[Transcriber’s Note: This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8 (Unicode) text readers. Most important are ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ (fractions 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8) ‖ (double vertical line) If any of these characters do not display properly, or if the quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the ASCII-7 version of this file instead. Depending on available fonts, some tables may not line up vertically. ] * * * * * TALKS ON MANURES. A Series of Familiar and Practical Talks Between the Author and the Deacon, the Doctor, and Other Neighbors, on the Whole Subject of Manures and Fertilizers. by JOSEPH HARRIS, M. S. Author of “Walks and Talks on the Farm, ” “Harris on the Pig, ” etc. NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION, Including a Chapter Specially Written for Itby Sir John Bennet Lawes, of Rothamsted, England. [Illustration: Publisher’s Logo] New York: Orange Judd Company, 1919 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by the ORANGE JUDD COMPANYIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Printed in U. S. A. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Farming as a Business. -- High Farming and Good Farming. -- Summer-fallowing and Plowing under Clover. -- We must raise larger Crops per Acre. -- Destruction of Weeds. -- Farming is Slow Work. -- It requires Personal Attention. 9 CHAPTER II. What is Manure?-- The definitions given by the Deacon and the Doctor. 19 CHAPTER III. Something about Plant-food. -- All soils on which plants grow contain it. -- The Season. -- Water, Shade, Light, and Mulch, not Manures. -- Several Definitions of Manure. 21 CHAPTER IV. Natural Manure. -- Accumulated Plant-food in the Soil. -- Exhaustion of the Soil. -- Why our Crops are so Poor. -- How to get Larger Crops. -- We must Drain, Cultivate thoroughly, and Make Richer Manure. 23 CHAPTER V. Swamp-muck and Peat as Manure. -- Draining Swamp-land. -- Composition of Peat and Muck. 29 CHAPTER VI. What is Potential Ammonia. 31 CHAPTER VII. Tillage is Manure. -- The Doctor’s Lecture on Manure. 32 CHAPTER VIII. Summer-fallowing. -- Mr. Lawes’ crop every other year. -- Wheat after Barley. -- For Larger Crops raise less frequently, and Manure Higher; also keep better Stock, and Feed Higher. 34 CHAPTER IX. How to Restore a Worn-out Farm. -- The Author’s Farm. -- Tillage renders the Plant-food stored in the soil available. -- Cultivated Lands contain less Plant-food, but are more productive. -- Grass alone will not make rich land. 37 CHAPTER X. How to Make Manure. -- We must get it out of the Land. 41 CHAPTER XI. The Value of the Manure depends upon the Food--not upon the Animal. 43 CHAPTER XII. Foods which Make Rich Manure. -- Table giving the composition of 31 kinds of Food and the value of the Manure they yield. -- Cotton-seed Cake. -- English and German Clover. -- Nitrogenous matter in Rich and Poor Foods. -- Manure from Corn compared with that from Straw. 45 CHAPTER XIII. Horse-manure and Farm-yard Manure. -- Why the one is richer than the other. -- Amount of Manure from a Horse. -- Composition of Farm-yard Manure. -- We draw and spread a ton to get 33 lbs. Of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash. 50 CHAPTER XIV. Fermenting Manure. -- Composition of Manure when Fresh and in its stages of Fermentation. -- Loss in Fermentation and from Leaching. -- Tables showing the composition of Manure at different stages. -- Fermenting makes Manure more Soluble. 52 CHAPTER XV. Keeping Manure under Cover. -- Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments. -- Manure Fermented Outside and Under Cover. -- Loss from keeping Manure spread in the Barn-yard. -- Keeping well-rotted Manure in a Heap. -- Conclusions from Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments. 59 CHAPTER XVI. An English Plan of Keeping Manure. -- Box feeding of Cattle. -- Spreading Manure at once. -- Piling in Heaps in the Field. -- Old Sods and Ashes from Charred Sods. 69 CHAPTER XVII. Soluble Phosphates in Farm-yard Manure. -- Fermented, the Manure has the most. -- Over 40 per cent. Of the Phosphoric Acid is Soluble. 72 CHAPTER XVIII. How the Deacon makes Manure. -- A good plan for making poor Manure. 74 CHAPTER XIX. How John Johnston Manages His Manure. Summer-fallows for Wheat. -- Does not plow under Clover. -- Value of Manure from different foods. -- Piling Manure. -- Applies Manure to Grass-land in Fall, and Plows under in Spring for Corn. -- His success due to the Effect of Manure on Grass. -- It brought in Red Clover. 76 CHAPTER XX. The Author’s Plan of Managing Manure. -- Piles as fast as it is Made. -- What it is Made of. -- Horse and Cow Manure Together. -- Horse Manure for Bedding Pigs. -- To Prevent Freezing. -- Liquid Manure from Pigs. -- Bedding Sheep. -- Piling in the Field. -- Where the Piles should be Made. -- Manure in a Basin. -- Reasons for Piling. -- What we Gain by Fermenting Manure. 83 CHAPTER XXI. Management Continued. -- Why We Ferment Manure. -- Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments showing the Loss when Manure is spread in Yards. -- Fermenting adds Nothing to Manure, but makes it more available. -- Mr. Lawes’ Experiments on Wheat and Barley. -- Dr. Vœlcker’s Results. -- Ellwander & Barry’s Experience. -- Loss of Ammonia by Fermenting. -- Waste from Leaching. -- How to Save the Liquid Manure from Cows. 94 CHAPTER XXII. Manure on Dairy Farms. -- Wheat removes much more Nitrogen than Cheese. -- Manures for Dairy Farms. -- Letter from Hon. Harris Lewis. -- How to make more and better Manure on Dairy Farms. -- How to save and apply it. -- Letter from T. L. Harison, Esq. 101 CHAPTER XXIII. Management of Manures on Grain Farms. -- Letter from Hon. Geo. Geddes. -- Grain on Dairy Farms. -- Sheep on Grain Farms. -- Visit to John Johnston. -- Mr. Lawes’ Wheat-field. -- Mr. Geddes and Clover. -- Gypsum and Clover as Manures. 111 CHAPTER XXIV. The Cheapest Manure a Farmer can use. -- Clover vs. Tillage. -- As Plant-Food. -- Constituents of a Crop of Clover, as compared with one of Wheat. -- Making a Farm Rich by Growing Clover. 127 CHAPTER XXV. Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments on Clover. -- Lawes and Gilbert’s on Wheat. -- Clover Roots per Acre. -- Manures for Wheat. -- Liebig’s Manure Theory. -- Peruvian Guano on Wheat. -- Manures and the Quality of Wheat. -- Ammonia. -- Over 50 Bushels of Wheat to the Acre. 135 CHAPTER XXVI. Experiments on Clover Soils from Burcott Lodge Farm, Leighton Buzzard. -- Soil from Part of 11-acre Field twice Mown for Hay. -- Soil from do. Once Mown for Hay and left for Seed. -- Amount of Roots left in the Soil by different Crops. -- Manures for Wheat. 149 CHAPTER XXVII. Lawes and Gilbert’s Experiments on Wheat. -- Most Valuable and Instructive Tables now first made accessible to the American Farmer. -- The growth of Wheat Year after Year on the same Land, unmanured, with Farm-yard Manure, and with various Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers. 170 CHAPTER XXVIII. Lime as a Manure. -- Prof. Way’s Experiments. -- The uses of Lime in the Soil. -- Lime in this Country. -- Composts with Lime. 215 CHAPTER XXIX. Manures for Barley. -- Composition of Barley, grain and straw. -- Valuable Tables giving the Results of Lawes and Gilbert’s Experiments on the growth of Barley, Year after Year, on the same Land, without Manure, and with different kinds of Manure. -- Manure and Rotation of Crops. 227 CHAPTER XXX. Manures for Oats. -- Experiments at Rothamsted. -- Experiments of Mr. Bath of Virginia. -- At Moreton Farm. 252 CHAPTER XXXI. Manures for Potatoes. -- Peruvian Guano for Potatoes. -- Manure from different Foods. -- Experiments at Moreton Farm. -- Mr. Hunter’s Experiments. 255 CHAPTER XXXII. What Crops should Manure be Applied to?-- How, and When?-- John J. Thomas’ manner of Applying Manure. -- Top Dressing. -- Doct. Vœlcker’s Experiments. 265 CHAPTER XXXIII. Manures on Permanent Meadows and Pastures. -- Experiments at Rothamsted. 271 CHAPTER XXXIV. Manures for Special Crops. -- Hops. -- Indian Corn. -- Turnips. -- Mangel-Wurzel or Sugar-Beets. -- Cabbages, Parsnips, Lettuce, Onions, etc. 274 CHAPTER XXXV. Manures for Gardens and Orchards. -- Market Gardens. -- Seed-growing Farms. -- Private Gardens. -- Hot-beds. -- Manure for Nurserymen. -- Fruit Growers. -- Hen-Manure. 294 CHAPTER XXXVI. Different Kinds of Manures. -- Cow Manure. -- Sheep Manure. -- Buying Manure. -- Liquid Manure. -- Nightsoil and Sewage. -- Peruvian Guano. -- Salts of Ammonia and Nitrate of Soda. 302 CHAPTER XXXVII. Bone-Dust and Superphosphate of Lime. -- Bone furnishes Nitrogen as well as Phosphate of Lime. -- Increasing the Availability of Bone with Sulphuric Acid. 314 CHAPTER XXXVIII. Special Manures. -- Liebig’s Views. -- Special Manure for Wheat and Turnips. -- Rothamsted Experiments. 320 CHAPTER XXXIX. Value of Fertilizers. -- Cost per pound of the Essential Constituents of Fertilizers. -- Value of Guanos. -- Potash as a Manure. 324 CHAPTER XL. Restoring Fertility to the Soil, a Chapter by Sir John Bennet Lawes. -- The Treatment of a Poor Farm, to Restore it most Profitably. -- Meat-making the Back-bone of the System. -- The Use of Sheep to Manure the Soil. -- The Feeding of Cotton-seed Cake. -- Artificial Manures not Profitable on Poor Land. -- The Loss of Nitrogen. -- The Formation of Nitric Acid. 342 APPENDIX. Letter from Edward Jessop. -- From Dr. E. L. Sturtevant. -- From M. C. Weld. -- From Peter Henderson. -- From J. B. M. Anderson. -- Manure Statistics of Long Island. -- Letter from J. H. Rushmore. -- Letter from John E. Backus. -- Manure in Philadelphia. -- Various other Letters. 352 INTRODUCTION TO NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION. Sir John Bennet Lawes kindly consented to write a Chapter for the newedition of this work. The Deacon, the Doctor, the Squire, Charlie andmyself all felt flattered and somewhat bashful at finding ourselves insuch distinguished company. I need not say that this new Chapter fromthe pen of the most eminent English agricultural investigator is worthyof a very careful study. I have read it again and again, and each timewith great and renewed interest. I could wish there was more of it. Butto the intelligent and well-informed reader this Chapter will be valuednot merely for what it contains, but for what it omits. A man who knewless would write more. Sir John goes straight to the mark, and we havehere his mature views on one of the most important questions inagricultural science and practice. Sir John describes a tract of poor land, and tells us that the cheapestmethod of improving and enriching it is, to keep a large breeding flockof sheep, and feed them American cotton-seed cake. We are pleased tofind that this is in accordance with the general teaching of our“Talks, ” as given in this book several years ago. When this work was first published, some of my friends expressedsurprise that I did not recommend the more extended use of artificialmanures. One thing is certain, since that time the use of superphosphatehas been greatly on the increase. And it seems clear that its use mustbe profitable. Where I live, in Western New York, it is sown quitegenerally on winter wheat, and also on barley and oats in the spring. On corn and potatoes, its use is not so common. Whether this is becauseits application to these crops is not so easy, or because it does notproduce so marked an increase in the yield per acre, I am unable to say. Our winter wheat is sown here the first, second, or (rarely) the thirdweek in September. We sow from one and a half to two and a quarterbushels per acre. It is almost invariably sown with a drill. The drillhas a fertilizer attachment that distributes the superphosphate at thesame time the wheat is sown. The superphosphate is not mixed with thewheat, but it drops into the same tubes with the wheat, and is sown withit in the same drill mark. In this way, the superphosphate is depositedwhere the roots of the young plants can immediately find it. For barleyand oats the same method is adopted. It will be seen that the cost of sowing superphosphate on these cropsis merely nominal. But for corn and potatoes, when planted in hills, the superphosphate must be dropped in the hill by hand, and, as we arealmost always hurried at that season of the year, we are impatient atanything which will delay planting even for a day. The boys want to gofishing! This is, undoubtedly, one reason why superphosphate is not used sogenerally with us for corn as for wheat, barley, and oats. Anotherreason may be, that one hundred pounds of corn will not sell foranything like as much as one hundred pounds of wheat, barley, and oats. We are now buying a very good superphosphate, made from Carolina rockphosphate, for about one and a half cents per pound. We usually drill inabout two hundred pounds per acre at a cost of three dollars. Now, ifthis gives us an increase of five bushels of wheat per acre, worth sixdollars, we think it pays. It often does far better than this. Last yearthe wheat crop of Western New York was the best in a third of a century, which is as far back as I have had anything to do with farming here. From all I can learn, it is doubtful if the wheat crop of Western NewYork has ever averaged a larger yield per acre since the land was firstcultivated after the removal of the original forest. Something of thisis due to better methods of cultivation and tillage, and something, doubtless, to the general use of superphosphate, but much more to thefavorable season. The present year our wheat crop turned out exceedingly poor. Hundreds ofacres of wheat were plowed up, and the land resown, and hundreds morewould have been plowed up had it not been for the fact that the landwas seeded with timothy grass at the time of sowing the wheat, and withclover in the spring. We do not like to lose our grass and clover. Dry weather in the autumn was the real cause of the poor yield of wheatthis year. True, we had a very trying winter, and a still more tryingspring, followed by dry, cold weather. The season was very backward. Wewere not able to sow anything in the fields before the first of May, andour wheat ought to have been ready to harvest in July. On the first ofMay, many of our wheat-fields, especially on clay land, looked as bareas a naked fallow. There was here and there, a good field of wheat. As a rule, it was onnaturally moist land, or after a good summer-fallow, sown early. I knowof but one exception. A neighboring nursery firm had a very promisingfield of wheat, which was sown late. But their land is rich andunusually well worked. It is, in fact, in the very highest condition, and, though sown late, the young plants were enabled to make a goodstrong growth in the autumn. In such a dry season, the great point is, to get the seed to germinate, and to furnish sufficient moisture and food to enable the young plantsto make a strong, vigorous growth of roots in the autumn. I do not saythat two hundred pounds of superphosphate per acre, drilled in with theseed, will always accomplish this object. But it is undoubtedly a greathelp. It does not furnish the nitrogen which the wheat requires, butif it will stimulate the production of roots in the early autumn, theplants will be much more likely to find a sufficient supply of nitrogenin the soil than plants with fewer and smaller roots. In a season like the past, therefore, an application of two hundredpounds of superphosphate per acre, costing three dollars, instead ofgiving an increase of five or six bushels per acre, may give us anincrease of fifteen or twenty bushels per acre. That is to say, owingto the dry weather in the autumn, followed by severe weather in thewinter, the weak plants on the unmanured land may either be killed outaltogether, or injured to such an extent that the crop is hardly worthharvesting, while the wheat where the phosphate was sown may give usalmost an average crop. Sir John B. Lawes has somewhere compared the owner of land to the ownerof a coal mine. The owner of the coal digs it and gets it to market inthe best way he can. The farmer’s coal mine consists of plant food, andthe object of the farmer is to get this food into such plants, or suchparts of plants, as his customers require. It is hardly worth while forthe owner of the coal mine to trouble his head about the exhaustion ofthe supply of coal. His true plan is to dig it as economically as hecan, and get it into market. There is a good deal of coal in the world, and there is a good deal of plant food in the earth. As long as theplant food lies dormant in the soil, it is of no value to man. Theobject of the farmer is to convert it into products which man andanimals require. Mining for coal is a very simple matter, but how best to get thegreatest quantity of plant food out of the soil, with the least wasteand the greatest profit, is a much more complex and difficult task. Plant food consists of a dozen or more different substances. We havetalked about them in the pages of this book, and all I wish to say hereis that some of them are much more abundant, and more readily obtained, than others. The three substances most difficult to get at are: nitricacid, phosphoric acid and potash. All these substances are in the soil, but some soils contain much more than others, and their relativeproportion varies considerably. The substance which is of the greatestimportance, is nitric acid. As a rule, the fertility of a soil is inproportion to the amount of nitric acid which becomes available for theuse of plants during the growing season. Many of our soils contain largequantities of nitrogen, united with carbon, but the plants do not takeit up in this form. It has to be converted into nitric acid. Nitric acidconsists of seven pounds of nitrogen and twenty pounds of oxygen. It isproduced by the combustion of nitrogen. Since these “Talks” werepublished, several important facts have been discovered in regard to howplants take up nitrogen, and especially in regard to how organicnitrogen is converted into nitric acid. It is brought about through theaction of a minute fungoid plant. There are several things necessary forthe growth of this plant. We must have some nitrogenous substance, a moderate degree of heat, say from seventy to one hundred and twentydegrees, a moderate amount of moisture, and plenty of oxygen. Shade isalso favorable. If too hot or too cold, or too wet or too dry, thegrowth of the plant is checked, and the formation of nitric acidsuspended. The presence of lime, or of some alkali, is also necessaryfor the growth of this fungus and the production of nitric acid. Thenitric acid unites with the lime, and forms nitrate of lime, or withsoda to form nitrate of soda, or with potash to form nitrate of potash, or salt-petre. A water-logged soil, by excluding the oxygen, destroysthis plant, hence one of the advantages of underdraining. I have saidthat shade is favorable to the growth of this fungus, and this factexplains and confirms the common idea that shade is manure. The great object of agriculture is to convert the nitrogen of our soils, or of green crops plowed under, or of manure, into nitric acid, and thento convert this nitric acid into profitable products with as little lossas possible. Nitrogen, or rather nitric acid, is the most costlyingredient in plant food, and unfortunately it is very easily washed outof the soil and lost. Perhaps it is absolutely impossible to entirelyprevent all loss from leaching; but it is certainly well worth our whileto understand the subject, and to know exactly what we are doing. In anew country, where land is cheap, it may be more profitable to raise aslarge crops as possible without any regard to the loss of nitric acid. But this condition of things does not last long, and it very soonbecomes desirable to adopt less wasteful processes. In Lawes and Gilbert’s experiments, there is a great loss of nitricacid from drainage. In no case has as much nitrogen been obtained in theincreased crop as was applied in the manure. There is always a loss andprobably always will be. But we should do all we can to make this lossas small as possible, consistent with the production of profitablecrops. There are many ways of lessening this loss of nitric acid. Our farmerssow superphosphate with their wheat in the autumn, and this stimulates, we think, the growth of roots, which ramify in all directions throughthe soil. This increased growth of root brings the plant in contact witha larger feeding surface, and enables it to take up more nitric acidfrom its solution in the soil. Such is also the case during the winterand early spring, when a good deal of water permeates through thesoil. The application of superphosphate, unquestionably in many cases, prevents much loss of nitric acid. It does this by giving us a muchgreater growth of wheat. I was at Rothamsted in 1879, and witnessed the injurious effect of