Corn decreased 34 per cent.
Oats decreased 31 per cent.
Wheat decreased 4 per cent.
Hay decreased 29 per cent.
Appalling, is it not? It is the best information America affords in answer to the question, Will the rotation of crops actually enrich the land?
No, Sir. We cannot make crops nor bank accounts out of nothing. The rotation of crops does not enrich the soil, does not even maintain the fertility of the soil. On the contrary, the rotation of crops, like the rotation of your check book, actually depletes the soil more rapidly than the single system; and, if you ever have your choice between two farms of equal original fertility, one of which has been cropped with wheat only, and the other with a good three or five-year rotation, for fifty years, take my advice and choose the "worn-out" wheat farm. Then adopt a good system of cropping with a moderate use of clover, and you will soon discover that your land is not worn out, but "almos' new lan" as a good Swede friend of mine reported who made a similar choice. But beware of the land that has been truly worn out under a good rotation, which avoids the insects and diseases of the single crop system, and also furnishes regularly a moderate amount of clover roots which decay very rapidly and thus stimulate the decomposition of the old humus and the liberation of mineral plant food from the soil.
Perhaps you have heard of Rothamsted. If not, your kindergarten teacher is at fault. A four-year rotation of crops has been followed on Agdell field for more than sixty years. An average of the crop yields of the last twenty years reveals:
(1) That the yield of turnips has decreased from ten tons to one-half ton per acre since 1848.
(2) That the yield of barley has decreased from forty-six bushels to fourteen bushels since 1849.
(3) That the yield of clover has decreased from two and eight-tenth tons to one-half ton since 1850.