OCR Text |
Show it 1 GREASE WOOD LAND The Editor of this paper has been making an extensive inspection of dr,y farms during the past few weeks. The evidence of the advantages of a proper system of "fallow" arc at hand and arc sufficient to convince the most skeptical. However we began this article with the purpose of saying say-ing that we have for a number of years contended that the growing of wheat on grease wood land is a hazardous haz-ardous undertaking. Notwithstading this hundreds of acres of grease wood land have been cleared and planted to wheat on dry lands. We have failed so far to find any promising promis-ing crops on these lands. One. instance inst-ance showing the difference referred to was seen during a visit made last Saturday. The writer visited a field of grease wood land and a field of sage-brush land in the same valley not more than five miles distant less than a year ago. Both of these fields at that time had been plowed and cultivated , and put in good condition for a crop. The grease-wood land was, if there was any difference, in better condi tion. The same variety of wheat was planted at the same rate, and at aboir. the same time. On the sage-brush ground the grain looks vigorous and thrifty and should yie'd in the neighborhood neigh-borhood of 18 tQ 20 bushels per acre. On the grease-wood land there is a doubtful 8 or 10 bushel crop. We arr unable to say just why these girensc-wood girensc-wood lands do not respond more rend ily but the plant food docs not seem to be readily available. Growing wheat on grease-wood land even bv arid farming methods is hazardous. Why not use the sage-brush land? There is cwtninly enough sage-brush ground left for a year or two, anywav |