anexcessive rainfall, in washing out of the soil nitrate of soda and saltsof ammonia, which were sown with the wheat in the autumn. It was anexceedingly wet season, and the loss of nitrates on all the differentplots was very great. But where the nitrates or salts of ammonia weresown in the spring, while the crops were growing, the loss was notnearly so great as when sown in the autumn. The sight of that wheat field impressed me, as nothing else could, withthe importance of guarding against the loss of available nitrogen fromleaching, and it has changed my practice in two or three importantrespects. I realize, as never before, the importance of applying manureto crops, rather than to the land. I mean by this, that the object ofapplying manure is, not simply to make land rich, but to make cropsgrow. Manure is a costly and valuable article, and we want to convert itinto plants, with as little delay as possible, which will, directly orindirectly, bring in some money. Our climate is very different from that of England. As a rule, we seldomhave enough rain, from the time corn is planted until it is harvested, to more than saturate the ground on our upland soils. This year is anexception. On Sunday night, May 20, 1883, we had a northeast storm whichcontinued three days. During these three days, from three to five inchesof rain fell, and for the first time in many years, at this season, myunderdrains discharged water to their full capacity. Had nitrate ofsoda been sown on bare land previous to this rain, much of it would, doubtless, have been lost by leaching. This, however, is an exceptionalcase. My underdrains usually do not commence to discharge water beforethe first of December, or continue later than the first of May. To guardagainst loss of nitrogen by leaching, therefore, we should aim to keeprich land occupied by some crop, during the winter and early spring, andthe earlier the crop is sown in the autumn or late summer, the better, so that the roots will the more completely fill the ground and take upall the available nitrogen within their reach. I have said that thisidea had modified my own practice. I grow a considerable quantity ofgarden vegetables, principally for seed. It is necessary to make theland very rich. The plan I have adopted to guard against the loss ofnitrogen is this: As soon as the land is cleared of any crop, after itis too late to sow turnips, I sow it with rye at the rate of one and ahalf to two bushels per acre. On this rich land, especially on the moistlow land, the rye makes a great growth during our warm autumn weather. The rye checks the growth of weeds, and furnishes a considerable amountof succulent food for sheep, during the autumn or in the spring. If notneeded for food, it can be turned under in the spring for manure. Itunquestionably prevents the loss of considerable nitric acid fromleaching during the winter and early spring. Buckwheat, or millet, is sometimes sown on such land for plowing underas manure, but as these crops are killed out by the winter, they cannotprevent the loss of nitric acid during the winter and spring months. Itis only on unusually rich land that such precautions are particularlynecessary. It has been thought that these experiments of Lawes andGilbert afford a strong argument against the use of summer-fallows. I donot think so. A summer-fallow, in this country, is usually a piece ofland which has been seeded down one, two, and sometimes three years, with red clover. The land is plowed in May or June, and occasionally inJuly, and is afterwards sown to winter wheat in September. The treatmentof the summer-fallow varies in different localities and on differentfarms. Sometimes the land is only plowed once. The clover, or sod, is plowedunder deep and well, and the after-treatment consists in keeping thesurface soil free from weeds, by the frequent use of the harrow, roller, cultivator or gang-plow. In other cases, especially on heavy clay land, the first plowing is done early in the spring, and when the sod issufficiently rotted, the land is cross-plowed, and afterwards made fineand mellow by the use of the roller, harrow, and cultivator. Just beforesowing the wheat, many good, old-fashioned farmers, plow the land again. But in this section, a summer-fallow, plowed two or three times duringthe summer, is becoming more and more rare every year. Those farmers who summer-fallow at all, as a rule, plow their land butonce, and content themselves with mere surface cultivation afterwards. It is undoubtedly true, also, that summer fallows of all kinds are byno means as common as formerly. This fact may be considered an argumentagainst the use of summer-fallowing; but it is not conclusive in mymind. Patient waiting is not a characteristic of the age. We areinclined to take risks. We prefer to sow our land to oats, or barley, and run the chance of getting a good wheat crop after it, rather than tospend several months in cleaning and mellowing the land, simply to growone crop of wheat. It has always seemed to me entirely unnecessary to urge farmers not tosummer-fallow. We all naturally prefer to see the land occupied by agood paying crop, rather than to spend time, money, and labor, inpreparing it to produce a crop twelve or fifteen months afterwards. Yetsome of the agricultural editors and many of the agricultural writers, seem to take delight in deriding the old-fashioned summer-fallow. Thefact that Lawes and Gilbert in England find that, when land containsconsiderable nitric acid, the water which percolates through the soilto the underdrains beneath, contains more nitrate of lime when the landis not occupied by a crop, than when the roots of growing plants fillthe soil, is deemed positive proof that summer-fallowing is a wastefulpractice. If we summer-fallowed for a spring crop, as I have sometimes done, itis quite probable that there would be a loss of nitrogen. But, as I havesaid before, it is very seldom that any water passes through the soilfrom the time we commence the summer-fallow until the wheat is sown inthe autumn, or for many weeks afterwards. The nitrogen, which isconverted into nitric acid by the agency of a good summer-fallow, isno more liable to be washed out of the soil after the field is sown towheat in the autumn, than if we applied the nitrogen in the form of somereadily available manure. I still believe in summer fallows. If I had my life to live over again, I would certainly summer-fallow more than I have done. I have been anagricultural writer for one-third of a century, and have persistentlyadvocated the more extended use of the summer-fallow. I have nothingto take back, unless it is what I have said in reference to“fall-fallowing. ” Possibly this practice may result in loss, thoughI do not think so. A good summer-fallow, on rather heavy clay land, if the conditions areotherwise favorable, is pretty sure to give us a good crop of wheat, anda good crop of clover and grass afterwards. Of course, a farmer who hasnice, clean sandy soil, will not think of summer-fallowing it. Suchsoils are easily worked, and it is not a difficult matter to keep themclean without summer-fallowing. Such soils, however, seldom contain alarge store of unavailable plant food, and instead of summer-fallowing, we had better manure. On such soils artificial manures are often veryprofitable, though barn-yard manure, or the droppings of animals feedingon the land, should be the prime basis of all attempts to maintain, orincrease, the productiveness of such soils. Since this book was first published, I do not know of any new factsin regard to the important question of, how best to manage and applyour barn-yard manure, so as to make it more immediately active andavailable. It is unquestionably true, that the same amount of nitrogenin barn-yard manure, will not produce so great an effect as itstheoretical value would indicate. There can be no doubt, however, thatthe better we feed our animals, and the more carefully we save theliquids, the more valuable and active will be the manure. The conversion of the inert nitrogen of manures and soils, into nitricacid, as already stated, is now known to be produced by a minute fungus. I hope it will be found that we can introduce this _bacterium_ into ourmanure piles, in such a way as to greatly aid the conversion of inertnitrogen into nitrates. Experiments have been made, and are still continued, at Woburn, underthe auspices of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, to ascertain, among other things, whether manure from sheep receiving an allowance ofcotton-seed cake is any richer than that from sheep, otherwise fedalike, but having, instead of cotton-seed cake, the same amount of cornmeal. We know that such manure contains more nitrogen, and other plantfood, than that from the corn meal. But the experiments so far, thoughthey have been continued for several years, do not show any strikingsuperiority of the manure from cotton-seed cake over that from cornmeal. I saw the wheat on these differently manured plots in 1879. Dr. Vœlcker and Dr. Gilbert, told me that, one of two plots was dressed withthe cotton-seed manure, and the other with the corn meal manure, andthey wanted me to say which was the most promising crop. I believe theone I said was the better, was the cotton-seed plot. But the differencewas very slight. The truth is that such experiments must be continuedfor many years before they will prove anything. As I said before, weknow that the manure from the cotton-seed cake is richer in nitrogenthan that from the corn meal; but we also know that this nitrogen willnot produce so great an effect, as a much smaller amount of nitrogen insalts of ammonia, or nitrate of soda. In going over these experiments, I was struck with the healthy andvigorous appearance of one of the plots of wheat, and asked how it wasmanured. Dr. Vœlcker called out, “clover, Mr. Harris, clover. ” InEngland, as in America, it requires very little observation andexperience to convince any one of the value of clover. After what Ihave said, and what the Deacon, the Doctor, Charley and the Squire havesaid, in the pages of this book, I hope no one will think that I do notappreciate the great value of red clover as a means of enriching ourland. Dr. Vœlcker evidently thought I was skeptical on this point. I amnot. I have great faith in the benefits to be derived from the growthof clover. But I do not think it originates fertility; it does not getnitrogen from the atmosphere. Or at any rate, we have no evidence of it. The facts are all the other way. We have discussed this question atconsiderable length in the pages of this book, and it is not necessaryto say more on the subject. I would, however, particularly urge farmers, especially those who are using phosphates freely, to grow as much cloveras possible, and feed it out on the farm, or plow it under for manure. The question is frequently asked, whether the use of phosphates willultimately impoverish our farms. It may, or it may not. It depends onour general management. Theoretically, the use of a manure furnishingonly one element of plant food, if it increases the growth of cropswhich are sold from the farm, must have a tendency to impoverish theland of the other elements of plant food. In other words, the use ofsuperphosphate furnishing only, or principally, phosphoric acid, limeand sulphuric acid, must have a tendency to impoverish the soil ofnitrogen and potash. Practically, however, it need do nothing of thekind. If the land is well cultivated, and if our low, rich, alluvialportions of the farm are drained, and if the hay, grass, clover, strawand fodder crops are retained, the more phosphates we use, the richerand more productive will the farm become. And I think it is a fact, thatthe farmers who use the most phosphates, are the very men who take thegreatest pains to drain their land, cultivate it thoroughly, and makethe most manure. It follows, therefore, that the use of phosphates is anational benefit. Some of our railroad managers take this view of the subject. Theycarry superphosphate at a low rate, knowing that its use will increasethe freight the other way. In other words, they bring a ton ofsuperphosphate from the seaboard, knowing that its use will give themmany tons of freight of produce, from the interior to the seaboard. Itis not an uncommon thing for two hundred pounds of superphosphate, togive an increase of five tons of turnips per acre. Or, so to speak, therailroad that brings one ton of superphosphate from the seaboard, might, as the result of its use, have fifty tons of freight to carry backagain. This is perhaps an exceptionably favorable instance, but itillustrates the principle. Years ago, before the abolition of tolls onthe English turnpike roads, carriages loaded with lime, and all othersubstances intended for manure, were allowed to go free. And ourrailroads will find it to their interest to transport manures of allkinds, at a merely nominal rate. Many people will be surprised at the recommendation of Sir John B. Lawes, not to waste time and money in cleaning poor land, before seedingit down to grass. He thinks that if the land is made rich, the superiorgrasses overgrow the bad grasses and weeds. I have no doubt he is rightin this, though the principle may be pushed to an extreme. Our climate, in this country, is so favorable for killing weeds, that the plow andthe cultivator will probably be a more economical means of making ourland clean, than the liberal use of expensive manures. It depends, doubtless, on the land and on circumstances. It is well to know thatmanure on grass land, will so increase the growth of the good grasses, as to smother the weeds. Near my house was a piece of land that I wantedto make into a lawn. I sowed it with grass seed, but the weeds smotheredit out. I plowed it, and hoed it, and re-seeded it, but still the weedsgrew. Mallows came up by the thousand, with other weeds too numerous tomention. It was an eye-sore. We mowed the weeds, but almost despaired ofever making a decent bit of grass land out of it. It so happened that, one year, we placed the chicken coops on this miserable weedy spot. Thehens and chickens were kept there for several weeks. The feed and thedroppings made it look more unsightly than ever, but the next spring, as if by magic, the weeds were gone and the land was covered with darkgreen luxuriant grass. In regard to the use of potash as a manure, we have still much to learn. It would seem that our grain crops will use soda, if they cannot getpotash. They much prefer the potash, and will grow much more luxuriantlywhere, in the soil or manure, in addition to the other elements of plantfood, potash is abundant. But the increased growth caused by the potash, is principally, if not entirely, straw, or leaves and stem. Nature makesa great effort to propagate the species. A plant of wheat or barley, will produce seed if this is possible, even at the expense of the otherparts of the plant. For grain crops, grown for seed, therefore, it would seem to be entirelyunprofitable to use potash as a manure. If the soil contains the otherelements of plant food, the addition of potash may give us a much moreluxuriant growth of leaves and stem, but no more grain or seed. For hay, or grass or fodder crops, the case is very different, and potash mayoften be used on these crops to great advantage. I am inclined to think that considerable nitrate of soda will yet beused in this country for manure. I do not suppose it will pay as a rule, on wheat, corn and other standard grain crops. But the gardener, seedgrower, and nurseryman, will find out how to use it with great profit. Our nurserymen say that they cannot use artificial manures with anyadvantage. It is undoubtedly true that a dressing of superphosphate, sown on a block of nursery trees, will do little good. It never reachesthe roots of the plants. Superphosphate can not be washed down deep intothe soil. Nitrate of soda is readily carried down, as deep as the watersinks. For trees, therefore, it would seem desirable to apply thesuperphosphate before they are planted, and plow it under. And the sameis true of potash; but nitrate of soda would be better applied as atop-dressing every year, early in the spring. The most discouraging fact, in Lawes’ and Gilbert’s experiments, is thegreat loss of nitrogen. It would seem that, on an average, during thelast forty years, about one-half the nitrogen is washed out of the soil, or otherwise lost. I can not but hope and believe that, at any rate inthis country, there is no such loss in practical agriculture. In Lawes’and Gilbert’s experiments on wheat, this grain is grown year after year, on the same land. Forty annual crops have been removed. No clover issown with the wheat, and great pains are taken to keep the land clean. The crop is hoed while growing, and the weeds are pulled out by hand. The best wheat season during the forty years, was the year 1863. Thepoorest, that of 1879; and it so happened, that after an absence ofthirty years, I was at Rothamsted during this poor year of 1879. Thefirst thing that struck me, in looking at the experimental wheat, wasthe ragged appearance of the crop. My own wheat crop was being cut theday I left home, July 15. Several men and boys were pulling weeds outof the experimental wheat, two weeks later. Had the weeds been sufferedto grow, Sir John Bennet Lawes tells us, there would be less loss ofnitrogen. The loss of nitrogen in 1863, was about twenty-four poundsper acre, and in 1879 fifty pounds per acre--the amount of availablenitrogen, applied in each year, being eighty-seven pounds per acre. As Isaid before, the wheat in 1879 had to me a ragged look. It was thin onthe ground. There were not plants enough to take up and evaporate thelarge amount of water which fell during the wet season. Such a conditionof things rarely occurs in this country. We sow timothy with our winterwheat, in the autumn, and red clover in the spring. After the wheat isharvested, we frequently have a heavy growth of clover in the autumn. Insuch circumstances I believe there would be comparatively little loss ofnitrogen. In the summer-fallow experiments, which have now been continued fortwenty-seven years, there has been a great loss of nitrogen. The sameremarks apply to this case. No one ever advocates summer-fallowing landevery other year, and sowing nothing but wheat. When we summer-fallow apiece of land for wheat, we seed it down with grass and clover. Thereis, as a rule, very little loss of nitrogen by drainage while the wheatis growing on the ground, but after the wheat is cut, the grass andclover are pretty sure to take up all the available nitrogen withinthe range of their roots. This summer-fallow experiment, instead ofaffording an argument against the use of summer-fallowing, is anargument in its favor. The summer-fallow, by exposing the soil to thedecomposing influences of the atmosphere, converts more or less of theinert nitrogenous organic matter into ammonia and nitric acid. This isprecisely what a farmer wants. It is just what the wheat crop needs. Butwe must be very careful, when we render the nitrogen soluble, to havesome plant ready to take it up, and not let it be washed out of the soilduring the winter and early spring. We have much poor land in the United States, and an immense area ofgood land. The poor land will be used to grow timber, or be improved byconverting more or less of it, gradually, into pasture, and stocking itwith sheep and cattle. The main point is, to feed the sheep or cattlewith some rich nitrogenous food, such as cotton-seed cake, malt-sprouts, bran, shorts, mill-feed, refuse beans, or bean-meal made from beansinjured by the weevil, or bug. In short, the owner of such land must buysuch food as will furnish the most nutriment and make the richest manureat the least cost--taking both of these objects into consideration. He will also buy more or less artificial manures, to be used for theproduction of fodder crops, such as corn, millet, Hungarian grass, etc. And, as soon as a portion of the land can be made rich enough, he willgrow more or less mangel wurzels, sugar beets, turnips, and other rootcrops. Superphosphate will be found admirably adapted for this purpose, and two, three, or four hundred pounds of cheap potash salts, per acre, can frequently be used on fodder crops, in connection with two or threehundred pounds of superphosphate, with considerable profit. The wholesubject is well worthy of careful study. Never in the history of theworld has there been a grander opportunity for the application ofscience to the improvement of agriculture than now. On the richer lands, the aim of the farmer will be to convert the plantfood lying dormant in the soil into profitable crops. The main point is_good tillage_. In many cases weeds now run away with half our crops andall our profits. The weeds which spring up after the grain crops areharvested, are not an unmixed evil. They