CULTIVATION. The cultivation of the soil is the oldest of the arts. Neolithic man had rude implements of stone or flint which were the primitive precursors of the spade and hoe, and rudimentary ploughs were devised in the Bronze age.
In its elementary form cultivation consists in preparing land for the reception of seed, after it has been cleared of its natural vegetation. The amount of labour involved in this operation de pends on the nature of the soil. Deep soil, rich in natural fertility, not subject to extremes of temperature and adequately supplied with water, requires little labour to prepare it for a crop. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, from whence Western civilization sprang, Agriculture was first developed, and there the successful cultivation of the soil involved the artificial supply of water by irrigation. In England cultivation was first practised on the bare chalk downs where the soil is shallow and stony. The terraces which mark the slopes of the Downs and are known as "lynches," are generally believed to have been formed by the earliest culti vators of English soil, either by the spade or by the plough.
The first step in the evolution of a system of cultivation was, no doubt, the discovery by primitive man that continuous crop ping of the same land resulted in reduced yield. He found that by leaving it uncropped for a year it would in the following season return to its former productivity. The bare fallow was thus introduced and became universal. Throughout Europe a two course system of cultivation, gradually developing into a three course system, was generally adopted from the earliest times until the eighteenth century and survives in some parts even now. Under the two-course system one-half the land was cropped with corn—usually either rye or wheat—and the other half uncropped in each year.
Progress in the art of cultivation was only possible on land which was not subject to common-field rules—such as that farmed by lords of the manor or by religious corporations, such as mon asteries. The monks were the pioneers of improvement in farm practice. They studied the Latin writers on Agriculture and experimented, with the limited resources of the time, on the growth of crops. The value of lime as a dressing for land had long been recognised and marling also was practised by progressive agriculturists. The old chalk-pits and marl-pits to be found in many parts of the country testify to the antiquity of these prac tices. Otherwise the use of any materials for stimulating and maintaining the fertility of the soil, other than by dung, was practically unknown.
From his observation of viticulture Tull deduced that tillage was necessary before and after sowing of all crops and continual stirring of the land kept weeds in subjection and admitted air, sun and rain to the roots of the plants. He abolished fallows as unnecessary and he made but little use of farm-yard manure, relying almost entirely on thorough cultivation for the success of his crops. He prop ed his confidence in his theory, and demon strated its soundness, by growing wheat on the same land for 13 successive years, without fallows or manure and obtaining heavier crops, from one-third of the seed, than his neighbours who con tinued to adhere to the old routine.
Indeed, neither theory nor demonstration had any effect upon farmers who regarded him as a crank, and were in no way im pressed by the self-evident success of his practice. After his death in 1i40 a third edition of Tull's work was published, in 1751, with a "preface by the Editors addressed to all concerned in agriculture." The Editors were anonymous and commented severely on the obstinacy of farmers in refusing to adopt the im proved methods. "How it has happened" they wrote, "that a 'Method of Culture which proposes such advantages to those who shall duly prosecute it, hath been so long neglected in this Coun try, may be matter of Surprize to such as are not acquainted with the Characters of the Men on whom the Practice of it depends; but to those who know them thoroughly it can be done. For it is certain that very few of them can be prevailed on to alter their usual Methods upon any consideration ; though they are convinced that their continuing therein disables them from paying their Rents, and maintaining their Families.
"And, what is still more to be lamented, these People are so much attached to their old Customs, that they are not only averse to alter them themselves, but are moreover industrious to prevent others from succeeding, who attempt to introduce anything new; and indeed have it too generally in their Power, to defeat any Scheme which is not agreeable to their own Notions; seeing it must be executed by the same sort of Hands." Fortunately there were a few enlightened landowners who were interested in the development of their estates and the progress of agriculture. They appreciated the significance of Jethro Tull's experiments and applied the principles which he propounded.
It may be said, indeed, that the revolution in British agricul ture to which the introduction of the four-course system gave the most prominent expression was not so much in methods of culti vation—although these were radically changed—as in the inti mate association of tillage and live stock which it promoted. Under old methods crops were grown on arable land and live stock were kept on grassland. The arable land produced food for man and the grass-land food for cattle and sheep. They were independ ent and, in a large measure, detached departments of the farmer's business. Every winter the head of live stock had to be reduced to such numbers as could be maintained by the hay, with scanty supplement from the straw and .any other surplus produce from the arable land.
The four-course system made cattle and sheep an integral part of the routine of cultivation. At the beginning of the winter the roots provided ample food either for sheep which were folded on them, or for cattle in the byres. The clover course, or "break," in the same way provided food either by feeding off on the land, or cutting for hay. From this system naturally developed the prac tice of stall-feeding cattle through the winter which ensured sup plies of beef at the time of year when, under the old methods, it was hardly obtainable.
