO GROW GOOD GRASSES.=

     LONDON:

     ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

     1863.

     _Fully Illustrated, price 7s. 6d. complete in Cloth._

     _Separate Parts, 1s. each._

     =SCIENCE AND PRACTICE=

     IN

     =FARM CULTIVATION.=

     BY

     PROF. BUCKMAN, F.L.S., F.G.S.

     =The complete Series consists of=

  1. HOW TO GROW GOOD ROOTS.
  2. HOW TO GROW GOOD GRASSES.
  3. HOW TO GROW GOOD CLOVER.
  4. HOW TO GROW GOOD CORN.
  5. HOW TO GROW GOOD HEDGES.
  6. HOW TO GROW GOOD TIMBER.
  7. HOW TO GROW GOOD ORCHARDS.

     LONDON:

     ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.

HOW TO GROW GOOD GRASSES.

CHAPTER IX.

ON THE NATURE OF MEADOWS AND PASTURES.

The terms “meadow” and “pasture” are usually employed together, as
though they were really distinct things; yet few people think of them as
different,—the fact being, that when a field is occupied with grass, it
may be called a _meadow_, in contradistinction to that land under the
plough, or _arable_: this yields meadow-hay if mowed for that purpose,
or _pasturage_ when fed off or depastured by our flocks or herds.

The meadow, then, as being fixed, is termed “permanent pasture.”
Pasture-herbage, however, is grown in the shifting crops of arable
cultivation; in which case it gets the term of “artificial pasture.” Hay
from the first of these is called “meadow-hay,” whilst the mixture of
grasses, clovers, &c., gets the name of “artificial grass,” or “hay,” as
the case may be.

As regards permanent pasture, this may be _old_ or _new_,—some meadows
having been in green herbage even for centuries, whilst others, though
sufficiently old, yet show traces of having been once arable in the more
or less high-backed ridges left by ancient ploughing. Viewed in this
way, original pasture is not so extensive as may be supposed; indeed,
there is scarcely such a thing at all, as all pastures are the result of
something like cultivation,—as, left to themselves, that is, to Nature,
they would soon resume the aspect of jungle, moor, or marsh, according
to soil and situation.

Meadows and pastures may, then, for our present purpose, be conveniently
tabulated as follows:—

A. PERMANENT PASTURES.

     1. _Moors and uplands_, unenclosed or but partially fenced in.

     2. _Commons_, unenclosed land, usually about villages, conferring
     the right of cattle and goose grazing.

     3. _River flats_ and lowlands, liable to floods.

     4. _Irrigated Meadow_, in which the water is controllable.

     5. _Meadows_, or permanent grass enclosures.

B. ARTIFICIAL PASTURES.

     6. _Seeds_, shifting crops of some grasses, clovers, saintfoin,
     &c., used either mixed or separately.

1. Moors, uplands, and downs (such as Dartmoor and Salisbury Plain) are
more or less wild according to their elevation and the geological
formation on which they occur. They consist of large tracts of land
either without fences at all, or only those of the most inefficient
kind, rather boundary-lines than otherwise. They are never used for
haymaking, nor are they cultivated beyond depasturing. These are dotted
with patches of rough grass, thorns, briers, and shrubs or stunted
trees where the surface is much broken, and the animals they are made to
carry are few; but on the more rounded and smooth lines of the downs is
a finer herbage, kept so not only from the nature of the case, but from
the fact that such a position favours the more thickly stocking it with
that close-grazing animal the sheep.

These pasturages, though very extensive, are yet being encroached upon
by a higher cultivation, and the hayfields one occasionally meets with
around the squatter’s cabin even in the wild mountainous parts of Wales
sufficiently testify to the greater productiveness of which the most
unfavourable districts are capable.

2. The village common is sometimes extensive; it, too, as the former, is
only grazed. Many of them have of late years been enclosed. Where much
depastured—and they usually carry as much stock as they can bear—there
is a remarkable absence of plants other than grasses. Indeed,
grass-herbage, and usually of the best species, will prevail, unless in
places where there may be stagnant water, in which cases a little
drainage would produce a large public benefit; but as what is
everybody’s business is done by no one, the common is too often left
much wilder, and thus made poorer than it need be.

3. The river flats here meant are, for the most part, large fields
partaking of the nature of common; that is, certain farmers and others
have the privilege of grazing during the autumn; but it is _aimed up_
early in spring, for the purpose of taking a crop of hay. Such lands
would be impoverished by such constant haymaking; but the winter floods
leave behind them a deposit of silt and fluviatile materials, and
perhaps beside act as a solvent; so that their fertility is wonderfully
maintained.