retain the nitrogen and otherplant food, and when turned under make manure for the succeeding crops. But weeds among the growing crop are evil, and only an evil. Thoroughplowing is the remedy, accompanied by drainage where needed. We have an immense number of farms on which there are both good and poorland. In such cases we must adopt a combined system. We must grow largecrops on the rich land and use them, at least in part, to make manurefor the poorer portions of the farm. Drainage and good tillage willconvert much of our low, alluvial lands into a perfect mine of wealth. And much of our high, rolling land consists of strong loam, abounding inplant food. Such land requires little more than thorough tillage, withperhaps two hundred pounds of superphosphate per acre, to enable it toproduce good grain crops. After all is said and done, farming is a business that requires notmerely science, but industry, economy, and common sense. The real basisof success is faith, accompanied with good works. I cannot illustratethis better than by alluding to one of my neighbors, a strong, healthy, intelligent, observing and enterprising German, who commenced life as afarm laborer, and is to-day worth at least one hundred thousand dollars, that he has made, not by the advance of suburban property, but byfarming, pure and simple. He first rented a farm, and then bought it, and in a few years he bought another farm adjoining the first one, andwould to-day buy another if he found one that suited him. He has faithin farming. Some people think he “runs his land, ” and, in fact, such isthe case. He keeps good teams, and good plows, and good harrows, andgood rollers, and good cultivators, and good grade Shorthorn cows. Heacts as though he believed, as Sir John B. Lawes says, that “the soil isa mine, ” out of which he digs money. He runs his land for all it isworth. He raises wheat, barley, oats, corn, potatoes, and hay, and whenhe can get a good price for his timothy hay, he draws it to market andsells it. Thorough tillage is the basis of his success. He is now usingphosphates for wheat, and will probably increase his herd of cows andmake more manure. He has great faith in manure, but acts as though hehad still greater faith in good plowing, early sowing, and thoroughcultivation. PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. The Printers have got our “Talks on Manures” in type; and the publisherswant a Preface. The Deacon is busy hoeing his corn; the Doctor is gone to Rice Lake, fishing; Charley is cultivating mangels; the Squire is haying, and I amhere alone, with a pencil in hand and a sheet of blank paper before me. I would far rather be at work. In fact, I have only just come in fromthe field. Now, what shall I say? It will do no good to apologize for thedeficiencies of the book. If the critics condescend to notice it atall, nothing I can say will propitiate their favor, or moderate theircensure. They are an independent set of fellows! I know them well, I aman old editor myself, and nothing would please me better than to sitdown and write a slashing criticism of these “Talks on Manures. ” But I am denied that pleasure. The critics have the floor. All I will say here, is, that the book is what it pretends to be. Some people seem to think that the “Deacon” is a fictitious character. Nothing of the kind. He is one of the oldest farmers in town, andlives on the farm next to me. I have the very highest respect for him. I have tried to report him fully and correctly. Of my own share in theconversations I will say little, and of the Doctor’s nothing. My ownviews are honestly given. I hold myself responsible for them. I maycontradict in one chapter what I have asserted in another. And so, probably, has the Deacon. I do not know whether this is or is not thecase. I know very well that on many questions “much can be said on bothsides”--and very likely the Deacon is sometimes on the south side of thefence and I on the north side; and in the next chapter you may find theDeacon on the north side, and where would you have me go, except to thesouth side? We cannot see both sides of the fence, if both of us walk onthe same side! I fear some will be disappointed at not finding a particular subjectdiscussed. I have talked about those things which occupy my own thoughts. There aresome things not worth thinking about. There are others beyond my reach. I have said nothing about manures for cotton or for the sugar-cane--notbecause I feel no interest in the matter, but because I have had noexperience in the cultivation of these important crops. I might havetold what the crops contain, and could have given minute directions forfurnishing in manure the exact quantity of plant-food which the cropsremove from the soil. But I have no faith in such a system of farming. The few cotton-planters I have had the pleasure of seeing were men ofeducation and rare ability. I cannot undertake to offer them advice. ButI presume they will find that, if they desire to increase the growth ofthe cotton-plant, in nine cases out of ten they can do it, provided thesoil is properly worked, by supplying a manure containing availablenitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. But the _proper proportion_ ofthese ingredients of plant-food must be ascertained by experiment, andnot from a mere analysis of the cotton-plant. I have much faith in artificial manures. They will do great things forAmerican agriculture--directly, and indirectly. Their general use willlead to a higher system of farming--to better cultivation, more root andfodder crops, improved stock, higher feeding, and richer manure. But ithas been no part of my object to unduly extol the virtues of commercialmanures. That may be left to the manufacturers. My sympathy is with the farmer, and especially with the farmer ofmoderate means, who finds that improved farming calls for more and morecapital. I would like to encourage such a man. And so, in point of fact, would the Deacon, though he often talks as though a man who tries toimprove his farm will certainly come to poverty. Such men as theDeacon are useful neighbors if their doubts, and head-shakings, andshoulder-shruggings lead a young and enthusiastic farmer to put moreenergy, industry, and economy into his business. It is well to listento the Deacon--to hear all his objections, and then to keep a sharplook-out for the dangers and difficulties, and _go-ahead_. TALKS ON MANURES. CHAPTER I. FARMING AS A BUSINESS. “Farming is a poor business, ” said the Deacon. “Take the corn crop. Thirty bushels per acre is a fair average, worth, at 75 cents perbushel, $22. 50. If we reckon that, for each bushel of corn, we get 100lbs. Of stalks, this would be a ton and a half per acre, worth at $5 perton $7. 50. ” Total receipts per acre for corn crop $30 00 Expenses. --Preparing the land for the crop $5 00 Planting and seed 1 50 Cultivating, three times, twice in a row both ways 5 00 Hoeing twice 3 00 Cutting up the corn 1 50 Husking and drawing in the corn 4 00 Drawing in the stalks, etc. 1 00 Shelling, and drawing to market 2 00 Total cost of the crop ----- $23 00 ------ Profit per acre $7 00 “And from this, ” said the Deacon, “we have to deduct interest on landand taxes. I tell you, farming is a poor business. ” “Yes, ” I replied, “_poor_ farming is a _very_ poor business. But _good_farming, if we have good prices, is as good a business as I want, andwithal as pleasant. A good farmer raises 75 bushels of corn per acre, instead of 30. He would get for his crop, including stalks $75 00 Expenses. --Preparing land for the crop $5 00 Planting and seed 1 50 Cultivating 5 00 Hoeing 3 00 Cutting up the corn 1 50 Husking and drawing 10 00 Drawing in the stalks 3 00 Shelling, etc. 6 00 ----- $35 00 ------ Profit per acre $40 00 Take another case, which actually occurred in this neighborhood. TheJudge is a good farmer, and particularly successful in raising potatoesand selling them at a good price to hotels and private families. Hecultivates very thoroughly, plants in hills, and puts a handful ofashes, plaster, and hen-manure, on the hill. In 1873, his crop of Peachblows was at the rate of 208 bushels per acre. Of these, 200 bushels were sold at 60 cents per bushel. There were 8bushels of small potatoes, worth say 12½ cents per bushel, to feed outto stock. Mr. Sloe, who lives on an adjoining farm, had three acres of Peachblowpotatoes the same year. The yield was 100 bushels per acre--of which 25bushels were not large enough for market, he got 50 cents per bushel forthe others. The account of the two crops stands as follows: -----------------------------------------+----------+--------- Expenses Per Acre: | Mr. Sloe | Judge. -----------------------------------------+----------+--------- Plowing, harrowing, rolling, marking, | | planting and covering | $ 8 00 | $ 8 00 Seed | 5 00 | 5 00 Hoeing, cultivating, etc. | 7 00 | 10 00 Digging | 10 00 | 10 00 +----------+--------- | 30 00 | 33 00 _Receipts Per Acre_: | | 75 bushels, @ 50c | 37 50 | 25 ” @ 12½c | 3 12 | +----------+--------- | 40 62 | 200 bushels, @ 60c | | 120 00 8 ” @ 12½c | | 1 00 | +--------- | | 121 00 +----------+--------- Profit per acre | $10 62 | $98 00 -----------------------------------------+----------+--------- Since then, Mr. Sloe has been making and using more manure, and the yearbefore last (1875) his crop of potatoes averaged over 200 bushels peracre, and on the sandy knolls, where more manure was applied, the yieldwas at least 250 bushels per acre. “Nevertheless, ” said the Deacon, “I do not believe in ‘high farming. ’ Itwill not pay. ” “Possibly not, ” I replied. “It depends on circumstances; and these wewill talk about presently. High farming aims to get large crops everyyear. _Good_ farming produces equally large crops per acre, but not somany of them. This is what I am trying to do on my own farm. I am aimingto get 35 bushels of wheat per acre, 80 bushels of shelled corn, 50bushels of barley, 90 bushels of oats, 300 bushels of potatoes, and1, 200 bushels of mangel-wurzel per acre, on the average. I can see noway of paying high wages except by raising large crops _per acre_. Butif I get these large crops it does not necessarily follow that I ampractising ‘high farming. ’” To illustrate: Suppose I should succeed in getting such crops byadopting the following plan. I have a farm of nearly 300 acres, onequarter of it being low, alluvial land, too wet for cultivation, butwhen drained excellent for pasturing cows or for timothy meadows. I drain this land, and after it is drained I dam up some of the streamsthat flow into it or through it, and irrigate wherever I can make thewater flow. So much for the low land. The upland portion of the farm, containing say 200 acres, exclusive offences, roads, buildings, garden, etc. , is a naturally fertile loam, asgood as the average wheat land of Western New York. But it is, or was, badly “run down. ” It had been what people call “worked to death;”although, in point of fact, it had not been half-worked. Some said itwas “wheated to death, ” others that it had been “oated to death, ” othersthat it had been “grassed to death, ” and one man said to me, “That fieldhas had sheep on it until they have gnawed every particle of vegetablematter out of the soil, and it will not now produce enough to pasture aflock of geese. ” And he was not far from right--notwithstanding the factthat sheep are thought to be, and are, the best animals to enrich land. But let me say, in passing, that I have since raised on that same field50 bushels of barley per acre, 33 bushels of Diehl wheat, a great cropof clover, and last year, on a part of it, over 1, 000 bushels ofmangel-wurzel per acre. But this is a digression. Let us carry out the illustration. What doesthis upland portion of the farm need? It needs underdraining, thoroughcultivation, and _plenty of manure_. If I had plenty of manure, I couldadopt high farming. But where am I to get plenty of manure for 200 acresof land? “Make it, ” says the Deacon. Very good; but what shall I make itof? “Make it out of your straw and stalks and hay. ” So I do, but all thestraw and stalks and hay raised on the farm when I bought it would notmake as much manure as “high farming” requires for five acres of land. And is this not true of half the farms in the United States to-day? Whatthen, shall we do? The best thing to do, _theoretically_, is this: Any land that isproducing a fair crop of grass or clover, let it lie. Pasture it or mowit for hay. If you have a field of clayey or stiff loamy land, break itup in the fall, and summer-fallow it the next year, and sow it to wheatand seed it down with clover. Let it lie two or three years in clover. Then break it up in July or August, “fall-fallow” it, and sow it withbarley the next spring, and seed it down again with clover. Sandy or light land, that it will not pay to summer-fallow, should haveall the manure you can make, and be plowed and planted with corn. Cultivate thoroughly, and either seed it down with the corn in August, or sow it to barley or oats next spring, and seed it down with clover. I say, _theoretically_ this is the best plan to adopt. But practicallyit may not be so, because it may be absolutely necessary that we shouldraise something that we can sell at once, and get money to live upon orpay interest and taxes. But the gentlemen who so strenuously advocatehigh farming, are not perhaps often troubled with considerations of thiskind. Meeting them, therefore, on their own ground, I contend that in mycase “high farming” would not be as profitable as the plan hinted atabove. The rich alluvial low land is to be pastured or mown; the upland to bebroken up only when necessary, and when it is plowed to be plowed welland worked thoroughly, and got back again into clover as soon aspossible. The hay and pasture from the low land, and the clover andstraw and stalks from the upland, would enable us to keep a good manycows and sheep, with more or less pigs, and there would be a big pile ofmanure in the yard every spring. And when this is once obtained, you canget along much more pleasantly and profitably. “But, ” I may be asked, “when you have got this pile of manure can notyou adopt high farming?” No. My manure pile would contain say: 60 tonsof clover-hay; 20 tons wheat-straw; 25 tons oat, barley, and pea-straw;40 tons meadow-hay; 20 tons corn-stalks; 20 tons corn, oats, and othergrain; 120 tons mangel-wurzel and turnips. This would give me about 500 tons of well-rotted manure. I should want200 tons of this for the mangels and turnips, and the 300 tons I shouldwant to top-dress 20 acres of grass land intended for corn and potatoesthe next year. My pile of manure, therefore, is all used up on 25 to 30acres of land. In other words, I use the unsold produce of 10 acres tomanure one. Is this “high farming?” I think in my circumstances it isgood farming, but it is not high farming. It gives me large crops peracre, but I have comparatively few acres in crops that are sold from thefarm. “High farming, ” if the term is to have any definite meaning at allshould only be used to express the idea of a farm so managed that thesoil is rich enough to produce maximum crops _every year_. If you adoptthe system of rotation quite general in this section--say, 1st year, corn on sod; 2d, barley or oats; 3d, wheat; 4th, clover for hay andafterwards for seed; 5th, timothy and clover for hay; and then the 6thyear plowed up for corn again--it would be necessary to make the landrich enough to produce say 100 bushels shelled corn, 50 bushels ofbarley, 40 bushels of wheat, 3 tons clover-hay, and 5 bushels ofclover-seed, and 3 tons clover and timothy-hay per acre. This would be_moderate_ high farming. If we introduced lucern, Italian rye-grass, corn-fodder, and mangel-wurzel into the rotation, we should need stillricher land to produce a maximum growth of these crops. In other words, we should need more manure. The point I am endeavoring to get at, is this: Where you want a farm tobe self-supporting--where you depend solely on the produce of the farmto supply manure--it is a sheer impossibility to adopt high farming _onthe whole of your land_. I want to raise just as large crops per acre asthe high farmers, but there is no way of doing this, unless we gooutside the farm for manure, without raising a smaller area of suchcrops as are sold from the farm. I do not wish any one to suppose that I am opposed to high farming. There is occasionally a farm where it may be practised with advantage, but it seems perfectly clear to my mind that as long as there is such anunlimited supply of _land_, and such a limited supply of fertilizers, most of us will find it more profitable to develop the latent stores ofplant-food lying dormant in the soil rather than to buy manures. And itis certain that you can not adopt high farming without either buyingmanure directly, or buying food to feed to animals that shall makemanure on the farm. And you must recollect that high farming requires an increased supply oflabor, and hired help is a luxury almost as costly as artificialfertilizers. We have heard superficial thinkers object to agricultural papers on theground that they were urging farmers to improve their land and producelarger crops, “while, ” say they, “we are producing so much already thatit will not sell for as much as it costs to produce it. ” My plan ofimproved agriculture does not necessarily imply the production of anymore wheat or of any more grain of any kind that we sell than we raiseat present. I would simply raise it on fewer acres, and thus lessen theexpense for seed, cultivation, harvesting, etc. I would raise 30 bushelsof wheat per acre every third year, instead of 10 bushels every year. If we summer-fallowed and plowed under clover in order to produce the 30bushels of wheat once in three years, instead of 10 bushels every year, no more produce of any kind would be raised. But my plan does notcontemplate such a result. On my own farm I seldom summer-fallow, andnever plow under clover. I think I can enrich the farm nearly as much byfeeding the clover to animals and returning the manure to the land. Theanimals do not take out more than from five to ten per cent of the morevaluable elements of plant-food from the clover. And so my plan, whileit produces as much and no more grain to sell, adds greatly to thefertility of the land, and gives an increased production of beef, mutton, wool, butter, cheese, and pork. “But what is a man to do who is poor and has poor land?” If he has goodhealth, is industrious, economical, and is possessed of a fair share ofgood common sense, he need have no doubt as to being able to renovatehis farm and improve his own fortune. Faith in good farming is the first requisite. If this is weak, it willbe strengthened by exercise. If you have not faith, act as though youhad. Work hard, but do not be a drudge. A few hours’ vigorous labor willaccomplish a great deal, and encourage you to continued effort. Beprompt, systematic, cheerful, and enthusiastic. Go to bed early and getup when you wake. But take sleep enough. A man had better be in bed thanat the tavern or grocery. Let not friends, even, keep you up late;“manners is manners, but still your elth’s your elth. ” “But what has this to do with good farming?” More than chemistry and allthe science of the schools. Agriculture is an art and must be followedas such. Science will help--help enormously--but it will never enable usto dispense with industry. Chemistry throws great light on the art ofcooking, but a farmer’s wife will roast a turkey better than a Liebig. When Mr. James O. Sheldon, of Geneva. N. Y. , bought his farm, his entirecrop of hay the first year was 76 loads. He kept stock, and bought moreor less grain and bran, and in eleven years from that time his farmproduced 430 loads of hay, afforded pasture for his large herd ofShorthorn cattle, and produced quite as much grain as when he first tookit. Except in the neighborhood of large cities, “high farming” may not pay, owing to the fact that we have so much land. But whether this is so ornot, there can be no doubt that the only profitable system of farming isto raise large crops on such land as we cultivate. High farming gives uslarge crops, and _many of them_. At present, while we have so much landin proportion to population, we must, perhaps, be content with largecrops of grain, and few of them. We must adopt the slower but lessexpensive means of enriching our land from natural sources, rather thanthe quicker, more artificial, and costly means adopted by many farmersin England, and by market gardeners, seed-growers, and nurserymen inthis country. Labor is so high that we can not afford to raise a smallcrop. If we sow but half the number of acres, and double the yield, weshould quadruple our profits. I have made up my mind to let the land liein clover three years, instead of two. This will lessen the number ofacres under cultivation, and enable us to