The maintenance of the fertility of the land, and the prevention of its exhaustion, were ensured by this system of cultivation when properly carried out and indeed in many cases the productivity of the land, and its consequent value, were greatly and permanently increased. The use of artificial fertilizers was still unknown and for manuring the land the folding of sheep, and the dung pro duced by the stall-fed cattle were mainly relied upon. Lord Town shend, however, revived the practice, which had once been corn mon in Norfolk but had fallen into disuse, of marling, which was eminently suited for the improvement of the light sandy soils of the county.
By the latter part of the 18th century the "new farming" had spread extensively. The movement for enclosure, which released large tracts of land from the antiquated restrictions of common field farming assisted in securing the general adoption of improved methods. The spirit of agricultural progress was stimulated not only by influential landowners but also by energetic writers such as Arthur Young. The acknowledged leader of the movement was Thomas Coke of Holkam, Norfolk, who in 1776, at the age of twenty-two came into his estate. In I 7 78 two of his tenants threw up their farms and he determined to farm them himself. No wheat had been grown on this land which produced only a sparse crop of rye. Coke marled, clayed and manured it, drilled wheat and turnips, grew sainfoin and clover and trebled the live stock. The value of bones as a fertilizer had just then been discovered, and artificial feeding stuffs, such as oil-cake, had been introduced. But although the success of these new methods was amply demon strated farmers were still very reluctant to adopt them and Coke himself reckoned that the influence of his example extended at the rate of one mile per year. But progress although slow, was steady and by the beginning of the r 9th century the "new farming" had become general throughout the country.
Practice with Science.—All the improvements in the art of cultivation up to the i 9th century had been made by intelligent observers of the processes of nature working empirically by the method of trial and error. Experiments like those of Jethro Tull in the tillage of the land and the growth of crops, and those of Robert Bakewell in the breeding of live stock were made in the true scientific spirit, but of scientific knowledge, in the modern sense, they had none. In r 803 Humphrey Davy, then assistant professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution, was engaged by the Board of Agriculture to deliver a course of six lectures on "The connection of chemistry with vegetable physiology." They were so successful that Davy was appointed professor of chem istry to the Board of Agriculture and gave further courses of lectures during the next ten years. He was the pioneer of the application of science to agriculture, and he was followed by Liebig, Johnston, Voelcker, Gilbert and others. The establishment by Lawes at Rothamsted of the first agricultural experimental station recognized the intimate association of science with prac tical farming.
Mr. (afterwards Sir) John Lawes succeeded to an estate at Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, in 1834 and a little later began that series of agricultural experiments which are famous throughout the world. In 1843 Dr. (afterwards Sir) J. H. Gilbert became associated with him and undertook the charge of the chemical laboratory. The general scheme of the experiments was to grow the more important farm crops, year after year, on the same land without manure, with farmyard manure and with various kinds of artificial manure. Many experiments were also started on the feeding of animals.
The application of scientific research inaugurated a new era in the art of cultivation. In the first instance attention was mainly directed to the discovery of new fertilizers. Various substances of fertilizing value were already in common use, such as lime, crushed bones, soot and salt. The usefulness of guano was known, but it was not until 1835 that the first cargo was imported into Great Britain. These were all natural products used in their natural state. Chemistry provided new substances, artificially compounded. The first of these was superphosphate—bones treated with sulphuric acid—which Lawes introduced and manu factured on a commercial scale. The same treatment was applied to coprolites and to other kinds of mineral phosphates.
The introduction of a variety of fertilizers, each having its spe cial adaptability to different soils and conditions and the accurate knowledge of their qualities which was disseminated from Roth amsted and from other experimental stations which were gradu ally established in many countries, systematized the art of culti vation. The farmer obtained greater control of his land and crops. He was supplied with the means of readily restoring to the land the fertility extracted from it. Not only was the direct applica tion to the crops of food and stimulant made possible but the introduction of oil-cake enabled him to fatten his cattle expe ditiously while at the same time manuring his land.
Chemistry was the first branch of science to be harnessed to the service of the husbandman. But in modern farming many other branches of science have contributed. Geology, botany, physiology, and, latest of all, bacteriology, all share in the develop ment of agricultural research. The advancement of exact knowl edge during the present century has proceeded with unprecedented rapidity. The secrets of the soil have been exposed by the bacteri ologist and have revealed possibilities in regard to the processes of cultivation which have been hitherto unimagined. The principles of breeding, both of animals and plants, have been discovered and the knowledge, still imperfect, has been applied to crops and live stock.
Knowledge permeates slowly and science is far ahead of general practice. The cultivator of the soil must always be dependent for his success largely upon natural forces which are uncon trollable, but the mastery of Nature's secrets which scientific re search gives him cannot fail in the long run to increase the prod ucts of his skill and experience.