Many such wide stretches of meadow occur on the banks of the Severn, as
in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Worcester, &c., where
they get the name of _Ham_. It is much to be regretted that these hams
are not made the most of, for the same reason as applies with respect to
common, for the want of some efficient officer to direct improvements;
and so from the water here and there stagnating good herbage is ruined,
and from the floods not being controllable, even hay is lost with the
summer freshets. But where such land is vested in single enterprising
proprietors, not only is drainage insured, but embankments are made to
keep out the waters when not required, as so much met with on the banks
of the Thames; and such fields are at once an evidence of the
capabilities of river flats, and the great importance of individual
enterprise.

4. The last case approaches very nearly to that of _irrigated_ meadows;
but these latter are mostly situate on small streams, which can be
directed to flow through, not over them, at any time: they offer a most
important means of augmenting our pasturage in certain districts, and
will therefore receive a chapter to themselves.

5. Permanent grass enclosures are of very varied sizes, from hundreds of
acres, forming perhaps a park, to the small meadow of the homestead;
they may be seldom or never used for haymaking, but most of them are
aimed up for hay once, twice, or thrice in four or five years. These
form the greater part of the grass-lands of our country, and are indeed
nowhere greener or more productive than in the British Isles; still, as
we are an advocate for their cultivation—which, if it does not quite
realize the position of making two blades of grass grow where one grew
before, may at least do much in this direction—we shall reserve further
remarks upon this subject until we have particularly analyzed the
contents of a meadow.

6. As shifting crops, grasses, and other fodder plants may be made
exceedingly useful, these may therefore well occupy a chapter to
themselves.

CHAPTER X.

ON THE SPECIES OF MEADOW-GRASSES.

Although we possess more than a hundred species of native grasses, we
shall rarely find a fourth of them even in a wide range of meadows; and
if we do so, it is rather an argument against than in favour of the
quality of their herbage, as, so few are the best grasses in number,
that it is almost a law for the best meadows to contain the fewest
species of true grasses.

If, then, the good grasses be so few, whatever is not of these must be
inferior, and, indeed, so bad are some grasses that they can only be
considered as weeds. These weed-like forms are known to the farmer from
his observing that the cattle usually refuse to eat them, and hence he
has got to call them “sour grasses,”—a term which, though perhaps meant
to convey the idea that such are objectionable in flavour, yet it is
oftener that they are refused from their want of flavour, or from some
mechanical objection arising from their roughness of growth, some having
sharp serrated cutting edges to their leaves, whilst the spicular awns,
so conspicuous in the beard of barley, cause great irritation by
sticking beneath the tongue and in the gums. Of these, the first are
objectionable for pasture, the last for hay, and should, therefore, not
be found in really good meadows.

The figures and descriptions which follow are given in illustration of
some of the more usual meadow species, which, though not fully or
botanically described, will yet aid the practical farmer in estimating
the species, and their value and significance, which he will commonly
find in his fields.

[Illustration: _Fig. 13._ The Meadow Foxtail.]

The Meadow Foxtail (_Alopecurus pratensis_, fig. 13) is an early species
of the _spicate_ form—_i.e._, the flowers grow close together, into a
more or less dense head. It yields a great quantity of herbage,
especially in moist situations; and is particularly adapted for the
irrigated meadow. It should be distinguished from the _A. geniculatus_
(Kneeling Foxtail), whose spike is only about half the length and size,
as this is particularly a water species, so that if found when a meadow
is dry, it is yet an evidence that water must have lain where it occurs
for a considerable period of the year. Also from the _A. agrestis_
(Slender Foxtail), which has a longer and thinner spike, as this latter
is a weed in poor hungry clays, which is useless except as serving to
indicate that the land wants perhaps both drainage and manure. Here,
then, our first genus presents us with species indicating the varied
conditions of rich meadow, wet places, and poor arable; and it is this
variableness in adaptability that makes the grasses such important
indicators of the nature and condition of soils.

[Illustration: _Fig. 14._ The Catstail Grass.]

The Catstail Grass (_Phleum pratense_, fig. 14) in general form is not
unlike the preceding, but it is much rougher in all its parts, and is
one of the latest instead of one of our earliest species. Its name of
catstail is due to its rough flowers, an enlarged drawing of one of
which is given at _a_. It has also got the name of Timothy Grass, from
one Mr. Timothy Hanson, an American, to whom, probably, is owing its
first introduction as a “self-crop,” large fields of this useful
species, mostly by itself, being grown in Canada and the States as a
fodder plant. It is very useful in the meadow, as supplying a late crop
of stems and leaves; greatly augmenting the amount of herbage in some of
the colder though not poor districts.

We have never seen this grass used as a self-crop in England, but we are
convinced that on some of the rich alluvial flats, as in the lands
reclaimed from the Severn, and warp soils in general, it would yield a
large bulk of good feeding matter, which, though somewhat rough, would
yet mix well with clovers, &c., in chaff-cutting.

[Illustration: _Fig. 15._ The Sweet Vernal Grass.]