bestow more care in plowingand cleaning it. And the land will be richer, and produce better crops. The atmosphere is capable of supplying a certain quantity of ammonia tothe soil in rains and dews every year, and by giving the wheat crop athree years supply instead of two years, we gain so much. Plaster theclover, top-dress it in the fall, if you have the manure, and stimulateits growth in every way possible, and consume all the clover on theland, or in the barn-yard. Do not sell a single ton; let not a weedgrow, and the land will certainly improve. The first object should be to destroy weeds. I do not know how it is inother sections, but with us the majority of farms are completely overrunwith weeds. They are eating out the life of the land, and if somethingis not done to destroy them, even exorbitantly high prices can not makefarming profitable. A farmer yesterday was contending that it did notpay to summer-fallow. He has taken a run-down farm, and a year ago lastspring he plowed up ten acres of a field, and sowed it to barley andoats. The remainder of the field he summer-fallowed, plowing it fourtimes, rolling and harrowing thoroughly after each plowing. After thebarley and oats were off, he plowed the land once, harrowed it and sowedMediterranean wheat. On the summer-fallow he drilled in Diehl wheat. Hehas just threshed, and got 22 bushels per acre of Mediterranean wheatafter the spring crop, at one plowing, and 26 bushels per acre of Diehlwheat on the summer-fallow. This, he said, would not pay, as it cost him$20 per acre to summer-fallow, and he lost the use of the land for oneseason. Now this may be all true, and yet it is no argument againstsummer-fallowing. Wait a few years. Farming is slow work. Mr. GeorgeGeddes remarked to me, when I told him I was trying to renovate arun-down farm, “you will find it the work of your life. ” We ought not toexpect a big crop on poor, run-down land, simply by plowing it three orfour times in as many months. Time is required for the chemical changesto take place in the soil. But watch the effect on the clover for thenext two years, and when the land is plowed again, see if it is not infar better condition than the part not summer-fallowed. I should expectthe clover on the summer-fallow to be fully one-third better inquantity, and of better quality than on the other part, and this extraquantity of clover will make an extra quantity of good manure, and thuswe have the means of going on with the work of improving the farm. “Yes, ” said the Doctor, “and there will also be more clover-roots in thesoil. ” “But I can not afford to wait for clover, and summer-fallowing, ” writesan intelligent New York gentleman, a dear lover of good stock, who hasbought an exhausted New England farm, “I must have a portion of itproducing good crops right off. ” Very well. A farmer with plenty ofmoney can do wonders in a short time. Set a gang of ditchers to work, and put in underdrains where most needed. Have teams and plows enough todo the work rapidly. As soon as the land is drained and plowed, put on aheavy roller. Then sow 500 lbs. Of Peruvian guano per acre broadcast, orits equivalent in some other fertilizer. Follow with a Shares’ harrow. This will mellow the surface and cover the guano without disturbing thesod. Follow with a forty-toothed harrow, and roll again, if needed, working the land until there is three or four inches of fine, mellowsurface soil. Then mark off the land in rows as straight as an arrow, and plant corn. Cultivate thoroughly, and kill every weed. If theditchers can not get through until it is too late to plant corn, drillin beans on the last drained part of the field. Another good crop to raise on a stock farm is corn-fodder. This can bedrilled in from time to time as the land can be got ready. Put on half aton of guano per acre and harrow in, and then mark off the rows threefeet apart, and drill in four bushels of corn per acre. Cultivatethoroughly, and expect a great crop. By the last of July, the Ayrshirecows will take kindly to the succulent corn-fodder, and with three orfour quarts of meal a day, it will enable each of them to make 10 lbs. Of butter a week. For the pigs, sow a few acres of peas. These will do well on sod-land, sown early or late, or a part early and a part late, as most convenient. Sow broadcast and harrow in, 500 lbs. Of Peruvian guano per acre and 200lbs. Of gypsum. Drill in three bushels of peas per acre, or sowbroadcast, and cover them with a Shares’ harrow. Commence to feed thecrop green as soon as the pods are formed, and continue to feed out thecrop, threshed or unthreshed, until the middle of November. Up to thistime the bugs do comparatively little damage. The pigs will thrivewonderfully on this crop, and make the richest and best of manure. I have little faith in any attempt to raise root crops on land notpreviously well prepared. But as it is necessary to have somemangel-wurzel and Swede turnips for the Ayrshire cows and long-woolsheep next winter and spring, select the cleanest and richest land thatcan be found that was under cultivation last season. If fall plowed, thechances of success will be doubled. Plow the land two or three times, and cultivate, harrow, and roll until it is as mellow as a garden. Sow400 lbs. Of Peruvian guano and 300 lbs. Of good superphosphate per acrebroadcast, and harrow them in. Ridge up the land into ridges 2½ to 3 ft. Apart, with a double mould-board plow. Roll down the ridges with a lightroller, and drill in the seed. Sow the mangel-wurzel in May--the earlierthe better--and the Swedes as soon afterwards as the land can bethoroughly prepared. Better delay until June rather than sow on roughland. The first point on such a farm will be to attend to the grass land. Thisaffords the most hopeful chance of getting good returns the first year. But no time is to be lost. Sow 500 lbs. Of Peruvian guano per acre onall the grass land and on the clover, with 200 lbs. Of gypsum inaddition on the latter. If this is sown early enough, so that the springrains dissolve it and wash it into the soil, great crops of grass may beexpected. “But will it pay?” My friend in New York is a very energetic andsuccessful business man, and he has a real love for farming, and I haveno sort of doubt that, taking the New York business and the farmtogether, they will afford a very handsome profit. Furthermore, I haveno doubt that if, after he has drained it, he would cover the whole farmwith 500 lbs. Of Peruvian guano per acre, or its equivalent, it wouldpay him better than any other agricultural operation he is likely toengage in. By the time it was on the land the cost would amount to about$20 per acre. If he sells no more grass or hay from the farm than hewould sell if he did not use the guano, this $20 may very properly beadded to the permanent capital invested in the farm. And in this aspectof the case, I have no hesitation in saying it will pay a high rate ofinterest. His bill for labor will be as much in one case as in theother; and if he uses the guano he will probably double his crops. Hisgrass lands will carry twenty cows instead of ten, and if he raises thecorn-fodder and roots, he can probably keep thirty cows better than hecould otherwise keep a dozen; and, having to keep a herdsman in eithercase, the cost of labor will not be much increased. “But you think itwill not pay?” It will probably not pay _him_. I do not think _his_business would pay me if I lived on my farm, and went to New York onlyonce or twice a week. If there is one business above all others thatrequires constant attention, it is farming--and especiallystock-farming. But my friend is right in saying that he cannot afford towait to enrich his land by clover and summer-fallowing. His land coststoo much; he has a large barn and everything requisite to keep a largestock of cattle and sheep. The interest on farm and buildings, and themoney expended in labor, would run on while the dormant matter in thesoil was slowly becoming available under the influence of good tillage. The large barn must be filled at once, and the only way to do this is toapply manure with an unsparing hand. If he lived on the farm, I shouldhave no doubt that, by adopting this course, and by keeping improvedstock, and feeding liberally, he could make money. Perhaps he can find aman who will successfully manage the farm under his direction, but theprobabilities are that his present profit and pleasure will come fromthe gratification of his early love for country life. CHAPTER II. WHAT IS MANURE? “What is the good of asking such a question as that?” said the Deacon;“we all know what manure is. ” “Well, then, ” I replied, “tell us what it is?” “_It is anything that will make crops grow better and bigger_, ” repliedthe Deacon. “That is not a bad definition, ” said I; “but let us see if it is a trueone. You have two rows of cabbage in the garden, and you water one row, and the plants grow bigger and better. Is _water_ manure? You cover aplant with a hand-glass, and it grows bigger and better. Is a hand-glassmanure? You shelter a few plants, and they grow bigger and better. Isshelter manure? You put some pure sand round a few plants, and they growbigger and better. Is pure sand manure? I think we shall have to rejectthe Deacon’s definition. ” Let us hear what the Doctor has to say on the subject. “Manure, ” replied the Doctor, “is the _food of plants_. ” “That is a better definition, ” said I; “but this is really not answeringthe question. You say manure is plant-food. But what is plant-food?” “Plant-food, ” said the Doctor, “is composed of twelve elements, and, possibly, sometimes one or two more, which we need not here talk about. Four of these elements are gases, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, andnitrogen. When a plant or animal is burnt, these gases are driven off. The ashes which remain are composed of potash, soda, lime, and magnesia;sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, chlorine, and silica. In other words, the ‘food of plants’ is composed of four organic, or gaseous elements, and eight inorganic, or mineral elements, of which four have acid andfour alkaline properties. ” “Thank you, Doctor, ” said the Deacon, “I am glad to know what manure is. It is the food of plants, and the food of plants is composed of fourgases, four acid and four alkaline elements. I seem to know all aboutit. All I have wanted to make my land rich was plenty of manure, and nowI shall know where to get it--oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen;these four atmospheric elements. Then potash, soda, magnesia, and lime. I know what these four are. Then sulphur, phosphorous, silica (sand, )and chlorine (salt). I shall soon have rich land and big crops. ” Charley, who has recently come home from college, where he has beenstudying chemistry, looked at the Deacon, and was evidently puzzled tounderstand him. Turning to the Doctor, Charley asked modestly if whatthe Doctor had said in regard to the composition of plant food could notbe said of the composition of all our animals and plants. “Certainly, ” replied the Doctor, “all our agricultural plants and allour animals, man included, are composed of these twelve elements, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen; phosphorus, sulphur, silica, chlorine, potash, soda, magnesia, and lime. ” Charley said something about lime, potash, and soda, not being“elements;” and something about silica and chlorine not being found inanimals. “Yes, ” said I, “and he has left out _iron_, which is an importantconstituent of all our farm crops and animals. ” Neither the Doctor northe Deacon heard our remarks. The Deacon, who loves an argument, exclaimed: “I thought I knew all about it. You told us that manure wasthe food of plants, and that the food of plants was composed of theabove twelve elements; and now you tell us that man and beast, fruit andflower, grain and grass, root, stem, and branch, all are composed ormade up of these same dozen elements. If I ask you what bread is madeof, you say it is composed of the dozen elements aforesaid. If I askwhat wheat-straw is made of, you answer, the _dozen_. If I ask what athistle is made of, you say the dozen. There are a good many milk-weedsin my strawberry patch, and I am glad to know that the milk-weed and thestrawberry are both composed of the same dozen elements. Manure is thefood of plants, and the food of plants is composed of the above dozenelements, and every plant and animal that we eat is also composed ofthese same dozen elements, and so I suppose there is no differencebetween an onion and an omelet, or between bread and milk, or betweenmangel-wurzel and manure. ” “The difference, ” replied the Doctor, “is one of proportion. Mangels andmanure are both composed of the same elements. In fact, mangels makegood manure, and good manure makes good mangels. ” The Deacon and the Doctor sat down to a game of backgammon, and Charleyand I continued the conversation more seriously. CHAPTER III. SOMETHING ABOUT PLANT-FOOD. “The Doctor is in the main correct, ” said I; “but he does not fullyanswer the question, ‘What is manure?’ To say that manure is plant-food, does not cover the whole ground. All soils on which plants grow, containmore or less plant-food. A plant can not create an atom of potash. Itcan not get it from the atmosphere. We find potash in the plant, and weknow that it got it from the soil and we are certain, therefore, thatthe soil contains potash. And so of all the other mineral elements ofplants. A soil that will produce a thistle, or a pig-weed, containsplant-food. And so the definition of the Doctor is defective, inasmuchas it makes no distinction between soil and manure. Both containplant-food. ” “What is your definition of manure?” asked Charley; “it would seem asthough we all knew what manure was. We have got a great heap of it inthe yard, and it is fermenting nicely. ” “Yes, ” I replied, “we are making more manure on the farm this winterthan ever before. Two hundred pigs, 120 large sheep, 8 horses, 11 cows, and a hundred head of poultry make considerable manure; and it is a gooddeal of work to clean out the pens, pile the manure, draw it to thefield, and apply it to the crops. We ought to know something about it;but we might work among manure all our lives, and not know what manureis. At any rate, we might not be able to define it accurately. I will, however, try my hand at a definition. “Let us assume that we have a field that is free from stagnant water atall seasons of the year; that the soil is clean, mellow, and well workedseven inches deep, and in good order for putting in a crop. What thecoming ‘_season_’ will be we know not. It may be what we call a hot, drysummer, or it may be cool and moist, or it may be partly one and partlythe other. The ‘season’ is a great element of uncertainty in all ourfarming calculations; but we know that we shall have a season of somekind. We have the promise of seed-time and harvest, and we have neverknown the promise to fail us. Crops, however, vary very much, accordingto the season; and it is necessary to bear this fact in mind. Let us saythat the sun and heat, and rain and dews, or what we call ‘the season, ’is capable of producing 50 bushels of wheat per acre, but that the soilI have described above, does not produce over 20 bushels per acre. Thereis no mechanical defect in the soil. The seed is good, it is put inproperly, and at the right time, and in the best manner. No weeds chokethe wheat plants or rob them of their food; but that field does notproduce as much wheat by 30 bushels per acre as the _season_ is capableof producing. Why? The answer is evident. _Because the wheat plants donot find food enough in the soil. _ Now, anything that will furnish thisfood, anything that will cause that field to produce what the climate orseason is capable of producing, is manure. A gardener may increase hiscrops by artificial heat, or by an increased supply of water, but thisis not manure. The effect is due to improved climatic conditions. It hasnothing to do with the question of manure. We often read in theagricultural papers about ‘_shade_ as manure. ’ We might just as welltalk about _sunlight_ as ‘manure. ’ The effects observed should bereferred to modifications of the climate or season; and so in regard tomulching. A good mulch may often produce a larger increase of growththan an application of manure. But mulch, proper, is not manure. It isclimate. It checks evaporation of moisture from the soil. We might aswell speak of rain as manure as to call a mulch manure. In fact, anordinary shower in summer is little more than a mulch. It does not reachthe roots of plants; and yet we see the effect of the shower immediatelyin the increased vigor of the plants. They are full of sap, and thedrooping leaves look refreshed. We say the rain has revived them, and soit has; but probably not a particle of the rain has entered into thecirculation of the plant. The rain checked evaporation from the soil andfrom the leaves. A cool night refreshes the plants, and fills the leaveswith sap, precisely in the same way. All these fertilizing effects, however, belong to climate. It is inaccurate to associate eithermulching, sunshine, shade, heat, dews, or rain, with the question ofmanure, though the effect may in certain circumstances be precisely thesame. ” Charley evidently thought I was wandering from the point. “You think, then, ” said he, “manure is _plant-food that the soil needs?_” “Yes, ” said I, “that is a very good definition--very good, indeed, though not absolutely accurate, because manure is manure, whether aparticular soil needs it or not. ” Unobserved by us, the Deacon and theDoctor had been listening to our talk. --“I would like, ” said theDeacon, “to hear you give a better definition than Charley has given. ”--“Manure, ” said I, “is anything containing an element or elements ofplant-food, which, if the soil needed it, would, if supplied insufficient quantity, and in an available condition, produce, accordingto soil, season, climate, and variety, a maximum crop. ” CHAPTER IV. NATURAL MANURE. We often hear about “natural” manure. I do not like the term, though Ibelieve it originated with me. It is not accurate; not definite enough. “I do not know what you mean by natural manure, ” said the Deacon, “unless it is the droppings of animals. ” --“To distinguish them, I suppose, ” said the Doctor, “from artificial manures, such assuperphosphate, sulphate of ammonia, and nitrate of soda. ” --“No; thatis not how I used the term. A few years ago, we used to hear much inregard to the ‘exhaustion of soils. ’ I thought this phrase conveyed awrong idea. When new land produces large crops, and when, after a fewyears, the crops get less and less, we were told that the farmers wereexhausting their land. I said, no; the farmers are not exhausting the_soil_; they are merely exhausting the accumulated plant-food in thesoil. In other words, they are using up the _natural manure_. “Take my own farm. Fifty years ago, it was covered with a heavy growthof maple, beech, black walnut, oak, and other trees. These trees hadshed annual crops of leaves for centuries. The leaves rot on the ground;the trees also, age after age. These leaves and other organic matterform what I have called natural manure. When the land is cleared up andplowed, this natural manure decays more rapidly than when the land liesundisturbed; precisely as a manure-pile will ferment and decay morerapidly if turned occasionally, and exposed to the air. The plowing andcultivating renders this natural manure more readily available. Theleaves decompose, and furnish food for the growing crop. ” EXHAUSTION OF THE SOIL. “You think, then, ” said the Doctor, “that when a piece of land iscleared of the forest, harrowed, and sown to wheat; plowed and plantedto corn, and the process repeated again and again, until the land nolonger yields profitable crops, that it is the ‘natural manure, ’ and notthe soil, that is exhausted?” “I think the _soil_, at any rate, is not exhausted, and I can easilyconceive of a case where even the natural manure is very far from beingall used up. ” “Why, then, ” asked the Deacon, “is the land so poor that it willscarcely support a sheep to the acre?” “Simply because the natural manure and other plant-food which the soilcontains is not in an available condition. It lies dead and inert. It isnot soluble, and the roots of the plants cannot get enough of it toenable them to thrive; and in addition to this, you will find as amatter of fact that these poor ‘exhausted’ farms are infested withweeds, which rob the growing crops of a large part of the scanty supplyof available plant-food. ” “But these weeds, ” said the Deacon, “are not removed from the farm. Theyrot on the land; nothing is lost. ” “True, ” said I, “but they, nevertheless, rob the growing crops ofavailable plant-food. The annual supply of plant-food, instead of beingused to