See also CULTIVATING MACHINERY. (R. H. R.) Cultivation by the Indians.—At the time of the discovery of America by the white man the Indians were engaged more extensively in the cultivation of crops and in the stable prosecu tion of permanent agricultural pursuits than has been commonly supposed. Instead of devoting themselves exclusively to hunting and fishing and the nomadic life, the Indians even at that early date grew maize, pumpkins, squash, tobacco, beans, potatoes and other crops. To clear the forested areas for the production of these crops, they bruised and scorched the roots of the trees or girdled the trunks and fired the base. In time the trees died, sunshine penetrated to the ground beneath, and the crops were planted. Or, by the use of crude axes the trees were felled and burned. The Indian women did most of the work in producing the crops, the work being done entirely by hand, without the aid of domestic animals. The ground was stirred, the planting holes were made, and the weeds and grass were kept down by crude implements such as clam shells, shoulder blades of buffalo, horns of deer and elk and pointed sticks of wood.
Each Indian family had its garden. Maize was the principal crop in those sections suitable to its growth, and was grown in practically all sections of the present United States. It was planted in hills about 3 ft. apart in the row, and the rows were 3 or 4 ft. apart. In each hill three to six kernels were planted. As the maize grew, the soil was banked up in mounds about the plants i or 2 ft. high. One or two crabs or fish were placed with the kernels into each hole to serve as fertilizer, if the planting was done where this form of animal fertilizer was available. Between the rows of maize, such crops as beans and pumpkins were planted, although both beans and maize were sometimes planted in the same hill. The same crops were grown on the land year after year until the yields became so low that new clearings in the forest were necessary in order to start again on a virgin soil. Cultivation by the Colonists.—The Europeans who col onized North America found the climate, soils, vegetation and crops so different from those of their native countries, that they encountered serious agricultural difficulties and experienced many discouraging failures. There was the formidable forest to be cleared away to make room for the food crops. They had estab lished themselves as neighbours to a strange and often hostile people, who looked with natural resentment upon the inevitable encroachments into their long-held domains. And it was a herculean task to try to transplant European agriculture into the new environment under such forbidding conditions. The result was largely failure from the standpoint of European methods and past experience. At best, the resulting product was only an unpromising hybrid between European agriculture and that prac tised by the American Indians. In general, the agriculture of the native Americans was adopted by the colonists as regards both methods and crops. Upon that foundation the structure of Cau casian agriculture in North America was reared. The maize cultivated by the Indians is still the leading crop in the United States. The colonists learned much from the Indians, and indeed made little progress in agricultural methods for decades. Although animal power and machinery were employed—the English settlers in Connecticut having introduced the use of the plough in the cultivation of maize before 1678—the implements were crude and the cultivation poor. By the end of the 18th century colonial agriculture had made improvements over primitive methods in only a few particulars, no noteworthy progress being made until after the Revolutionary War. During the early colonial period there were both interest and activity in determining the possi bilities of plants introduced from other countries and of those found native to America. But as soon as the pioneer stage was passed the colonists settled down to mediocre routine husbandry. Nature had done much to provide abundant fertility in this "milk and honey" land of promise, but the colonists counteracted much of this by improvident systems of tillage. On their poorly cultivated fields little or no fertilization was given, live stock culture was neglected, the implements used were rough, clumsy and largely ineffective, and the soil became so exhausted of its fertility that new forest areas had to be cleared for the continued production of farm crops. John Taylor, the author of the first book on Virginia agriculture, Arator, published in 1813, said: "Agriculture in the South does not consist so much in cultivating land as in killing it." Farming was at times spoken of as mining, because of the extraction of fertility from the soil without any adequate system of returning it, even in part. Because land was cheap the plantation owner in the South experienced no great difficulty in abandoning his exhausted land and moving with his slaves, his major capital, to more fertile areas.
The inefficient agriculture of that day, however, did not escape severe criticism from many local students and observers and f or ward-looking husbandmen who were leading the way to better methods. Foreign writers and visitors were often shocked by the contrast between the cultural technique of the colonies and that of the European countries, then more advanced agriculturally, and they voiced their opinion in scathing comment regarding the weak and insufficient tillage and decreasing fertility of the soil and the generally wasteful and slovenly agriculture practised by the colonists.