The Sweet Vernal Grass (_Anthoxanthum odoratum_, fig. 15) is a very
early species, with a somewhat lax spike of flowers, which usually
become of a bright straw-colour by the time the hayfield is ripe for the
scythe. It does not yield much bulk, but its grateful bitter when fresh,
and the peculiarly sweet hayfield odour which it yields on drying, would
seem to make this grass of importance, from the flavour which it imparts
to the produce of the field; indeed so much so, that much of the value
of natural meadow hay over that of artificial pasture may be traced to
the presence of this grass.

[Illustration: _Fig. 16._ The Crested Dogstail.]

The Crested Dogstail (_Cynosurus cristatus_, fig. 16) has its florets
arranged in front of a series of abortive branches, as represented at
_a_, enlarged. It has a very slender stem, which is hard and wiry when
ripe—a condition which it so universally attains, even in spite of
constant depasturing, that we never recommend its use in mixtures for
permanent pasture, as its stems are particularly innutritious, and its
herbage is so small as to be of little value. It never prevails much in
our best pastures.

[Illustration: _Fig. 17._ Rye Grass, or Ray Grass.]

Rye Grass, or Ray Grass (_Lolium perenne_, fig. 17), has no connection
with the Cereal Rye. It is one of our commonest and most useful species,
both as a plant for the natural meadow or for arable culture, especially
in mixture with clovers, which has the name of “seeds.” It yields good
bulk for the rick, and will so readily grow after cutting or close
depasturing that it commonly affords the greater part of the herbage of
a pasture. From being so valuable, its seed has been much cultivated;
and as it has a tendency to form more or less permanent varieties, so we
find in the market several different sorts; as “Pacey’s, Ruck’s,
Russell’s, Stickney’s, Rye Grass,” &c. It should always form part in any
mixture in laying down permanent pasture, in which case it should be
distinguished from the _Lolium Italicum_, the florets and seeds of
which are awned-pointed, as at _a_. This latter is useful as an annual
self-crop, but seedsmen too often mix it in permanent-pasture
collections, for the reason that it grows faster, and so makes a show
the first year, and so satisfies the customer; but it soon dies out,
while its large growth has kept under the more enduring forms. _b_
represents a bunch of the tumid flowers of the _Lolium temulentum_
(Drunken Darnel), once a pest in cornfields, but now, fortunately, of
rare occurrence, if we are to believe the tales told of its so-called
poisonous seeds.

[Illustration: _Fig. 18._ The Cocksfoot.]

The Cocksfoot (_Dactylis glomerata_, fig. 18), though a large and
somewhat coarse grass, is by no means inferior in quality, its hay being
highly nutritious, whilst its cut or cropped herbage is so quick of
growth that it is capable of yielding a great deal of keep. It sends its
root deep into the soil, so that it can grow well in poor land if dry;
but it never flourishes in very wet situations. It is constant in good
meadows, unless when they are always depastured, as there the constant
treading greatly interferes with it: it is, therefore, by no means so
abundant in sheep pastures; whence has arisen the idea with some farmers
that “too much sheep-grazing wears out the richer grasses.”

We should always recommend cocksfoot as a part of mixtures for permanent
pasture, taking care to well roll the meadow once or twice a year—a
process of great importance—to keep the turf in an even pile, and so
prevent that growing of large clusters or hassocks of one sort, a method
of growth to which the cocksfoot is somewhat prone.

[Illustration: _Fig. 19._ The Rough-stalked Meadow Grass.]

The Rough-stalked Meadow Grass (_Poa trivialis_, fig. 19) is a common
species in moist meadows, where it often forms a considerable portion of
the herbage: it is distinguished from the smooth-stalked by the
long-pointed tongue (_ligule_) to the leaves (_a_), and a stem which is
somewhat rough to the feel, especially when drawn downwards through the
fingers. This grass yields a quantity of herbage, but our experience
leads us to conclude that it does not possess quite so good a quality as
Sinclair and authors who have copied from him would lead us to suppose,
as we have found it wanting in feeding qualities, or what the farmer
calls “proof.” It usually forms a large part of the hay of the irrigated
meadow, which, though often large in quantity, is yet not equal to that
of ordinary good meadows in feeding properties.

The Smooth-stalked Meadow Grass (_Poa pratensis_), distinguished by a
blunt ligule (_b_) and smooth stem, is as abundant in dry situations as
the former is in damp ones. We confess to a great partiality for this
grass, notwithstanding that authors speak slightingly of its value; but
the truth is, that it varies with soil and situation, it being a species
which, when growing on a wild moor, is poor in both quantity and
quality. But we know of no better sign of the improvement of a bad
meadow than the increase of this grass, and its putting on, as it will
do under such circumstances, of its richest green tint.