grow useful plants, is used to grow weeds. ” “I understand that, ” said the Deacon, “but if the weeds are left on theland, and the useful plants are sold, the farmer who keeps his landclean would exhaust his land faster than the careless farmer who letshis land lie until it is overrun with thistles, briars, and pig-weed. You agricultural writers, who are constantly urging us to farm betterand grow larger crops, seem to overlook this point. As you know, I donot take much stock in chemical theories as applied to agriculture, butas you do, here is a little extract I cut from an agricultural paper, that seems to prove that the better you work your land, and the largercrops you raise, the sooner you exhaust your land. ” The Deacon put on his spectacles, drew his chair nearer the lamp on thetable, and read the following: “There is, on an average, about one-fourth of a pound of potash to everyone hundred pounds of soil, and about one-eighth of a pound ofphosphoric acid, and one-sixteenth of a pound of sulphuric acid. If thepotatoes and the tops are continually removed from the soil, it willsoon exhaust the potash. If the wheat and straw are removed, it willsoon exhaust the phosphate of lime; if corn and the stalks, it will soonexhaust the sulphuric acid. Unless there is a rotation, or the materialthe plant requires is supplied from abroad, your crops will soon runout, though the soil will continue rich for other plants. ” “That extract, ” said I, “carries one back twenty-five years. We used tohave article after article in this strain. We were told that ‘alwaystaking meal out of the tub soon comes to the bottom, ’ and always takingpotash and phosphoric acid from the soil will soon exhaust the supply. But, _practically_, there is really little danger of our exhausting theland. It does not pay. The farmer’s resources will be exhausted longbefore he can exhaust his farm. ” “Assuming, ” said the Doctor, who is fond of an argument, “that the abovestatement is true, let us look at the facts. An acre of soil, 12 inchesdeep, would weigh about 1, 600 tons; and if, as the writer quoted by theDeacon states, the soil contains 4 ozs. Of potash in every 100 lbs. Ofsoil, it follows that an acre of soil, 12 inches deep, contains 8, 000lbs. Of potash. Now, potatoes contain about 20 per cent of dry matter, and this dry matter contains say, 4 per cent of ash, half of which ispotash. It follows, therefore, that 250 bushels of potatoes containabout 60 lbs. Of potash. If we reckon that the tops contain 20 lbs. More, or 80 lbs. In all, it follows that the acre of soil containspotash enough to grow an _annual_ crop of 250 bushels of potatoes peracre for one hundred years. ” “I know farmers, ” said Charley, “who do not get over 50 bushels ofpotatoes per acre, and in that case the potash would last five hundredyears, as the weeds grown with the crop are left on the land, and donot, according to the Deacon, exhaust the soil. ” “Good for you, Charley, ” said the Doctor. “Now let us see about thephosphoric acid, of which the soil, according to the above statement, contains only half as much as it contains of potash, or 4, 000 lbs. Peracre. “A crop of wheat of 30 bushels per acre, ” continued the Doctor, “contains in the grain about 26 lbs. Of ash, and we will say that halfof this ash is phosphoric acid, or 13 lbs. Allowing that the straw, chaff, etc. , contain 7 lbs. More, we remove from the soil in a crop ofwheat of 30 bushels per acre, 20 lbs. Of phosphoric acid, and so, according to the above estimate, an acre of soil contains phosphoricacid to produce annually a crop of wheat and straw of 30 bushels peracre for _two hundred years_. “The writer of the paragraph quoted by the Deacon, ” continued theDoctor, “selected the crops and elements best suited to his purpose, andyet, according to his own estimate, there is sufficient potash andphosphoric acid in the first 12 inches of the soil to enable us to raiseunusually large crops until the next Centennial in 1976. “But let us take another view of the subject, ” continued the Doctor. “Nointelligent farmer removes all the potatoes _and tops_, all the wheat, straw, and chaff, or all the corn and stalks from his farm. According toDr. Salisbury, a crop of corn of 75 bushels per acre removes from thesoil 600 lbs. Of ash, but the _grain_ contains only 46 lbs. The other554 lbs. Is contained in the stalks, etc. , all of which are usuallyretained on the farm. It follows from this, that when only the grain issold off the farm, it takes more than thirteen crops to remove as muchmineral matter from the soil as is contained in the whole of one crop. Again, the ash of the grain contains less than 3 per cent of sulphuricacid, so that the 46 lbs. Of ash, in 75 bushels of corn, contains lessthan 1½ lbs. Of sulphuric acid, and thus, if an acre of soil contains2, 000 lbs. Of sulphuric acid, we have sufficient for an annual crop of75 bushels per acre for fifteen hundred years! “As I said before, ” continued the Doctor, “intelligent farmers seldomsell their straw, and they frequently purchase and consume on the farmnearly as much bran, shorts, etc. , as is sent to market with the grainthey sell. In the ‘Natural History of New York, ’ it is stated that anacre of wheat in Western New York, of 30 bushels per acre, includingstraw, chaff, etc. , removes from the soil 144 lbs. Of mineral matter. Genesee wheat usually yields about 80 per cent. Of flour. This flourcontains only 0. 7 per cent of mineral matter, while fine middlingscontain 4 per cent; coarse middlings, 5½ per cent; shorts, 8 per cent, and bran 8½ per cent of mineral matter or ash. It follows from this, that out of the 144 lbs. Of mineral matter in the crop of wheat, lessthan 10 lbs. Is contained in the flour. The remaining 134 lbs. Is foundin the straw, chaff, bran, shorts, etc. , which a good farmer is almostsure to feed out on his farm. But even if the farmer feeds out none ofhis wheat-bran, but sells it all with his wheat, the 30 bushels of wheatremove from the soil only 26 lbs. Of mineral matter; and it would takemore than five crops to remove as much mineral matter as one crop ofwheat and straw contains. Allowing that half the ash of wheat isphosphoric acid, 30 bushels remove only 13 lbs. From the soil, and ifthe soil contains 4, 000 lbs. , it will take three hundred and sevencrops, of 30 bushels each, to exhaust it. ” “That is to say, ” said Charley, “if all the straw and chaff is retainedon the farm, and is returned to the land without loss of phosphoricacid. ” “Yes, ” said the Doctor, “and if all the bran and shorts, etc. , wereretained on the farm, it would take eight hundred crops to exhaust thesoil of phosphoric acid; and it is admitted that of all the elements ofplant-food, phosphoric acid is the one first to be exhausted from thesoil. ” I have sold some timothy hay this winter, and propose to do so wheneverthe price suits. But some of my neighbors, who do not hesitate to selltheir own hay, think I ought not to do so, because I “write for thepapers”! It ought to satisfy them to know that I bring back 30 cwt. Ofbran for every ton of hay I sell. My rule is to sell nothing but wheat, barley, beans, potatoes, clover-seed, apples, wool, mutton, beef, pork, and butter. Everything else is consumed on the farm--corn, peas, oats, mustard, rape, mangels, clover, straw, stalks, etc. Let us make a roughestimate of how much is sold and how much retained on a hundred-acrefarm, leaving out the potatoes, beans, and live-stock. We have say: Sold. 15 acres wheat, @ 40 bushels per acre 18 tons 5 ” barley, @ 50 ” ” 6 ” 15 ” clover seed, 4 ” ” 1¾ ton. ------ Total sold 25¾ tons. Retained on the farm. 15 acres corn, @ 80 bushels per acre 33½ tons. Corn stalks from do. 40 ” 5 acres barley straw 8 ” 10 ” oats and peas, equal 80 bushels of oats 12¾ ” Straw from do. 20 ” 15 acres wheat-straw 25 ” 15 ” clover-hay 25 ” Clover-seed straw 10 ” 15 acres pasture and meadow, equal 40 tons hay 40 ” 5 ” mustard, equal 10 tons hay 10 ” 5 ” rape, equal 10 tons hay 10 ” 5 ” mangels, 25 tons per acre, 15 ” equal to 3 tons dry Leaves from do. 3 ” ------- Total retained on the farm 252¼ tons. It would take a good many years to exhaust any ordinary soil by such acourse of cropping. Except, perhaps, the sandy knolls, I think there isnot an acre on my farm that would be exhausted in ten thousand years, and as some portions of the low alluvial soil will grow crops withoutmanure, there will be an opportunity to give the poor, sandy knolls morethan their share of plant-food. In this way, notwithstanding the factthat we sell produce and bring nothing back, I believe the whole farmwill gradually increase in productiveness. The plant-food annuallyrendered available from the decomposition and disintegration of theinert organic and mineral matter in the soil, will be more than equal tothat exported from the farm. If the soil becomes deficient in anything, it is likely that it will be in phosphates, and a little superphosphateor bone-dust might at any rate be profitably used on the rape, mustard, and turnips. The point in good farming is to develop from the latent stores in thesoil, and to accumulate enough available plant-food for the productionof the largest possible yield of those crops which we sell. In otherwords, we want enough available plant-food in the soil to grow 40bushels of wheat and 50 bushels of barley. I think the farmer who raises10 tons for every ton he sells, will soon reach this point, and whenonce reached, it is a comparatively easy matter to maintain this degreeof fertility. WHY OUR CROPS ARE SO POOR. “If the soil is so rich in plant-food, ” said the Deacon, “I again ask, why are our crops so poor?” The Deacon said this very quietly. He did not seem to know that he hadasked one of the most important questions in the whole range ofagricultural science. It is a fact that a soil may contain enoughplant-food to produce a thousand large crops, and yet the crops weobtain from it may be so poor as hardly to pay the cost of cultivation. The plant-food is there, but the plants cannot get at it. It is not inan available condition; it is not soluble. A case is quoted by Prof. Johnson, where a soil was analyzed, and found to contain to the depth ofone foot 4, 652 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre, but only 63 lbs. Of this wasin an available condition. And this is equally true of phosphoric acid, potash, and other elements of plant-food. No matter how much plant-foodthere may be in the soil, the only portion that is of any immediatevalue is the small amount that is annually available for the growth ofcrops. HOW TO GET LARGER CROPS. “I am tired of so much talk about plant-food, ” said the Deacon; “what wewant to know is how to make our land produce larger crops of wheat, corn, oats, barley, potatoes, clover, and grass. ” This is precisely what I am trying to show. On my own farm, the threeleading objects are (1) to get the land drained, (2) to make it cleanand mellow, and (3) to get available nitrogen for the cereal crops. After the first two objects are accomplished, the measure ofproductiveness will be determined by the amount of available nitrogen inthe soil. How to get available nitrogen, therefore, is my chief andultimate object in all the operations on the farm, and it is here thatscience can help me. I know how to get nitrogen, but I want to get it inthe cheapest way, and then to be sure that I do not waste it. There is one fact fully established by repeated experiment and generalexperience--that 80 lbs. Of available nitrogen per acre, applied inmanure, will almost invariably give us a greatly increased yield ofgrain crops. I should expect, on my farm, that on land which, withoutmanure, would give me 15 bushels of wheat per acre, such a dressing ofmanure would give me, in a favorable season, 35 or 40 bushels per acre, with a proportional increase of straw; and, in addition to this, therewould be considerable nitrogen left for the following crop of clover. Isit not worth while making an earnest effort to get this 80 lbs. Ofavailable nitrogen? I have on my farm many acres of low, mucky land, bordering on the creek, that probably contain several thousand pounds of nitrogen per acre. Solong as the land is surcharged with water, this nitrogen, and otherplant-food, lies dormant. But drain it, and let in the air, and theoxygen decomposes the organic matter, and ammonia and nitric acid areproduced. In other words, we get _available_ nitrogen and otherplant-food, and the land becomes capable of producing large crops ofcorn and grass; and the crops obtained from this low, rich land, willmake manure for the poorer, upland portions of the farm. CHAPTER V. SWAMP-MUCK OR PEAT AS MANURE. “It would pay you, ” said the Deacon, “to draw out 200 or 300 loads ofmuck from the swamp every year, and compost it with your manure. ” This may or may not be the case. It depends on the composition of themuck, and how much labor it takes to handle it. “What you should do, ” said the Doctor, “is to commence at the creek, andstraighten it. Take a gang of men, and be with them with yourself, orget a good foreman to direct operations. Commence at _a_, and straightenthe creek to _b_, and from _b_ to _c_ (see map on next page). Throw allthe rich, black muck in a heap by itself, separate from the sand. You, or your foreman, must be there, or you will not get this done. A goodditcher will throw out a great mass of this loose muck and sand in aday; and you want him to dig, not think. You must do the thinking, andtell him which is muck, and which is only sand and dirt. When thrown up, this muck, in our dry, hot climate, will, in the course of a few months, part with a large amount of water, and it can then be drawn to the barnsand stables, and used for bedding, or for composting with manure. Or ifyou do not want to draw it to the barn, get some refuse lime from thelime-kiln, and mix it with the muck after it has been thrown up a fewweeks, and is partially dry. Turn over the heap, and put a few bushelsof lime to every cord of the muck, mixing the lime and muck together, leaving the heap in a compact form, and in good shape, to shed the rain. “When you have straightened, and cleaned out, and deepened the creek, ”continued the Doctor, “commence at _z_ on the new creek, and cut a ditchthrough the swamp to _y_. Throw the muck on one side, and the sand onthe other. This will give you some good, rich muck, and at the same timedrain your swamp. Then cut some _under-drains_ from _y_ towards thehigher land at _w_, _v_, and _h_, and from _f_ to _x_. These will drainyour land, and set free the inert plant-food, and such crops of timothyas you will get from this swamp will astonish the natives, and your billfor medical attendance and quinine will sink to zero. ” [Illustration: Map of Creek. ] The Doctor is right. There is money and health in the plan. Prof. S. W. Johnson, as chemist to the Conn. State Ag. Society, madeaccurate analyses of 33 samples of peat and muck sent him by gentlemenfrom different parts of the State. The amount of potential ammonia inthe chemically dry peat was found to vary from 0. 58 in the poorest, to4. 06 per cent in the richest samples. In other words, one deposit ofmuck may contain seven times as much nitrogen as another, and it wouldbe well before spending much money in drawing out muck for manure tosend a sample of it to some good chemist. A bed of swamp-muck, easilyaccessible, and containing 3 per cent of nitrogen, would be a mine ofwealth to any farmer. One ton of such muck, dry, would contain morenitrogen than 7 tons of straw. “It would be capital stuff, ” said the Deacon, “to put in your pig-pensto absorb the urine. It would make rich manure. ” “That is so, ” said I, “and the weak point in my pig-breeding is the wantof sufficient straw. Pigs use up more bedding than any other animals. I have over 200 pigs, and I could use a ton of dry muck to each pigevery winter to great advantage. The pens would be drier, the pigshealthier, and the manure richer. ” The Doctor here interrupted us. “I see, ” said he, “that the averageamount of ammonia in the 33 samples of dry peat analyzed by ProfessorJohnson is 2. 07 per cent. I had no idea that muck was so rich. Barn-yardmanure, or the manure from the horse stables in the cities, containsonly half a per cent (0. 5) of ammonia, and it is an unusually richmanure that contains one per cent. We are safe in saying that a ton ofdry muck, on the average, contains at least twice as much potentialammonia as the average of our best and richest stable-manure. ” CHAPTER VI. WHAT IS POTENTIAL AMMONIA? “You say, ” said the Deacon, “that dry muck contains twice as much‘_potential ammonia_’ as manure?” “Yes, ” said the Doctor, “it contains three or four times as much as thehalf-rotted straw and stalks you call manure. ” “But what do you mean, ” asked the Deacon, “by ‘_potential_ ammonia?’” “It is a term, ” said the Doctor, “we used to hear much more frequentlythan we do now. Ammonia is composed of 14 lbs. Of nitrogen and 3 lbs. Ofhydrogen; and if, on analysis, a guano or other manure was found tocontain, in whatever form, 7 per cent of nitrogen, the chemist reportedthat he found in it 8½ per cent of ‘potential’ ammonia. Dried bloodcontains no ammonia, but if it contained 14 per cent of nitrogen, thechemist would be justified in saying it contained 17 per cent ofpotential ammonia, from the fact that the dried blood, by fermentation, is capable of yielding this amount of ammonia. We say a ton of commonhorse-manure contains 10 or 12 lbs. Of potential ammonia. If perfectlyfresh, it may not contain a particle of ammonia; but it containsnitrogen enough to produce, by fermentation, 10 or 12 lbs. Of ammonia. And when it is said that dry swamp-muck contains, on the average, 2. 07per cent of potential ammonia, it simply means that it contains nitrogenenough to produce this amount of ammonia. In point of fact, I supposemuck, when dug fresh from the swamp, contains no ammonia. Ammonia isquite soluble in water, and if there was any ammonia in the swamp-muck, it would soon be washed out. The nitrogen, or ‘potential ammonia, ’ inthe muck exists in an inert, insoluble form, and before the muck willyield up this nitrogen to plants, it is necessary, in some way, toferment or decompose it. But this is a point we will discuss at a futuremeeting. ” CHAPTER VII. TILLAGE IS MANURE. The Doctor has been invited to deliver a lecture on manure before ourlocal Farmers’ Club. “The etymological meaning of the word manure, ” hesaid, “is _hand labor_, from _main_, hand, and _ouvrer_, to work. Tomanure the land originally meant to cultivate it, to hoe, to dig, toplow, to harrow, or stir it in any way so as to expose its particles tothe oxygen of the atmosphere, and thus render its latent elementsassimilable by plants. “When our first parent, ” he continued, “was sent forth from the Gardenof Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken, he probably did notknow that the means necessary to kill the thorns and thistles enhancedthe productiveness of the soil, yet such was undoubtedly the case. “The farmer for centuries was simply a ‘tiller of the ground. ’ Guano, though formed, according to some eminent authorities, long ages beforethe creation of man, was not then known. The coprolites lay undisturbedin countless numbers in the lias, the greensand, and the Suffolk crag. Charleston phosphates were unknown. Superphosphate, sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, and kainit were not dreamed of. Nothing was said aboutthe mineral manure theory, or the exhaustion of the soil. There were nofrauds in artificial fertilizers; no Experiment Stations. The earth, fresh from the hands of its Creator, needed only to be ‘tickled with ahoe to laugh with a harvest. ’ Nothing was said about the value of themanure obtained from the consumption of a ton of oil-cake, ormalt-combs, or bran, or clover-hay. For many centuries, the hoe, thespade, and the rake constituted Adam’s whole stock in trade. “At length, ” continued the Doctor, “a great discovery was made. A Romanfarmer--probably a prominent Granger--stumbled on a mighty truth. Manuring the land--that is, hoeing and cultivating it--increased itsfertility. This was well known--had been known for ages, and acted upon;but this Roman farmer, Stercutius, who was a close observer, discoveredthat the _droppings of animals_ had the same effect as hoeing. No wonderthese idolatrous people voted him a god. They thought there would be nomore old-fashioned manuring; no more hoeing. “Of course they were mistaken, ” continued the Doctor, “our arable landwill always need plowing and cultivating to kill weeds. Manure, in thesense in which we now use the term, is only a partial substitute fortillage, and tillage is only a partial substitute for manure; but it iswell to bear in mind that the words mean the same thing, and the effectsof both are, to a certain extent, identical. Tillage is manure, andmanure is