Four main reasons for this bad state of affairs were assigned : (1) Ignorance of the farmers regarding the fundamental principles of scientific agriculture ; (2) conservatism, binding them to the traditional methods of the past ; (3) cheapness of the land and high price of labour; (4) lack of markets for farm products. The first two reasons were denied by many. In regard to the third reason George .'Washington, himself an alert, progressive farmer, wrote that the aim of farming in America was not to make the most from cheap land but to get the most out of high-priced labour. Others pointed out that the most profitable agricultural practices in the colonies where land was cheap and abundant but labour scarce and high-priced would necessarily be different from those in England and other European countries where land was high-priced but labour cheap and abundant. As contributing factors to the conditions caused by wasteful methods on cheap lands should be mentioned the surprising fertility of much of the virgin soil which yielded large returns for small effort, and the general novel and unsettled condition of farming. Speculation and the pioneer spirit of adventure were rife. The tendency was for many of the original owners to clear land and bring it under tillage in order to sell it and move on farther west. One writer states that every farm from eastern Maine to western New York was for sale, generally speaking.
Evolution of Better Systems of Tillage.—Gradually, scien tific methods and equipment have been introduced until the tiller of the soil to-day sees clearly how to make his land perpetually productive of high yields with minimum physical effort.
An early chronicle of the Pilgrims speaks of manuring ground with herrings or shads,, i,000 to an acre, and says that one acre thus dressed produced as much maize as three acres without the dressing. In 1813 John Taylor contended that success in agri culture lies in free use of putrescent vegetable matter as manure, and that it should be applied to the soil before the gaseous fertility elements pass into the atmosphere. He advised that more crops be grown and fed to animals and the resulting manure ploughed into the soil. Taylor also suggested that clovers should be largely grown and ploughed under. Gypsum, he said, would increase the yield of clover.
Edmund Ruffin in 1818 used shell marl on his farm to coun teract the "poisons" from the organic acids in the soil. By such use he obtained an increase of 4o% over the yield from untreated land. As the decades passed and the beneficial effects of fertiliza tion became more generally known, the use of both barnyard manure and mineral fertilizers became vastly extended. Likewise the value of fertilizing elements became more fully appreciated. While the cotton planters of the South formerly hauled off, burned or threw into streams the seed of this crop, now cotton-seed oil cake is used for fertilizer. However, the value of barnyard ma nure, so undeniably needed as fertilizer, particularly in the arid West where humus in the soil is more lacking than in that of many of the more humid sections of the East, is apparently not yet fully realized in the United States, judging by the need for improvement of conditions of the manure piles on the farms of the country. This is especially noticeable in contrast with the meticulous care bestowed upon the conservation of this fertilizing substance in many European countries.
The improvident culture of the past in the United States has necessitated the expenditure of huge sums for fertilizers. Al though a more rational system of cultivation would have rendered so much outlay unnecessary, rich returns have been obtained from their application in increased crop yields. The addition of mineral fertilizers on many soils, however, is not sufficient. Organic mat ter for conversion into humus is urgently needed in order to improve the physical texture and water-holding power of the soil. In sections where live stock can be profitably raised, especially if ensilage can be fed and the manure applied to the soil without much loss in fertility, barnyard manure finds its rightful place in the soil-enrichment scheme. But green manuring, the ploughing under of crops in the succulent stage, particularly of leguminous crops, with consequent enrichment of the soil in nitrogen from the symbiotic bacteria, has come to be recognized as an important agency in soil enrichment.
Rotation of crops was early recognized as an important practice in soil tillage, although the system was not as extensively used as proper maintenance of fertility required. Instead of adopting this practice the early farmers followed the system which has been designated natural husbandry, by which nature is expected to recuperate the soil without man's purposeful aid. According to that system, the one-crop plan was followed until the soil weakly gave up the struggle to supply fertility. Then came the naked fallow system by which the land was allowed to lie idle for a period in order to give nature the opportunity to restore some of the depleted elements by chemical and biological action, the soil in the meantime being kept cultivated and free of weeds. In areas of scant rainfall this system is followed for the additional purpose, and probably the most important one, of conserving moisture in the soil. However, this system was never followed very extensively in the eastern part of the United States. Legume rotation, a system by which a legume was grown in rotation with other crops, and field-grass husbandry, a system of alternating a grass crop and a cereal, have been practised to some extent, but have not made the headway in America as in Europe.
Following these systems came scientific rotation, practically forced on the husbandman by declining productivity of his soil and the growing scarcity of free virgin land to which he could go. This system owed its unusual importance in the East to the fact that it was used as a means of meeting the agricultural competi tion from the great areas of cheaper land in the West. As ad juncts to this system, pasturing is largely done away with, more and better animals are kept, and these are fed in stalls instead of being allowed to graze, ensilage is used as one of the feeds, and the manure from the animals is utilized.
The next step after scientific rotation is specialized and inten sive agriculture, if this step can be considered apart from scientific rotation. Into this era, with its agricultural production of such magnitude as to make the marketing of the surplus crops a serious national problem, America has entered. As active agencies in the development of tillage on American farms to its present con spicuous position, the marvellous development of agricultural machinery and the wide-spread diffusion of information concern ing improved agricultural practices should be mentioned with grateful emphasis.