_Poa nemoralis_ (Wood Meadow Grass) is a more slender form, whose wild
_habitat_ is in woods and shady places, especially on calcareous soils.
This points it out as a useful grass for wood-glades and positions
beneath trees, in which it may very properly be employed.

In laying down permanent pastures we should, then, employ these three
poas as follows:—

     _Poa trivialis_, for low, damp situations and irrigated meadows.

     _Poa pratensis_, for sound dry pastures and uplands.

     _Poa nemoralis_, for rides between woods, wood-glades, and shady
     places.

[Illustration: _Fig. 20._ Meadow Fescue.]

Meadow Fescue (_Festuca pratensis_, fig. 20) may be taken as the type of
the broad-leaved fescues. It is a common and good succulent grass in
rich meadows, and should always be employed in seed mixtures for such
situations, A variety, botanically known as _F. loliacea_, is
unbranched, like the lolium or rye grass. The position of this is on
rich river flats: we have seen it on the banks of the Isis at Oxford,
forming a large part of most excellent herbage.

[Illustration: _Fig. 21._ The Tall Fescue.]

The Tall Fescue (_Festuca elatior_, fig. 21) is a larger and coarser
form of _F. pratensis_, as seed of the latter will become the former by
being sown on some stiff sandy clays. It occurs abundantly on the stiff
alluvial deposits of our estuaries and river flats. It is an exceedingly
coarse grass, with a tendency to grow in large separate bunches; and
hence its presence is destructive to good pastures: it may, however, be
encouraged as a rough growth in its indicated _habitats_.

[Illustration: _Fig. 22._ Sheep’s Fescue.]

Sheep’s Fescue (_Festuca ovina_, fig. 22) may be taken as the type of
the small-leaved fescues. It is a native of our downs, and forms a large
proportion of the sweet down sheep-pastures. It is known by its fine
leaves, which come up immediately after the closest feeding; and if its
quantity equalled its quality, it would be even more valuable than it
is. A larger form, the Hard Fescue (_F. duriuscula_), is common to sound
meadows and the hill valleys. This has much the same properties as the
former, but it is taller, with longer and broader leaves. This should
always be encouraged, and in laying down grass for permanent pasture, it
should be plentifully added to the seed mixture.

The Downy Wild Oat (_Avena pubescens_, fig. 23) is a common grass on
thin calcareous soils. As it is very light in structure, and yields but
little grass, it is not worth much as a first-rate pasture plant,—and
indeed it would scarcely prefer to grow on them.

There is, however, a smaller-flowered species, the _Avena flavescens_
(Yellow Oat-grass), which is better. It, too, occurs on chalky soils;
while the _Avena pratensis_ (Meadow Oat-grass) is found too frequently
in poor clays or on starved moors, in which its rigid leaves and harsh
structure render it little, if any, better than a weed.

[Illustration: _Fig. 23._ The Downy Wild Oat.]

One of the most interesting species of the genus is the _Avena fatua_
(Wild Oat), well known as a weed in stiff arable soils. This is the
parent of the crop oats in cultivation, and there is reason to know that
by degeneracy the crop oat in some districts leaves behind a pest of
wild oats.[2]

[2] See “Natural History of British Meadow and Pasture Grasses,” by the
Author.

The Oat-like Grass (_Arrhenatherum avenaceum_, fig. 24), though a tall,
succulent-looking species, is still too common in poor soils, as its
herbage is bitter and nauseous, and not liked by cattle; and hay from it
is always inferior in quality. It is sometimes recommended by seedsmen,
and usually put with their mixtures; but we should at all times refuse
it.

[Illustration: _Fig. 24._ The Oat-like Grass.]

There is a peculiar form of this which occasionally occurs in sandy
districts, called _A. avenaceum_, variety _bulbosum_ (Onion Couch), the
trivial name of which has been given from the fact that its nodes
thicken below the soil, and present the appearance of small races of
onions. This pest is got out of the land by harrowing and hand-picking;
but as every bulb grows like joints of real couch, it is very difficult
to entirely eradicate it.

[Illustration: _Fig. 25._ The Soft Brome, or Lop Grasses.]

The Soft Brome, or Lop Grasses (_Bromus mollis_, fig. 25), and its
congeners, is an annual grass, and therefore very objectionable,
whether in the meadow or in “seeds,” to both of which, when poor and
neglected, it becomes attached. In both positions it is sometimes mixed
with a kind that droops pretty considerably to one side; from which it
has got the name of “lop.” From the meadow it is soon got rid of by
manuring and depasturing; haymaking, though it cuts off the main stem,
only encourages smaller ones to spring up late, and so the seed is sown.
In “seeds” it is frequently mixed with rye-grass seed, as it too often
occurs that a patch of rye-grass with much lop is seeded, as the most
profitable way to deal with it, as its seeds are heavy and large, and
therefore tell well, either by weight or measure. Our enlarged drawing
of a seed with its envelopes is given to contrast with rye-grass seed,
which is narrower and more pointed.