tillage. ” CHAPTER VIII. SUMMER-FALLOWING. This is not the place to discuss the merits, or demerits, of fallowing. But an intelligent Ohio farmer writes me: --“I see that you recommendfallow plowing, what are your reasons? Granting that the _immediate_result is an increased crop, is not the land impoverished? Will not thethorough cultivation of corn, or potatoes, answer as well?” And adistinguished farmer, of this State, in a recent communication expressedthe same idea--that summer-fallowing would soon impoverish the land. Butif this is the case, the fault is not in the practice ofsummer-fallowing, but in growing too many grain crops, and selling them, instead of consuming them on the farm. Take two fields; summer-fallowone, and sow it to wheat. Plant the other to corn, and sow wheat afterit in the fall. You get, say 35 bushels of wheat per acre from thesummer-fallow. From the other field you get, say, 30 bushels of shelledcorn per acre, and 10 bushels of wheat afterwards. Now, where a farmeris in the habit of selling all his wheat, and consuming all his corn onthe farm, it is evident that the practice of summer-fallowing willimpoverish the soil more rapidly than the system of growing cornfollowed by wheat--and for the simple reason that more wheat is soldfrom the farm. If no more grain is sold in one case than in the other, the summer-fallowing will not impoverish the soil any more than corngrowing. My idea of fallowing is this:--The soil and the atmosphere furnish, ongood, well cultivated land, plant-food sufficient, say, for 15 bushelsof wheat per acre, _every year_. It will be sometimes more, andsometimes less, according to the season and the character of the soil, but on good, strong limestone land this may be taken as about theaverage. To grow wheat every year in crops of 15 bushels per acre, wouldimpoverish the soil just as much as to summer-fallow and get 30 bushelsof wheat every other year. It is the same thing in either case. But insummer-fallowing, we clean the land, and the _profits_ from a crop of 30bushels per acre every other year, are much more than from two crops of15 bushels every year. You know that Mr. Lawes has a field of aboutthirteen acres that he sows with wheat every year. On the plot thatreceives no manure of any kind, the crop, for twenty years, averaged 16¼bushels per acre. It is plowed twice every year, and the wheat ishand-hoed in the spring to keep it clean. A few years ago, in a fieldadjoining this experimental wheat field, and that is of the samecharacter of land, he made the following experiment. The land, afterwheat, was fallowed, and then sown to wheat; then fallowed the nextyear, and again sown to wheat, and the next year it was sown to wheatafter wheat. The following is the result compared with the yield of thecontinuously unmanured plot in the experimental field that is sown towheat every year: 1. Year--No. 1--Fallow No crop. No. 2--Wheat after wheat 15 bushels 3½ pecks per acre. 2. Year--No. 1--Wheat after fallow 37 ” -- ” ” No. 2--Wheat after wheat 13 ” 3¼ ” ” 3. Year--No. 1--Fallow after wheat No crop. No. 2--Wheat after wheat 15 bushels 3¼ pecks per acre. 4. Year--No. 1--Wheat after fallow 42 ” -- ” ” No. 2--Wheat after wheat 21 ” 0¼ ” ” 5. Year--No. 1--Wheat after wheat 17 ” 1¼ ” ” No. 2--Wheat after wheat 17 ” -- ” ” Taking the first four years, we have a total yield from the plot sownevery year of 66 bushels 2¼ pecks, and from the two crops alternatelyfallowed, a total yield of 79 bushels. The next year, when wheat wassown after wheat on the land previously fallowed, the yield was almostidentical with the yield from the plot that has grown wheat after wheatfor so many years. So far, these results do not indicate any exhaustion from the practiceof fallowing. On the other hand, they tend to show that we can get_more_ wheat by sowing it every other year, than by cropping it everyyear in succession. The reason for this may be found in the fact that ina fallow the land is more frequently exposed to the atmosphere byrepeated plowings and harrowings; and it should be borne in mind thatthe effect of stirring the land is not necessarily in proportion to thetotal amount of stirring, but is according to the number of times thatfresh particles of soil are exposed to the atmosphere. Two plowings andtwo harrowings in one week, will not do as much good as two plowings andtwo harrowings, at different times in the course of three or fourmonths. It is for this reason that I object, theoretically, to sowingwheat after barley. We often plow the barley stubble twice, and spendconsiderable labor in getting the land into good condition; but it isgenerally all done in the course of ten days or two weeks. We do not getany adequate benefit for this labor. We can kill weeds readily at thisseason, (August), but the stirring of the soil does not develope thelatent plant-food to the extent it would if the work was not necessarilydone in such a limited period. I say _theoretically_, for in point offact I _do_ sow wheat after barley. I do so because it is veryconvenient, and because it is more immediately profitable. I amsatisfied, however, that _in the end_ it would be more profitable toseed down the barley with clover. We _must_ raise larger crops; and to do this we must raise them lessfrequently. This is the key-note of the coming improved system ofAmerican agriculture, in all sections where good land is worth less thanone hundred dollars per acre. In the neighborhood of large cities, andwherever land commands a high price, we must keep our farms in a highstate of fertility by the purchase of manures or cattle foods. Those ofus in the interior, where we can not buy manure, must raise fewer graincrops, and more clover. We must aim to raise 40 bushels of wheat, 50bushels of barley, 80 bushels of oats, and 100 bushels of shelled corn, and 5 bushels of clover-seed per acre. That this can be done on good, well-drained land, from the unaided resources of the farm, I have nodoubt. It may give us no more grain to sell than at present, but it willenable us to produce much more mutton, wool, beef, cheese, butter, andpork, than at present. “But, then, will there be a demand for the meat, wool, etc. ?” Thepresent indications are highly favorable. But we must aim to raise_good_ meat. The low-priced beef and mutton sold in our markets are asunprofitable to the consumer as they are to the producer. We must feedhigher, and to do this to advantage we must have improved stock. Thereis no profit in farming without good tillage, larger crops, improvedstock, and higher feeding. The details will be modified bycircumstances, but the principles are the same wherever agri-_culture_is practised. CHAPTER IX. HOW TO RESTORE A WORN-OUT FARM. I have never yet seen a “worn-out” or “exhausted farm. ” I know manyfarms that are “run down. ” I bought just such a farm a dozen or moreyears ago, and I have been trying hard, ever since, to bring it up to aprofitable standard of productiveness--and am still trying, and expectto have to keep on trying so long as I keep on farming. The truth is, there never was a farm so rich, that the farmer did not wish it wasricher. I have succeeded in making the larger part of my farm much moreproductive than it ever was before, since it was cleared from theoriginal forest. But it is far from being as rich as I want it. Thetruth is, God sent us into this world to work, and He has given usplenty to do, if we will only do it. At any rate, this is true offarming. He has not given us land ready to our hand. The man who firstcleared up my farm, had no easy task. He fairly earned all the goodcrops he ever got from it. I have never begrudged him one particle ofthe “natural manure” he took out of the land, in the form of wheat, corn, oats, and hay. On the dry, sandy knolls, he probably got out agood portion of this natural manure, but on the wetter and heavierportions of the farm, he probably did not get out one-hundredth part ofthe natural manure which the land contained. Now, when such a farm came into my possession, what was I to do with it? “Tell us what you did, ” said the Doctor, “and then, perhaps, we can tellyou what you ought to have done, and what you ought to have leftundone. ” “I made many mistakes. ” “Amen, ” said the Deacon; “I am glad to hear you acknowledge it. ” “Well, ” said the Doctor, “it is better to make mistakes in trying to dosomething, than to hug our self-esteem, and fold our hands in indolence. It has been said that critics are men who have failed in theirundertakings. But I rather think the most disagreeable, andself-satisfied critics, are men who have never done anything, or triedto do anything, themselves. ” The Deacon, who, though something of an old fogy, is a good deal of aman, and possessed of good common sense, and much experience, took theseremarks kindly. “Well, ” said he to me, “I must say that your farm hascertainly improved, but you did things so differently from what weexpected, that we could not see what you were driving at. ” “I can tell you what I have been aiming at all along. 1st. To drain thewet portions of the arable land. 2d. To kill weeds, and make the soilmellow and clean. 3d. To make more manure. ” “You have also bought some bone-dust, superphosphate, and otherartificial manures. ” “True; and if I had had more money I would have bought more manure. Itwould have paid well. I could have made my land as rich as it is now inhalf the time. ” I had to depend principally on the natural resources of the land. I gotout of the soil all I could, and kept as much of it as possible on thefarm. One of the mistakes I made was, in breaking up too much land, andputting in too much wheat, barley, oats, peas, and corn. It would havebeen better for my pocket, though possibly not so good for the farm, ifI had left more of the land in grass, and also, if I had summer-fallowedmore, and sown less barley and oats, and planted less corn. “I do not see how plowing up the grass land, ” said the Deacon, “couldpossibly be any better for the farm. You agricultural writers are alwaystelling us that we plow too much land, and do not raise grass and cloverenough. ” “What I meant by saying that it would have been better for my pocket, though possibly not so good for the farm, if I had not plowed so muchland, may need explanation. The land had been only half cultivated, andwas very foul. The grass and clover fields did not give more than half acrop of hay, and the hay was poor in quality, and much of it halfthistles, and other weeds. I plowed this land, planted it to corn, andcultivated it thoroughly. But the labor of keeping the corn clean wascostly, and absorbed a very large slice of the profits. _But_ the cornyielded a far larger produce per acre than I should have got had theland lain in grass. And as all this produce was consumed on the farm, wemade more manure than if we had plowed less land. ” I have great faith in the benefits of thorough tillage--or, in otherwords, of breaking up, pulverizing, and exposing the soil to thedecomposing action of the atmosphere. I look upon a good, strong soilas a kind of storehouse of plant-food. But it is not an easy matter torender this plant-food soluble. If it were any less soluble than it is, it would have all leached out of the land centuries ago. Turning over, and fining a manure-heap, if other conditions are favorable, cause rapidfermentation with the formation of carbonate of ammonia, and othersoluble salts. Many of our soils, to the depth of eight or ten inches, contain enough nitrogenous matter in an acre to produce two or threethousand pounds of ammonia. By stirring the soil, and exposing it to theatmosphere, a small portion of this nitrogen becomes annually available, and is taken up by the growing crops. And it is so with the otherelements of plant-food. Stirring the soil, then, is the basis ofagriculture. It has been said that we must return to the soil as muchplant-food as we take from it. If this were true, nothing could be soldfrom the farm. What we should aim to do, is to develop as much aspossible of the plant-food that lies latent in the soil, and not to sellin the form of crops, cheese, wool, or animals, any more of thisplant-food than we annually develop from the soil. In this way the“condition” of the soil would remain the same. If we sell _less_ than wedevelop, the condition of the soil will improve. By “condition, ” I mean the amount of _available_ plant-food in the soil. Nearly all our farms are poorer in plant-food to-day than when firstcleared of the original forest, or than they were ten, fifteen, ortwenty years later. In other words, the plants and animals that havebeen sold from the farm, have carried off a considerable amount ofplant-food. We have taken far more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, etc. , out of the soil, than we have returned to it in the shape ofmanure. Consequently, the soil must contain less and less of plant-foodevery year. And yet, while this is a self-evident fact, it is, nevertheless, true that many of these self-same farms are moreproductive now than when first cleared, or at any rate more productivethan they were twenty-five or thirty years ago. Sometime ago, the Deacon and I visited the farm of Mr. Dewey, of MonroeCo. , N. Y. He is a good farmer. He does not practice “high farming” inthe sense in which I use that term. His is a good example of what I termslow farming. He raises large crops, but comparatively few of them. Onhis farm of 300 acres, he raises 40 acres of wheat, 17 acres of Indiancorn, and 23 acres of oats, barley, potatoes, roots, etc. In otherwords, he has 80 acres in crops, and 220 acres in grass--not permanentgrass. He lets it lie in grass five, six, seven, or eight years, as hedeems best, and then breaks it up, and plants it to corn. The land heintends to plant to corn next year, has been in grass for seven years. He will put pretty much all his manure on this land. After corn, it willbe sown to oats, or barley; then sown to wheat, and seeded down again. It will then lie in grass three, four, five, six, or seven years, untilhe needs it again for corn, etc. This is “slow farming, ” but it is alsogood farming--that is to say, it gives large yields per acre, and a goodreturn for the labor expended. The soil of this farm is richer to-day in _available_ plant-food thanwhen first cleared. It produces larger crops per acre. Mr. D. Called our attention to a fact that establishes this point. Anold fence that had occupied the ground for many years was removed someyears since, and the two fields thrown into one. Every time this fieldis in crops, it is easy to see where the old fence was, by the shortstraw and poor growth on this strip, as compared with the land on eachside which had been cultivated for years. This is precisely the result that I should have expected. If Mr. D. Wasa poor farmer--if he cropped his land frequently, did not more thanhalf-cultivate it, sold everything he raised, and drew back no manure--Ithink the old fence-strip would have given the best crops. The strip of land on which the old fence stood in Mr. Dewey’s field, contained _more_ plant-food than the soil on either side of it. But itwas not available. It was not developed. It was latent, inert, insoluble, crude, and undecomposed. It was so much dead capital. Theland on either side which had been cultivated for years, produced bettercrops. Why? Simply because the stirring of the soil had developed _more_plant-food than had been removed by the crops. If the stirring of thesoil developed 100 lbs. Of plant-food a year, and only 75 lbs. Werecarried off in the crops--25 lbs. Being left on the land in the form ofroots, stubble, etc. --the land, at the expiration of 40 years, wouldcontain, provided none of it was lost, 1, 000 lbs. More _available_plant-food than the uncultivated strip. On the other hand, the latterwould contain 3, 000 lbs. More actual plant-food per acre than the landwhich had been cultivated--but it is in an unavailable condition. It isdead capital. I do not know that I make myself understood, though I would like to doso, because I am sure there is no point in scientific farming of greaterimportance. Mr. Geddes calls grass the “pivotal crop” of Americanagriculture. He deserves our thanks for the word and the idea connectedwith it. But I am inclined to think the _pivot_ on which our agriculturestands and rotates, lies deeper than this. The grass crop createsnothing--developes nothing. The untilled and unmanured grass lands ofHerkimer County, in this State, are no richer to-day than they were 50years ago. The pastures of Cheshire, England, except those that havebeen top-dressed with bones, or other manures, are no more productivethan they were centuries back. Grass alone will not make rich land. Itis a good “savings bank. ” It gathers up and saves plant-food fromrunning to waste. It pays a good interest, and is a capital institution. But the real source of fertility must be looked for _in the stores ofplant-food lying dormant in the soil_. Tillage, underdraining, andthorough cultivation, are the means by which we develop and render thisplant-food available. Grass, clover, peas, or any other crop consumed onthe farm, merely affords us the means of saving this plant-food andmaking it pay a good interest. CHAPTER X. HOW TO MAKE MANURE. If we have the necessary materials, it is not a difficult matter to makemanure; in fact, the manure will make itself. We sometimes need tohasten the process, and to see that none of the fertilizing matter runsto waste. This is about all that we can do. We cannot create an atom ofplant-food. It is ready formed to our hands; but we must know where tolook for it, and how to get it in the easiest, cheapest, and best way, and how to save and use it. The science of manure-making is a profoundstudy. It is intimately connected with nearly every branch ofagriculture. If weeds grow and decay on the land, they make manure. If we grow a cropof buckwheat, or spurry, or mustard, or rape, or clover, and mow it, andlet it lie on the land, it makes manure; or if we plow it under, itforms manure; or if, after it is mown, we rake up the green crop, andput it into a heap, it will ferment, heat will be produced by the slowcombustion of a portion of the carbonaceous and nitrogenous matter, andthe result will be a mass of material, which we should all recognize as“manure. ” If, instead of putting the crop into a heap and letting itferment, we feed it to animals, the digestible carbonaceous andnitrogenous matter will be consumed to produce animal heat and tosustain the vital functions, and the refuse, or the solid and liquiddroppings of the animals, will be manure. If the crop rots on the ground, nothing is added to it. If it ferments, and gives out heat, in a heap, nothing is added to it. If it is passedthrough an animal, and produces heat, nothing is added to it. I have heard people say a farmer could not make manure unless he keptanimals. We might with as much truth say a farmer cannot make ashesunless he keeps stoves; and it would be just as sensible to take a lotof stoves into the woods to make ashes, as it is to keep a lot ofanimals merely to make manure. You can make the ashes by throwing thewood into a pile, and burning it; and you can make the manure bythrowing the material out of which the manure is to be made into a pile, and letting it ferment. On a farm where neither food nor manure of anykind is purchased, the only way to make manure is to _get it out of theland_. “From the land and from the atmosphere, ” remarked the Doctor. “Plantsget a large portion of the material of which they are composed from theatmosphere. ” “Yes, ” I replied, “but it is principally carbonaceous matter, which isof little or no value as manure. A small amount of ammonia and nitricacid are also brought to the soil by rains and dews, and afreshly-stirred soil may also sometimes absorb more or less ammonia fromthe atmosphere; but while this is true, so far as making manure isconcerned, we must look to the plant-food existing in the soil itself. “Take such a farm as Mr. Dewey’s, that we have already referred to. Nomanure or food has been purchased; or at any rate, not one-tenth as muchas has been sold, and yet the farm is more productive to-day than whenit was first cleared of the forest. He has developed the manure from thestores of latent plant-food previously existing in the soil and this isthe way farmers generally make manure. ” CHAPTER XI. THE VALUE OF MANURE DEPENDS ON THE FOOD--NOT ON THE ANIMAL. “If, ” said I, “you should put a ton of cut straw in a heap, wet it, andlet it rot down into manure; and should place in another heap a ton ofcut corn-fodder, and in another heap a ton of cut clover-hay, wet them, and let them also rot down into manure; and in another heap a ton ofpulped-turnips, and in another heap a ton of corn-meal, and in anotherheap a ton of bran, and in another a ton of malt-sprouts, and let thembe mixed with water, and so