Within the last few years a species of brome grass, which was formerly
very rare, has become a common weed: we mean the _B. arvensis_, Corn
Brome-grass,—a species with smaller and more numerous heads of flowers
than the one just described. This has spread with the growth of foreign
seeds, and so suddenly has it appeared in some places as to cause
farmers to come to the conclusion that poor cultivation has made the
land spontaneously bring forth “a nasty sort of wild oat,” while others
have even concluded that a cereal crop had been transformed into this
grass.

The _Bromus erectus_ (Upright Brome Grass) is very constant to poor
calcareous soils. This is a perennial species, but very poor indeed in
feeding qualities; however, it looks green in park-glades, and if kept
down by rough stock, it may then be made useful.

[Illustration: _Fig. 26._ The Bent Grass.]

The Bent Grass (_Agrostis stolonifera_, fig. 26) is probably only a
variety of the common marsh species, _A. alba_. Under the name of Fiorin
Grass, this plant has been much extolled for the meadow; but our
experience shows it to vary in value according to the nature of the
position in which it is placed: as thus, in an irrigated meadow it sends
up a large quantity of quite rich pasturage, whilst in poor or dry
districts its herbage is hard and harsh, and not at all relished by
cattle or sheep.

The form we have figured is more particularly agrarian where its
creeping underground stem forms a kind of mischievous couch, and this,
united with a tangled growth derived from shoots rooting above the
ground, renders this one of the most pernicious weeds, especially in
thin soils, on calcareous, brashy, or stony soils.

[Illustration: _Fig. 27._ Woolly Soft Grass.]

Woolly Soft Grass (_Holcus lanatus_, fig. 27), though exceedingly pretty
from its contrast in colour and form with its congeners, is still so
worthless in point of feeding properties as to be little, if any, better
than a weed. It is too abundant in some moist meadows; and where it
forms a very large portion of the herbage, it speaks of poverty as well
as wet, and would lead to the inference that a little draining, less
frequent haymaking, and liberal doses of manure, would have a most
decidedly beneficial effect.

[Illustration: _Fig. 28._ Quaking Grasses.]

Quaking Grasses (_Briza media_, fig. 28, _B. minor_, _a_, and _B.
maxima_, _b_), though certainly amongst our pretty species, are all
useless to the farmer. The common species is well known in all wet or
poor clay meadows, and where very abundant we should usually make our
calculations for something less than a ton of hay to the acre, and this
would generally be late, and offer little _aftermath_. Like the
preceding, its indications are want of draining, manure, and
depasturing. If after the drains begin to act, sheep be folded upon a
quaking-grass meadow, and fed with turnips, hay, pease, or cake, it will
soon be eradicated. _a_, the smaller species, is an annual, and is only
noticed here by way of distinction: its smaller and broader bunches of
whitish, not purple, flowers, and rectilinear branches, will distinguish
it from the common form. It is comparatively rare; but we have had some
fine specimens communicated by H. C. Watson, Esq., from Thames Ditton.
_b_ is a garden specimen, remarkable for its larger flower bunches.

The Hair Grass (_Aira cæspitosa_, fig. 29) is commonly called hassock,
or tussac grass, or bull-pates—names which its massive bunches of
root-leaves clearly indicate the meaning of. Its leaves are so rough,
with serrated edges, that cattle mostly refuse it, unless when very
young. This grass is a never-failing indicator of wet,—so much so, that
if a meadow be drained in which it abounds, the action of the drains is
clearly indicated by its more or less gradual dying out. The quickest
way, then, to subdue this large, coarse weed-grass is to drain, and then
fold sheep upon the drying meadow: these animals tread the tussac grass
into manure, which goes to feed the better species. By this means, not
only this, but other rough or “sour” grasses are more quickly and more
certainly removed than by spudding them out; and this leads us to
remark, in concluding this chapter, that in the meadow there will
usually be found growing together two sets of grasses, which may be
designated as follows:—

     _a._ Grasses more or less nutritious—sweet.

     _b._ Grasses more or less innutritious—sour.

[Illustration: _Fig. 29._ The Hair Tussac Grass.]

In a good meadow, the section _a_ maintain the ascendancy, and so keep
under those of _b_. In a bad meadow, the section _b_ will be master, and
so tyrannize over what would be better.

Perfect cultivation, then, of a meadow—for meadows should be
cultivated—whilst it encourages the growth of _good_ herbage, equally
discourages the progress of the _bad_.

CHAPTER XI.

ON MEADOW PLANTS OTHER THAN GRASSES.

With the grass of the field will usually be found a large proportion of
plants of a very varied, variable, and different kind. Of these, many
are useful as augmenting the mass, and even improving the quality of a
pasture; whilst, as others are altogether objectionable, we shall
presently notice them under the head of “Meadow Weeds.”

Of the more useful adjuncts of the meadow we may tabulate the
following:—

  +----+------------------------+--------------------------+
  |No. |     Trivial Names.     |     Botanical Names.     |
  +----+------------------------+--------------------------+
  | 1  | Red clover             | Trifolium pratense.      |
  | 2  | Zigzag clover          |      „    medium.        |
  | 3  | White or Dutch clover  |      „    repens.        |
  | 4  | Birdsfoot              | Lotus corniculatus.      |
  | 5  | Yellow vetchling       | Lathyrus pratensis.      |
  | 6  | Purple vetchling       |     „    palustris.      |
  | 7  | Saintfoin              | Onobrychis sativa.       |
  | 8  | Burnet                 | Sanguisorba officinalis. |
  | 9  | False burnet           | Poterium Sanguisorba.    |
  |10  | Tormentil              | Tormentilla officinalis. |
  |11  | Yarrow                 | Achillæa millefolia.     |
  |12  | Agrimony               | Agrimonia Eupatoria.     |
  |13  | Plantain               | Plantago lanceolata.     |
  |    |         Some of the smaller Compositæ.            |
  |    |              Ditto          Umbelliferæ.          |
  +----+---------------------------------------------------+

Of these, which are arranged pretty nearly in their order of merit, the
clovers are by far the most important. These, as meadow plants, will
usually be found under the following circumstances:—

     No. 1. Plentiful in good, rich, sound meadows.

     „ 2. Frequent in meadows on light sandy soils.

     „ 3. On thin but good soil, upland meadows.

The clovers, and indeed the clover allies, _Papilionaceæ_, as a whole,
are partial to lime,—so much so, that a dressing of this mineral to some
fields in which clovers are scarcely represented will very quickly cause
an accelerated growth of them; hence road dirt, when made from
calcareous stones, as are the _oolitic_ and mountain limestones, affords
a good vehicle for the admixture of manures or ameliorators, such as
guano, burnt ashes, soot, nitrate of soda, &c.

The following remarks upon these three clovers are from a paper by the
author in the _Bath and West of England Agricultural Journal_, vol. x.,
part 2:—

     1. _Trifolium pratense_—Meadow or Broad-leaved Clover—in its wild
     state is too well known to need any lengthened description. A
     careful examination of field specimens will show that even in the
     wild state this plant is liable to run into numberless variations;
     thus, we may have the leaflets of one plant broad and almost
     obcordate at the extremity, whilst others will be more or less
     ovate and lancet-shaped. In some we may see dense heads of purple
     flowers, varying in shade until almost white, whilst less dense
     heads of flowers and general variations in height, size, and
     luxuriance of the whole plant, are all circumstances in the natural
     history of this species in the wild state, which will prepare us
     duly to understand the nature of the many forms of the plant which
     are found in cultivation. Of these we have, besides others,
     English, French, American, and Dutch sorts, which differ in such
     minor details as a greater or less hairiness, or variations in the
     colour and size of the flowers, leaves, _&c._ The most important
     point connected with the broad-leaved clover is its permanency;
     some sorts scarcely maintaining a plant for two years, whilst
     others are said to be more or less perennial. This, however, is a
     matter which we conceive depends more upon the soil and the kind
     of cultivation than upon the sort; for although all seedsmen supply
     two sorts, namely, _Trifolium pratense_ and _T. pratense perenne_,
     yet they run so much the one into the other, that it is oftentimes
     exceedingly difficult to distinguish them. If, therefore, a farmer
     wants a good strain of broad clover, he should purchase his seed
     from seedsmen possessing judgment and character; for experience has
     taught us that a seed which may be all that is required in one
     district may result in next to a failure in another. Thus,
     clover-seed from the warmer parts of England does not succeed well
     when sown in cold, exposed positions; but that from the latter is
     improved on transmission to the former, whilst good changes are
     effected by the occasional use of foreign seed.

     The sort known in the market as _T. pratense perenne_ is probably
     intermediate between the wild species _T. pratense_ and _T.
     medium_. Our own experiments have shown that, on cultivating _T.
     medium_, which is a sand-lover, in strong land, in three years it
     has been very difficult to distinguish it from some of the
     varieties of _T. pratense_. We incline, therefore, to the opinion
     that as the _T. medium_ holds to sandy soils in the wild state, its
     seed was brought into cultivation with a view to light-soil
     cropping; and from this source has probably been derived the
     so-called _T. pratense perenne_, which variety is certainly more
     perennial in such light soils as would be quite unfit for the true
     _T. pratense_. The latter, indeed, seems to be more permanent in
     soils containing a quantity of lime, while the former, where it can
     be got of a good sort, is certainly best adapted for sandy soils.