treated that they will ferment without lossof ammonia or other valuable plant-food, I think no one will say thatall these different heaps of manure will have the same value. And ifnot, why not?” “Because, ” said Charley, “the ton of straw does not contain as muchvaluable plant-food as the ton of corn-fodder, nor the ton ofcorn-fodder as much as the ton of clover-hay. ” “Now then, ” said I, “instead of putting a ton of straw in one heap torot, and a ton of corn-fodder in another heap, and a ton of clover inanother heap, we feed the ton of straw to a cow, and the ton ofcorn-fodder to another cow, and the ton of clover to another cow, andsave _all_ the solid and liquid excrements, will the manure made fromthe ton of straw be worth as much as the manure made from the ton ofcorn-fodder or clover-hay?” “No, ” said Charley. --“Certainly not, ” said the Doctor. --“I am not sosure about it, ” said the Deacon; “I think you will get more manure fromthe corn-fodder than from the straw or clover-hay. ” “We are not talking about bulk, ” said the Doctor, “but value. ” “Suppose, Deacon, ” said he, “you were to shut up a lot of your Brahma hens, andfeed them a ton of corn-meal, and should also feed a ton of corn-mealmade into slops to a lot of pigs, and should save _all_ the liquid andsolid excrements from the pigs, and all the manure from the hens, whichwould be worth the most?” --“The hen-manure, of course, ” said theDeacon, who has great faith in this kind of “guano, ” as he calls it. “And yet, ” said the Doctor, “you would probably not get more than half aton of manure from the hens, while the liquid and solid excrements fromthe pigs, if the corn-meal was made into a thin slop, would weigh two orthree tons. ” “More, too, ” said the Deacon, “the way you feed your store pigs. ” “Very well; and yet you say that the half ton of hen-manure made from aton of corn is worth more than the two or three tons of pig-manure madefrom a ton of corn. You do not seem to think, after all, that mere bulkor weight adds anything to the value of the manure. Why then should yousay that the manure from a ton of corn-fodder is worth more than from aton of straw, because it is more bulky?” “You, yourself, ” said the Deacon, “also say the manure from the ton ofcorn-fodder is worth more than from the ton of straw. ” --“True, ” said I“but _not_ because it is more bulky. It is worth more because the ton ofcorn-fodder contains a greater quantity of valuable plant-food than theton of straw. The clover is still richer in this valuable plant-food, and the manure is much more valuable; in fact, the manure from the tonof clover is worth as much as the manure from the ton of straw and theton of corn-fodder together. ” “I would like to see you prove that, ” said the Deacon, “for if it istrue, I will sell no more clover-hay. I can’t get as much for clover-hayin the market as I can for rye-straw. ” “I will not attempt to _prove_ it at present, ” said the Doctor; “but theevidence is so strong and so conclusive that no rational man, who willstudy the subject, can fail to be thoroughly convinced of its truth. ” “The value of manure, ” said I, “does not depend on the quantity of waterwhich it contains, or on the quantity of sand, or silica, or on theamount of woody fibre or carbonaceous matter. These things add little ornothing to its fertilizing value, except in rare cases; and thesulphuric acid and lime are worth no more than the same quantity ofsulphate of lime or gypsum, and the chlorine and soda are probably worthno more than so much common salt. The real chemical value of the manure, other things being equal, is in proportion to the nitrogen, phosphoricacid, and potash, that the manure contains. “And the quantity of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash found in themanure is determined, other things being equal, by the quantity of thenitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash contained in the food consumed bythe animals making the manure. ” CHAPTER XII. FOODS WHICH MAKE RICH MANURE. The amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, contained indifferent foods, has been accurately determined by many able andreliable chemists. The following table was prepared by Dr. J. B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, and was first published in this country in the “GeneseeFarmer, ” for May, 1860. Since then, it has been repeatedly published innearly all the leading agricultural journals of the world, and has givenrise to much discussion. The following is the table, with some recentadditions: TD: Total dry matter. TM: Total mineral matter (ash). Ph: Phosphoric acid reckoned as phosphate of lime. P: Potash. N: Nitrogen. V: Value of manure in dollars and cents from 1 ton (2, 000 lbs. ) of food. -----------------------+----------------------------------+------- | Per Cent. | +------+------+------+------+------+ | TD | TM | Ph | P | N | V -----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------- 1. Linseed cake | 88. 0 | 7. 00 | 4. 92 | 1. 65 | 4. 75 | 19. 72 2. Cotton-seed cake* | 89. 0 | 8. 00 | 7. 00 | 3. 12 | 6. 50 | 27. 86 3. Rape-cake | 89. 0 | 8. 00 | 5. 75 | 1. 76 | 5. 00 | 21. 01 4. Linseed | 90. 0 | 4. 00 | 3. 38 | 1. 37 | 3. 80 | 15. 65 5. Beans | 84. 0 | 3. 00 | 2. 20 | 1. 27 | 4. 00 | 15. 75 6. Peas | 84. 5 | 2. 40 | 1. 84 | 0. 96 | 3. 40 | 13. 38 7. Tares | 84. 0 | 2. 00 | 1. 63 | 0. 66 | 4. 20 | 16. 75 8. Lentils | 88. 0 | 3. 00 | 1. 89 | 0. 96 | 4. 30 | 16. 51 9. Malt-dust | 94. 0 | 8. 50 | 5. 23 | 2. 12 | 4. 20 | 18. 21 10. Locust beans | 85. 0 | 1. 75 | . .. . | . .. . | 1. 25 | 4. 81 11. Indian-meal | 88. 0 | 1. 30 | 1. 13 | 0. 35 | 1. 80 | 6. 65 12. Wheat | 85. 0 | 1. 70 | 1. 87 | 0. 50 | 1. 80 | 7. 08 13. Barley | 84. 0 | 2. 20 | 1. 35 | 0. 55 | 1. 65 | 6. 32 14. Malt | 95. 0 | 2. 60 | 1. 60 | 0. 65 | 1. 70 | 6. 65 15. Oats | 86. 0 | 2. 85 | 1. 17 | 0. 50 | 2. 00 | 7. 70 16. Fine pollard† | 86. 0 | 5. 60 | 6. 44 | 1. 46 | 2. 00 | 13. 53 17. Coarse pollard‡ | 86. 0 | 6. 20 | 7. 52 | 1. 49 | 2. 58 | 14. 36 18. Wheat-bran | 86. 0 | 6. 60 | 7. 95 | 1. 45 | 2. 55 | 14. 59 19. Clover-hay | 84. 0 | 7. 50 | 1. 25 | 1. 30 | 2. 50 | 9. 64 20. Meadow-hay | 84. 0 | 6. 00 | 0. 88 | 1. 50 | 1. 50 | 6. 43 21. Bean-straw | 82. 5 | 5. 55 | 0. 90 | 1. 11 | 0. 90 | 3. 87 22. Pea-straw | 82. 0 | 5. 95 | 0. 85 | 0. 89 | . .. . | 3. 74 23. Wheat-straw | 84. 0 | 5. 00 | 0. 55 | 0. 65 | 0. 60 | 2. 68 24. Barley-straw | 85. 0 | 4. 50 | 0. 37 | 0. 63 | 0. 50 | 2. 25 25. Oat-straw | 83. 0 | 5. 50 | 0. 48 | 0. 93 | 0. 60 | 2. 90 26. Mangel-wurzel | 12. 5 | 1. 00 | 0. 09 | 0. 25 | 0. 25 | 1. 07 27. Swedish turnips | 11. 0 | 0. 68 | 0. 13 | 0. 18 | 0. 22 | 0. 91 28. Common turnips | 8. 0 | 0. 68 | 0. 11 | 0. 29 | 0. 18 | 0. 86 29. Potatoes | 24. 0 | 1. 00 | 0. 32 | 0. 43 | 0. 35 | 1. 50 30. Carrots | 13. 5 | 0. 70 | 0. 13 | 0. 23 | 0. 20 | 0. 80 31. Parsnips | 15. 0 | 1. 00 | 0. 42 | 0. 36 | 0. 22 | 1. 14 -----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------- * The manure from a ton of undecorticated cotton-seed cake is worth $15. 74; that from a ton of cotton-seed, after being ground and sifted, is worth $13. 25. The grinding and sifting in Mr. Lawes’ experiments, removed about 8 per cent of husk and cotton. Cotton-seed, so treated, proved to be a very rich and economical food. † Middlings, Canielle. ‡ Shipstuff. Of all vegetable substances used for food, it will be seen thatdecorticated cotton-seed cake is the richest in nitrogen, phosphoricacid, and potash, and consequently makes the richest and most valuablemanure. According to Mr. Lawes’ estimate, the manure from a ton ofdecorticated cotton-seed cake is worth $27. 86 in gold. Rape-cake comes next. Twenty-five to thirty years ago, rape-cake, groundas fine as corn-meal, was used quite extensively on many of thelight-land farms of England as a manure for turnips, and notunfrequently as a manure for wheat. Mr. Lawes used it for many years inhis experiments on turnips and on wheat. Of late years, however, it has been fed to sheep and cattle. In otherwords, it has been used, not as formerly, for manure alone, but for foodfirst, and manure afterwards. The oil and other carbonaceous matterwhich the cake contains is of little value for manure, while it is ofgreat value as food. The animals take out this carbonaceous matter, andleave nearly all the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash in themanure. Farmers who had found it profitable to use on wheat and turnipsfor manure alone, found it still more profitable to use it first forfood, and then for manure afterwards. Mr. Lawes, it will be seen, estimates the manure produced from the consumption of a ton of rape-cakeat $21. 01. Linseed-oil cake comes next. Pure linseed-cake is exceedingly valuable, both for food and manure. It is a favorite food with all cattle andsheep breeders and feeders. It has a wonderful effect in improving theappearance of cattle and sheep. An English farmer thinks he cannot getalong without “cake” for his calves, lambs, cattle, and sheep. In thiscountry, it is not so extensively used, except by the breeders ofimproved stock. It is so popular in England that the price is fully upto its intrinsic value, and not unfrequently other foods, in proportionto the nutritive and manurial value, can be bought cheaper. This factshows the value of a good reputation. Linseed-cake, however, is oftenadulterated, and farmers need to be cautious who they deal with. Whenpure, it will be seen that the manure made by the consumption of a tonof linseed-cake is worth $19. 72. Malt-dust stands next on the list. This article is known by differentnames. In England, it is often called “malt-combs;” here it is known as“malt-_sprouts_, ” or “malt-_roots_. ” In making barley into malt, thebarley is soaked in water, and afterwards kept in a warm room until itgerminates, and throws out sprouts and roots. It is then dried, andbefore the malt is used, these dried sprouts and roots are sifted out, and are sold for cattle-food. They weigh from 22 to 25 lbs. Per bushelof 40 quarts. They are frequently mixed at the breweries with the“grains, ” and are sold to milkmen at the same price--from 12 to 15 centsper bushel. Where their value is not known, they can, doubtless, besometimes obtained at a mere nominal price. Milkmen, I believe, preferthe “grains” to the malt-dust. The latter, however, is a good food forsheep. It has one advantage over brewer’s “grains. ” The latter contain76 per cent of water, while the malt-dust contains only 6 per cent ofwater. We can afford, therefore, to transport malt-dust to a greaterdistance than the grains. We do not want to carry _water_ many miles. There is another advantage: brewer’s grains soon ferment, and becomesour; while the malt-dust, being dry, will keep for any length of time. It will be seen that Mr. Lawes estimates the value of the manure leftfrom the consumption of a ton of malt-dust at $18. 21. Tares or vetches, lentils, linseed or flaxseed, beans, wheat, bran, middlings, fine mill-feed, undecorticated cotton-seed cake, peas, andcotton-seed, stand next on the list. The value of these for manureranging from $13. 25 to $16. 75 per ton. Then comes clover-hay. Mr. Lawes estimates the value of the manure fromthe consumption of a ton of clover-hay at $9. 64. This is from early cutclover-hay. When clover is allowed to grow until it is nearly out of flower, the haywould not contain so much nitrogen, and would not be worth quite so muchper ton for manure. When mixed with timothy or other grasses, or withweeds, it would not be so valuable. The above estimate is for theaverage quality of good pure English clover-hay. Our best farmers raiseclover equally as good; but I have seen much clover-hay that certainlywould not come up to this standard. Still, even our common clover-haymakes rich manure. In Wolff’s Table, given in the appendix, it will beseen that clover-hay contains only 1. 97 per cent of nitrogen and 5. 7 percent of ash. Mr. Lawes’ clover contains more nitrogen and ash. Thismeans richer land and a less mature condition of the crop. The cereal grains, wheat, barley, oats, and Indian corn, stand next onthe list, being worth from $6. 32 to $7. 70 per ton for manure. “Meadow-hay, ” which in the table is estimated as worth $6. 43 per ton formanure, is the hay from permanent meadows. It is a quite differentarticle from the “English Meadow-hay” of New England. It is, in fact, the perfection of hay. The meadows are frequently top-dressed withcomposted manure or artificial fertilizers, and the hay is composed of anumber of the best grasses, cut early and carefully cured. It will benoticed, however, that even this choice meadow-hay is not as valuablefor manure as clover-hay. English bean-straw is estimated as worth $3. 87 per ton for manure. TheEnglish “horse bean, ” which is the kind here alluded to, has a verystiff, coarse long straw, and looks as though it was much inferior asfodder, to the straw of our ordinary white beans. See Wolff’s table inthe appendix. Pea-straw is estimated at $3. 74 per ton. When the peas are not allowedto grow until dead ripe, and when the straw is carefully cured, it makescapital food for sheep. Taking the grain and straw together, it will beseen that peas are an unusually valuable crop to grow for the purpose ofmaking rich manure. The straw of oats, wheat, and barley, is worth from $2. 25 to $2. 90 perton. Barley straw being the poorest for manure, and oat straw therichest. Potatoes are worth $1. 50 per ton, or nearly 5 cents a bushel for manure. The manurial value of roots varies from 80 cents a ton for carrots, to$1. 07 for mangel-wurzel, and $1. 14 for parsnips. I am very anxious that there should be no misapprehension as to themeaning of these figures. I am sure they are well worth the carefulstudy of every intelligent farmer. Mr. Lawes has been engaged in makingexperiments for over thirty years. There is no man more competent tospeak with authority on such a subject. The figures showing the moneyvalue of the manure made from the different foods, are based on theamount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, which they contain. Mr. Lawes has been buying and using artificial manures for many years, andis quite competent to form a correct conclusion as to the cheapestsources of obtaining nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. He hascertainly not overestimated their _cost_. They can not be bought atlower rates, either in England or America. But of course it does notfollow from this that these manures are worth to the farmer the pricecharged for them; that is a matter depending on many conditions. Allthat can be said is, that if you are going to buy commercial manures, you will have to pay at least as much for the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, as the price fixed upon by Mr. Lawes. And you shouldrecollect that there are other ingredients in the manure obtained fromthe food of animals, which are not estimated as of any value in thetable. For instance, there is a large amount of carbonaceous matter inthe manure of animals, which, for some crops, is not without value, butwhich is not here taken into account. Viewed from a farmer’s stand-point, the table of money values must betaken only in a comparative sense. It is not claimed that the manurefrom a ton of wheat-straw is worth $2. 68. This may, or may not, be thecase. But _if_ the manure from a ton of wheat-straw is worth $2. 08, _then_ the manure from a ton of pea-straw is worth $3. 74, and the manurefrom a ton of corn-meal is worth $6. 65, and the manure from a ton ofclover-hay is worth $9. 64, and the manure from a ton of wheat-bran isworth $14. 59. _If_ the manure from a ton of corn meal is _not_ worth$6. 65, then the manure from a ton of bran is not worth $14. 59. If themanure from the ton of corn is worth _more_ than $6. 65, then the manurefrom a ton of bran is worth _more_ than $14. 59. There need be no doubton this point. Settle in your own mind what the manure from a ton of any one of thefoods mentioned is worth on your farm, and you can easily calculate whatthe manure is worth from all the others. If you say that the manure froma ton of wheat-straw is worth $1. 34, then the manure from a ton ofIndian corn is worth $3. 33, and the manure from a ton of bran is worth$7. 30, and the manure from a ton of clover-hay is worth $4. 82. In this section, however, few good farmers are willing to sell straw, though they can get from $8. 00 to $10. 00 per ton for it. They think itmust be consumed on the farm, or used for bedding, or their land willrun down. I do not say they are wrong, but I do say, that if a ton ofstraw is worth $2. 68 for manure alone, then a ton of clover-hay is worth$9. 64 for manure alone. This may be accepted as a general truth, and onewhich a farmer can act upon. And so, too, in regard to the value ofcorn-meal, bran, and all the other articles given in the table. There is another point of great importance which should be mentioned inthis connection. The nitrogen in the better class of foods is worth morefor manure than the nitrogen in straw, corn-stalks, and other coarsefodder. Nearly all the nitrogen in grain, and other rich foods, isdigested by the animals, and is voided in solution in the urine. Inother words, the nitrogen in the manure is in an active and availablecondition. On the other hand, only about half the nitrogen in the coarsefodders and straw is digestible. The other half passes off in a crudeand comparatively unavailable condition, in the solid excrement. Inestimating the value of the manure from a ton of food, these factsshould be remembered. I have said that if the manure from a ton of straw is worth $2. 68, themanure from a ton of corn is worth $6. 65; but I will not reverse theproposition, and say that if the manure from a ton of corn is worth$6. 65, the manure from a ton of straw is worth $2. 68. The manure fromthe grain is nearly all in an available condition, while that from thestraw is not. A pound of nitrogen in rich manure is worth more than apound of nitrogen in poor manure. This is another reason why we shouldtry to make rich manure. CHAPTER XIII. HORSE MANURE AND FARM-YARD MANURE. The manure from horses is generally considered richer and better thanthat from cows. This is not always the case, though it is probably so asa rule. There are three principal reasons for this. 1st. The horse isusually fed more grain and hay than the cow. In other words, the food ofthe horse is usually richer in the valuable elements of plant-food thanthe ordinary food of the cow. 2d. The milk of the cow abstractsconsiderable nitrogen, phosphoric acid, etc. , from the food, and to thisextent there is less of these valuable substances in the excrements. 3d. The excrements of the cow contain much more water than those of thehorse. And consequently a ton of cow-dung, other things being equal, would not contain as much actual manure as a ton of horse-dung. Boussingault, who is eminently trustworthy, gives us the followinginteresting facts: A horse consumed in 24 hours, 20 lbs. Of hay, 6 lbs. Of oats, and 43lbs. Of water, and voided during the same period, 3 lbs. 7 ozs. Ofurine, and 38 lbs. 2 ozs. Of solid excrements. The solid excrements contained 23½ lbs. Of water, and the urine 2 lbs. 6ozs. Of water. According to this, a horse, eating 20 lbs. Of hay, and 6 lbs. Of oats, per day, voids in a year nearly seven tons of solid excrements, and1, 255 lbs. Of urine. It would seem that there must have been some mistake in collecting theurine, or what was probably the case, that some of it must have beenabsorbed by the dung; for 3½ pints of urine per day is certainly muchless than is usually voided by a horse. Stockard gives the amount of urine voided by a horse in a year at 3, 000lbs. ; a cow, 8, 000 lbs. ; sheep, 380 lbs. ; pig, 1, 200 lbs. Dr. Vœlcker, at the Royal Agricultural College, at Cirencester, England, made some valuable investigations in regard to the composition offarm-yard manure, and the changes which take place during fermentation. The manure was composed of horse, cow, and pig-dung, mixed with thestraw used for bedding in the stalls, pig-pens, sheds, etc. On the 3d of November, 1854, a sample of what Dr. Vœlcker calls “FreshLong Dung, ” was taken from the “manure-pit” for analysis. It had lain inthe pit or heap about 14 days. The following is the result of the analysis: Fresh Farm-Yard Manure. Half A Ton, Or 1, 000 Lbs. Water 661. 7 lbs. Organic matter 282. 4 ” Ash 55. 9 ” ------------- 1, 000. 0 lbs. Nitrogen 6. 43 ” “Before you go any farther, ” said the Deacon, “let me understand whatthese figures mean? Do you mean that a ton of manure contains only 12¾lbs. Of nitrogen, and 111 lbs. Of ash, and that all the rest iscarbonaceous matter and water, of little or no value?” --“That is itprecisely, Deacon, ” said I, “and furthermore, a large part of the ashhas very little fertilizing value, as seen from the following: Detailed Composition of the Ash of Fresh Barn-Yard Manure. Soluble silica 21. 