     2. _Trifolium medium_—Zigzag Trefoil—is distinguished from the _T.
     pratense_ by its larger, but more lax, head of reddish pink (not
     purple) flowers, which are solitary, on the apex of a stalk, which
     at each joint is bent at a considerable angle; hence its name. Its
     leaflets are elliptical, and not broader at the upper margin. This
     plant is a constant denizen of sands and light soils. In fact, its
     naturally growing in soils unfitted for the broad-leaved clover
     seems to recommend it for cultivation; and though, as before
     pointed out, we more than suspect that the so-called cow-grass
     clover was originally derived from this source, and that the _T.
     medium_ is after all but a variety of the _T. pratense_, it is now
     quite merged as a farm-plant into the broad-clover forms; so that,
     if we are to possess it as a separate plant, it must be again grown
     from the wild seed; and then, if it is to be kept pure, it must not
     be cultivated on clays or limestones, or, if our view be correct,
     it will soon lose its true distinctive character.

     3. _Trifolium repens_—White Dutch Clover—has been long in
     cultivation throughout Europe and America. It is one of our
     commonest native plants, and appears to have become less changed by
     cultivation than most other plants; yet there is reason to think
     that with careful selection a much improved strain may be brought
     about. In pastures an immense accession of Dutch clover is often
     seen to follow some kind or another of top-dressing, especially of
     lime, old mortar, or town rubbish. This is accounted for by the
     fact that this clover is in reality of universal occurrence; and
     its creeping habit of growth, besides seeding, causes it soon to
     make a rapid increase where its conditions of growth are made
     suitable. As an agricultural plant its position is in light soils,
     for which it is usually mixed with other clovers and grasses in
     varied proportions.

4 and 5 are often found scattered in meadows, though not usually in any
abundance in those of the richer kind; still, in laying down land for
permanent pasture, there can be no objection to a small admixture of
their seed.

6, the _Purple Vetchling_, though local in rich river pastures, is yet a
good plant, and might perhaps be advantageously brought out as an
addendum to mixtures designed for good lowland positions.

7, _Saintfoin_, is a good pasture plant for chalks and limestones; and
in laying down land for permanent pastures in such position, should not
usually be omitted. It is also a good species to sow on railway banks,
not alone for the beauty of its flowers, but for the binding effects of
its deeply-diving roots.

8 and 9, the _Burnets_, will be found,—the _true_ in rich damp bottoms
and on river flats, the _false_ on dry, calcareous soils. They are
neither plants that we should care to grow; but in their wild state in
their respective pastures we should, on the other hand, not be inclined
to make war against them as weeds. The same opinion, indeed, might be
briefly expressed as regards Nos. 10, 12, and 13. In fact, the whole
here grouped may be said to possess more or less bitter and astringent
qualities, and so become useful in checking the vapidity which is
sometimes found in purely grass herbage.

11, the _Yarrow_, should be encouraged in most pastures, as it not only
possesses the qualities just mentioned, but its leaves are so small and
its stems and flowers so easily dry when cut, that there is no chance of
its smothering out the grass in growing, or of its retarding the process
of haymaking. It also bears constant nibbling with sheep, which are
remarkably fond of it, without injury, as it rather becomes finer for
being depastured.

12. The larger composite plants, as dandelion, the hawkweeds, blackhead,
&c., are, from their coarseness and the room they take up, highly
objectionable; but the yellow hawkbits, thrincia, and the
before-mentioned yarrow, are by no means objectionable.

13. The above remarks will equally apply to the _Umbelliferæ_. Large
plants like the cow-parsnip and common beaked parsley are objectionable
from their size and want of feeding properties, whilst the small
pimpinella and earth-nut do not offer these objections. Here, however,
it must be confessed that we are bordering on the domains of weeds in
pasture, to which we must devote a separate chapter.

CHAPTER XII.

ON THE WEEDS OF PASTURE.

“Weeds in pasture!” said an old farmer friend; “I thought hay and grass
was all weeds.” This, which is by no means an uncommon notion,
sufficiently explains the want of care in the cultivation of the best
kinds of meadow produce, which can only be effected by the destruction
of what is useless or mischievous.

Now, if we proceed upon the assumption that the best kinds of meadow are
remarkable for the possession of little else than the best kinds of the
true grasses, we shall see that pasturage should, in the main, be
composed of good grass-growth, with only some few other plants which may
be capable of augmenting quantity, by their nutritive matter, giving
flavour, or improving quality.

It follows, then, that all plants having none of these requisites must
be, to all intents and purposes, only _mischievous weeds_; as thus a
large useless plant in a meadow, as in an arable field, must not only
occupy the space that would be better taken up by good plants, but it
appropriates a large quantity of food to the prejudice of the better
crop.

Viewed in this light, then, what a mass of weeds some of our pastures
will be found to contain! In fact, what with useless plants, other than
grasses, and coarse, sour, or useless grasses themselves, we meet with
so-called meadows to which the terms of “barren moor” or waste land
would be especially applicable.

The following table is offered as an attempt at the classification of
the weeds of pasture, the different divisions of which we shall
presently describe in the order of their arrangement.

TABLE OF PASTURE WEEDS.

        1. _Plants which take up space but yield no Produce._

  ----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------
     Trivial Name.      |    Botanical Name.    |       Remarks.
  ----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------
                        |                      {| The leaves of these
  Broad-leaved Plantain.| Plantago media       {| plants grow too close
  Dent-de-lion          | Leontodon taraxacum  {| to the ground to be
  Daisy                 | Bellis perennis      {| eaten off by cattle
                        |                      {| or to cut for hay.
                        |                     { | These plants take up
                        |                     { | much room in growing,
  Cowslip               | Primula veris       { | they are not eaten by
  Primrose              |    „    vulgaris    { | cattle, and, as they
  Green-winged Orchis   | Orchis Morio        { | die before haymaking,
  Early Purple Orchis   |    „   mascula      { | yield little or
                        |                     { | nothing to the rick.

     2. _Plants which take up space, but simply dilute the hay with
                            useless matter._

                        |                      {| All common, especially
  Blunt-leaved Dock     | Rumex obtusifolius   {| in damp meadows, are
  Crisp-leaved Dock     |   „   crispus        {| not usually depastured,
  Marsh Dock            |   „   palustris      {| and have little or no
  Field Sorrel          |   „   acetosa        {| feeding properties
                        |                      {| when made into hay.
  Burdock               | Arctium Lappa         | Common about the
                        |                       | borders of fields.
  Butter Burr           | Petasites vulgaris    | Common near water
                        |                       | courses.
  Cow Parsnip           | Heracleum Sphondylium{| Very common and
  Wild-beaked Parsley   | Anthriscus vulgaris  {| unsightly in
                        |                      {| pastures.
  Ladies’ Smock         | Cardamine pratensis   | In damp places.
  Yellow Rattle         | Rhinanthus crista     | In poor cold clays.
                        | galli                 |
  Larger Hawkweeds, &c. | Hieracium species     | About fields in
                        |                       | upland districts.

     3. _Mechanical Plants, those with Spines, Prickles, Stings, &c._

  Musk Thistle          | Carduus nutans        | Mostly a weed in
                        |                       | “seeds.”
  Welted Thistle        |    „    acanthoides  {|
  Creeping Thistle      |    „    arvensis     {| In hedgerows, borders
  Cotton Thistle        |    „    eriophorus   {| of fields, or the
  Spear Thistle         |    „    lanceolatus  {| open meadows.
  Marsh Plume Thistle   |    „    palustris   { | Damp or marsh
  Meadow Plume Thistle  |    „    pratensis   { | meadows.
  Stemless Thistle      |    „    acaulis      {| Common to poor
  Carline Thistle       | Carlina vulgaris     {| calcareous uplands.
  Common Stinging Nettle| Urtica dioica       { | About the homestead,
  Smaller Stinging      |    „ urens          { | corners of fields,
  Nettle                |                     { | &c.
  Wall Barley           | Hordeum murinum      {| About sandy soils,
                        |                      {| both in the meadow
                        |                      {| and arable.

                   4. _Poisonous Pasture-weeds, &c._

  Meadow Saffron        | Colchicum autumnale   | Usual in calcareous
                        |                       | soils or marls.
  Upright Buttercup     | Ranunculus acris      | In damp meadows.
  Diseased Grasses      | Secale cornutum      {| In places where mist
                        |                      {| and damp prevail.

   5. _Ill-favoured Weeds or Plants which communicate bad flavour to
                                Produce._

  Crow Garlic           | Allium vineale       {| More or less in
  Hogs’ Garlic          |       „   ursinum    {| meadows and corners
                        |                      {| of fields.
  Jack-by-the-Hedge     | Erysimum Alliaria     | About the hedgerow.

               6. _Useless Grasses, or Grass-like Plants._

  Rough Grasses         | Species               | Poor land and wet
                        |                       | places.
  Sedges                | Species              {| In boggy, marshy, or
                        |                      {| wet sandy spots.
  Rushes                | Species              {| In sandy spots on
                        |                      {| clays and poor soils.
  ----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------

1. Taking the broad-leaved plantain as the type of this list, we shall
have no difficulty in estimating the amount of mischief which it does.
Here is a plant, a single specimen of which not unfrequently occupies
nearly a square foot of ground, and as its leaves grow close to the
soil, it effectually prevents the growth of the grass, while few, if
any, leaves are cut with the scythe. The bare patches which result from