59 Insoluble silicious matter (sand) 10. 04 Phosphate of lime 5. 35 Oxide of iron, alumina, with phosphate 8. 47 Containing phosphoric acid 3. 18 Lime 21. 31 Magnesia 2. 76 Potash 12. 04 Soda 1. 30 Chloride of sodium 0. 54 Sulphuric acid 1. 49 Carbonic acid and loss 15. 11 ------ 100. 00 Nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, are the most valuable ingredientsin manure. It will be seen that a ton of fresh barn-yard manure, ofprobably good average quality, contains: Nitrogen 12¾ lbs. Phosphoric acid 6½ ” Potash 13½ ” I do not say that these are the only ingredients of any value in a tonof manure. Nearly all the other ingredients are indispensable to thegrowth of plants, and if we should use manures containing nothing butnitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, the time would come when thecrops would fail, from lack of a sufficient quantity of, perhaps, magnesia, or lime, sulphuric acid, or soluble silica, or iron. But it isnot necessary to make provision for such a contingency. It would be avery exceptional case. Farmers who depend mainly on barn-yard manure, oron plowing under green crops for keeping up the fertility of the land, may safely calculate that the value of the manure is in proportion tothe amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, it contains. We draw out a ton of fresh manure and spread it on the land, therefore, in order to furnish the growing crops with 12¾ lbs. Of nitrogen, 6½ lbs. Of phosphoric acid, and 13½ lbs. Of potash. Less than 33 lbs. In all! We cannot dispense with farm-yard manure. We can seldom buy nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, as cheaply as we can get them in home-mademanures. But we should clearly understand the fact that we draw out2, 000 lbs. Of matter in order to get 33 lbs. Of these fertilizingingredients. We should _try to make richer manure_. A ton of manurecontaining 60 lbs. Of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, costs nomore to draw out and spread, than a ton containing only 30 lbs. , and itwould be worth nearly or quite double the money. How to make richer manure we will not discuss at this time. It is aquestion of food. But it is worth while to enquire if we can not takesuch manure as we have, and reduce its weight and bulk without losingany of its nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. CHAPTER XIV. FERMENTING MANURE. Dr. Vœlcker placed 2, 838 lbs. Of fresh mixed manure in a heap Nov. 3, 1854, and the next spring, April 30, it weighed 2, 026 lbs. , a shrinkagein weight of 28. 6 per cent. In other words 100 tons of such manure wouldbe reduced to less than 71½ tons. The heap was weighed again, August 23d, and contained 1, 994 lbs. It wasagain weighed Nov. 15, and contained 1, 974 lbs. The following table shows the composition of the heap when first put up, and also at the three subsequent periods: Table Showing Composition of the Whole Heap; Fresh Farm-Yard Manure (No. I. ) Exposed--Expressed in Lbs. ----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+--------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | ----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Weight of manure in lbs. | 2, 838 | 2, 026 | 1, 994 | 1, 974 Amt. Of water in the manure | 1, 877. 9 | 1, 336. 1 | 1, 505. 3 | 1, 466. 5 Amt. Of dry matter in the | | | | manure | 960. 1 | 689. 9 | 488. 7 | 507. 5 Consisting of-- | | | | Soluble organic matter { | 70. 38| 86. 51| 58. 83| 54. 04 Soluble mineral matter { | 43. 71| 57. 88| 39. 16| 36. 89 Insoluble organic matter { | 731. 07| 389. 74| 243. 22| 214. 92 Insoluble mineral matter { | 114. 92| 155. 77| 147. 49| 201. 65 | --------| --------| --------| -------- | 960. 1 | 689. 9 | 488. 7 | 507. 5 | | | | Containing nitrogen | 4. 22| 6. 07| 3. 76| 3. 65 Equal to ammonia | 5. 12| 7. 37| 4. 56| 4. 36 Containing nitrogen | 14. 01| 12. 07| 9. 38| 9. 38 Equal to ammonia | 17. 02| 14. 65| 11. 40| 11. 39 | --------| --------| --------| -------- Total amount of nitrogen in | | | | manure | 18. 23| 18. 14| 13. 14| 13. 03 Equal to ammonia | 22. 14| 22. 02| 15. 96| 15. 75 | | | | The manure contains ammonia | | | | in free state | . 96| . 15| . 20| . 11 The manure contains ammonia | | | | in form of salts, easily | | | | decomposed by quicklime | 2. 49| 1. 71| . 75| . 80 Total amount of organic | | | | matters | 801. 45| 476. 25| 302. 05| 268. 96 Total amount of mineral | | | | matters | 158. 15| 213. 65| 186. 65| 238. 54 ----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+--------- “It will be remarked, ” says Dr. Vœlcker, “that in the first experimentalperiod, the fermentation of the dung, as might have been expected, proceeded most rapidly, but that, notwithstanding, very little nitrogenwas dissipated in the form of volatile ammonia; and that on the whole, the loss which the manure sustained was inconsiderable when comparedwith the enormous waste to which it was subject in the subsequent warmerand more rainy seasons of the year. Thus we find at the end of Aprilvery nearly the same amount of nitrogen which is contained in the fresh;whereas, at the end of August, 27. 9 per cent of the total nitrogen, ornearly one-third of the nitrogen in the manure, has been wasted in oneway or the other. “It is worthy of observation, ” continues Dr. Vœlcker, “that, during awell-regulated fermentation of dung, the loss in intrinsically valuableconstituents is inconsiderable, and that in such a preparatory processthe _efficacy of the manure becomes greatly enhanced_. For certainpurposes fresh dung can never take the place of well-rotted dung. * *The farmer will, therefore, always be compelled to submit a portion ofhome-made dung to fermentation, and will find satisfaction in knowingthat this process, when well regulated, is not attended with any seriousdepreciation of the value of the manure. In the foregoing analyses hewill find the direct proof that as long as heavy showers of rain areexcluded from manure-heaps, or the manure is kept in water-proof pits, the most valuable fertilizing matters are preserved. ” This experiment of Dr. Vœlcker proves conclusively that manure can bekept in a rapid state of fermentation for six months during winter, withlittle loss of nitrogen or other fertilizing matter. During fermentation a portion of the insoluble matter of the dungbecomes soluble, and if the manure is then kept in a heap exposed torain, there is a great loss of fertilizing matter. This is preciselywhat we should expect. We ferment manure to make it more readilyavailable as plant-food, and when we have attained our object, themanure should be applied to the land. We keep winter apples in thecellar until they get ripe. As soon as they are ripe, they should beeaten, or they will rapidly decay. This is well understood. And itshould be equally well known that manure, after it has been fermentingin a heap for six months, cannot safely be kept for another six monthsexposed to the weather. The following table shows the composition of 100 lbs. Of the farm-yardmanure, at different periods of the year: Composition of 100 Lbs. Of Fresh Farm-Yard Manure (No. I. ) Exposed in Natural State, at Different Periods of the Year. -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |When put|Feb. 14, |Apr. 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | | -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Water | 66. 17 | 69. 83 | 65. 95 | 75. 49 | 74. 29 Soluble organic matter | 2. 48 | 3. 86 | 4. 27 | 2. 95 | 2. 74 Soluble inorganic matter | 1. 54 | 2. 97 | 2. 86 | 1. 97 | 1. 87 Insoluble organic matter | 25. 76 | 18. 44 | 19. 23 | 12. 20 | 10. 89 Insoluble mineral matter | 4. 05 | 4. 90 | 7. 69 | 7. 39 | 10. 21 +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- | 100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 Containing nitrogen | . 149| . 27 | . 30 | . 19 | . 18 Equal to ammonia | . 181| . 32 | . 36 | . 23 | . 21 Containing nitrogen | . 494| . 47 | . 59 | . 47 | . 47 Equal to ammonia | . 599| . 57 | . 71 | . 62 | . 57 Total amount of nitrogen | . 643| . 74 | . 89 | . 66 | . 65 Equal to ammonia | . 780| . 89 | 1. 07 | . 85 | . 78 Ammonia in a free state | . 034| . 049 | . 008 | . 010 | . 006 Ammonia in form of salts | | | | | easily decomposed | | | | | by quicklime | . 088| . 064 | . 085 | . 038 | . 041 Total amt. Of organic | 28. 24 | 22. 30 | 23. 50 | 15. 15 | 13. 63 matter | | | | | Total amt. Of mineral | 5. 59 | 7. 87 | 10. 55 | 9. 36 | 12. 08 substances | | | | | -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- It will be seen that two-thirds of the fresh manure is water. Afterfermenting in an exposed heap for six months, it still contains aboutthe same _percentage_ of water. When kept in the heap until August, thepercentage of water is much greater. Of four tons of such manure, threetons are water. Of _Nitrogen_, the most valuable ingredient of the manure, the freshdung, contained 0. 64 per cent; after fermenting six months, it contained0. 89 per cent. Six months later, it contained 0. 65 per cent, or aboutthe same amount as the fresh manure. Of mineral matter, or ash, this fresh farm-yard manure contained 5. 59per cent; of which 1. 54 was soluble in water, and 4. 05 insoluble. Afterfermenting in the heap for six months, the manure contained 10. 55 percent of ash, of which 2. 86 was soluble, and 7. 69 insoluble. Six monthslater, the soluble ash had decreased to 1. 97 per cent. The following table shows the composition of the manure, at differentperiods, in the _dry state_. In other words, supposing all the water tobe removed from the manure, its composition would be as follows: Composition of Fresh Farm-Yard Manure (No. I. ) Exposed. Calculated Dry. -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |When put|Feb. 14, |Apr. 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | | -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Soluble organic matter | 7. 33 | 12. 79 | 12. 54 | 12. 04 | 10. 65 Soluble inorganic matter | 4. 55 | 9. 84 | 8. 39 | 8. 03 | 7. 27 Insoluble organic matter | 76. 15 | 61. 12 | 56. 49 | 49. 77 | 42. 35 Insoluble mineral matter | 11. 97 | 16. 25 | 22. 58 | 30. 16 | 39. 73 +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | | | | | Containing nitrogen | . 44 | . 91 | . 88 | . 77 | . 72 Equal to ammonia | . 53 | 1. 10 | 1. 06 | . 93 | . 88 Containing nitrogen | 1. 46 | 1. 55 | 1. 75 | 1. 92 | 1. 85 Equal to ammonia | 1. 77 | 1. 88 | 2. 12 | 2. 33 | 2. 24 Total amount of nitrogen | 1. 90 | 2. 46 | 2. 63 | 2. 69 | 2. 57 Equal to ammonia | 2. 30 | 2. 98 | 3. 18 | 3. 26 | 3. 12 Ammonia in free state | . 10 | . 062| . 023| . 041| . 023 Ammonia in form of salts | | | | | easily decomposed by | | | | | quicklime | . 26 | . 212| . 249| . 154| . 159 Total amount of organic | | | | | matter | 83. 48 | 73. 91 | 69. 03 | 61. 81 | 53. 00 Total amount of mineral | | | | | substances | 16. 52 | 26. 09 | 30. 97 | 38. 19 | 47. 00 -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- “A comparison of these different analyses, ” says Dr. Vœlcker, “pointsout clearly the changes which fresh farm-yard manure undergoes onkeeping in a heap, exposed to the influence of the weather during aperiod of twelve months and twelve days. “1. It will be perceived that the proportion of organic matter steadilydiminishes from month to month, until the original percentage of organicmatter in the dry manure, amounting to 83. 48 per cent, becomes reducedto 53 per cent. “2. On the other hand, the total percentage of mineral matter rises assteadily as that of the organic matter falls. “3. It will be seen that the loss in organic matter affects thepercentage of insoluble organic matters more than the percentage ofsoluble organic substances. “4. The percentage of soluble organic matters, indeed, increasedconsiderably during the first experimental period; it rose, namely, from7. 33 per cent to 12. 79 per cent. Examined again on the 30th of April, very nearly the same percentage of soluble organic matter, as onFebruary the 14th, was found. The August analysis shows but a slightdecrease in the percentage of soluble organic matters, while there is adecrease of 2 per cent of soluble organic matters when the Novemberanalysis is compared with the February analysis. “5. The soluble mineral matters in this manure rise or fall in thedifferent experimental periods in the same order as the soluble organicmatters. Thus, in February, 9. 84 per cent of soluble mineral matterswere found, whilst the manure contained only 4. 55 per cent, when put upinto a heap in November, 1854. Gradually, however, the proportion ofsoluble mineral matters again diminished, and became reduced to 7. 27 percent, on the examination of the manure in November, 1855. “6. A similar regularity will be observed in the percentage of nitrogencontained in the soluble organic matters. “7. In the insoluble organic matters, the percentage of nitrogenregularly increased from November, 1854, up to the 23d of August, notwithstanding the rapid diminution of the percentage of insolubleorganic matter. For the last experimental period, the percentage ofnitrogen in the insoluble matter is nearly the same as on August 23d. “8. With respect to the total percentage of nitrogen in the freshmanure, examined at different periods of the year, it will be seen thatthe February manure contains about one-half per cent more of nitrogenthan the manure in a perfectly fresh state. On the 30th of April, thepercentage of nitrogen again slightly increased; on August 23d, itremained stationary, and had sunk but very little when last examined onthe 15th of November, 1855. “This series of analyses thus shows that fresh farm-yard manure rapidlybecomes more soluble in water, but that this desirable change isrealized at the expense of a large proportion of organic matters. Itlikewise proves, in an unmistakable manner, that there is no advantagein keeping farm-yard manure for too long a period; for, after February, neither the percentage of soluble organic, nor that of soluble mineralmatter, has become greater, and the percentage of nitrogen in the manureof April and August is only a very little higher than in February. ” “Before you go any further, ” said the Deacon, “answer me this question:Suppose I take five tons of farm-yard manure, and put it in a heap onthe 3d of November, tell me, 1st, what that heap will contain when firstmade; 2d, what the heap will contain April 30th; and, 3d, what the heapwill contain August 23d. ” Here is the table: Contents of a Heap of Manure at Different Periods, Exposed to Rain, etc. -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- |When |Apr. 30. |Aug. 23. |Nov. 15. |put up, | | | |Nov. 3. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- Total weight of manure in heap |10, 000 | 7, 138 | 7, 025 | 6, 954 Water in the heap of manure | 6, 617 | 4, 707 | 5, 304 | 5, 167 Total organic matter | 2, 824 | 1, 678 | 1, 034 | 947 Total inorganic matter | 559 | 753 | 657 | 840 Total nitrogen in heap | 64. 3 | 63. 9 | 46. 3 | 46. 0 Total soluble organic matter | 248 | 305 | 207 | 190 Total insoluble organic matter | 2, 576 | 1, 373 | 857 | 757 Soluble mineral matter | 154 | 204 | 138 | 130 Insoluble mineral matter | 405 | 549 | 519 | 710 Nitrogen in soluble matter | 14. 9 | 21. 4 | 13. 2 | 12. 9 Nitrogen in insoluble matter | 49. 4 | 42. 5 | 33. 1 | 33. 1 -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- The Deacon put on his spectacles and studied the above table carefullyfor some time. “That tells the whole story, ” said he, “you put five tonsof fresh manure in a heap, it ferments and gets warm, and nearly one tonof water is driven off by the heat. ” “Yes, ” said the Doctor, “you see that over half a ton (1, 146 lbs. ) ofdry organic matter has been slowly burnt up in the heap; giving out asmuch heat as half a ton of coal burnt in a stove. But this is not all. The manure is cooked, and steamed, and softened by the process. Theorganic matter burnt up is of no value. There is little or no loss ofnitrogen. The heap contained 64. 3 lbs. Of nitrogen when put up, and 63. 9lbs. After fermenting six months. And it is evident that the manure isin a much more active and available condition than if it had beenapplied to the land in the fresh state. There was 14. 9 lbs. Of nitrogenin a soluble condition in the fresh manure, and 21. 4 lbs. In thefermented manure. And what is equally important, you will notice thatthere is 154 lbs. Of soluble ash in the heap of fresh manure, and 204lbs. In the heap of fermented manure. In other words, 50 lbs. Of theinsoluble mineral matter had, by the fermentation of the manure, beenrendered soluble, and consequently immediately available as plant-food. This is a very important fact. ” The Doctor is right. There is clearly a great advantage in fermentingmanure, provided it is done in such a manner as to prevent loss. We havenot only less manure to draw out and spread, but the plant-food which itcontains, is more soluble and active. The table we have given shows that there is little or no loss ofvaluable constituents, even when manure is fermented in the open air andexposed to ordinary rain and snows during an English winter. But it alsoshows that when the manure has been fermented for six months, and isthen turned and left exposed to the rain of spring and summer, the lossis very considerable. The five tons (10, 000 lbs. , ) of fresh manure placed in a heap on the 3dof November, are reduced to 7, 138 lbs. By the 30th of April. Of this4, 707 lbs. Is water. By the 23d of August, the heap is reduced to 7, 025lbs. , of which 5, 304 lbs. Is water. There is nearly 600 lbs. More waterin the heap in August than in April. Of total nitrogen in the heap, there is 64. 3 lbs. In the fresh manure, 63. 9 lbs. In April, and only 46. 3 lbs. In August. This is a great loss, and there is no compensating gain. We have seen that, when five tons of manure is fermented for six months, in winter, the nitrogen in the soluble organic matter is increased from14. 9 lbs. To 21. 4 lbs. This is a decided advantage. But when the manureis kept for another six months, this soluble nitrogen is decreased from21. 4 lbs. To 13. 2 lbs. We lose over 8 lbs. Of the most active andavailable nitrogen. And the same remarks will apply to the valuable soluble mineral matter. In the five tons of fresh manure there is 154 lbs. Of soluble mineralmatter. By fermenting the heap six months, we get 204 lbs. , but bykeeping the manure six months longer, the soluble mineral matter isreduced to 138 lbs. We lose 66 lbs. Of valuable soluble mineral matter. By fermenting manure for six months in winter, we greatly improve itscondition; by keeping it six months longer, we lose largely of the verybest and most active parts of the manure. CHAPTER XV. KEEPING MANURE UNDER COVER. Dr. Vœlcker, at the same time he made the experiments alluded to in thepreceding chapter, placed another heap of manure _under cover_, in ashed. It was the same kind of manure, and was treated precisely as theother--the only difference being that one heap was exposed to the rain, and the other not. The following table gives the results of theweighings of the heap at different times, and also the percentage ofloss: Manure Fermented Under Cover in Shed. Table Showing the Actual Weighings, and Percentage of Loss in Weight, of Experimental Heap (No. II. ) Fresh Farm-Yard Manure Under Shed, at Different Periods of the Year. |Weight |Loss in |Percentage | of |original| of Loss. |Manure |weight | |in Lbs. |in Lbs. | ------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------- Put up on the 3d of November, 1854 | 3, 258 | | Weighed on the 30th of April, 1855, | | | or after a lapse of 6 months | 1, 613 | 1, 645 | 50. 4 Weighed on the 23d of August, | | | 1855, or after a lapse of | | | 9 months and 20 days | 1, 297 | 1, 961 | 60. 0 Weighed on the 15th of November, | | | 1855, or after a lapse of | | | 12 months and 12 days | 1, 235 | 2, 023 | 62. 1 ------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------- It will be seen that 100 tons of manure, kept in a heap under cover forsix months, would be reduced to 49. 6-10 tons. Whereas, when the samemanure was fermented for the same length of time in the open air, the100 tons was reduced to only 71. 4-10 tons. The difference is dueprincipally to the fact that the heap exposed contained more water, derived from rain and snow, than the heap kept under cover. This, ofcourse, is what we should expect. Let us look at the results of Dr. Vœlcker’s analyses: Table Showing the Composition of Experimental Heap (No. II. ) Fresh Farmyard Manure Under Shed, in Natural State at Different Periods of the Year. -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |When put|Feb. 14, |Apr. 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | | -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Water | 66. 17 | 67. 32 | 56. 89 | 43. 43 | 41. 66 * Soluble organic matter | 2. 48 | 2. 63 | 4. 63 | 4. 13 | 5. 37 Soluble inorganic matter | 1. 54 | 2. 12 | 3. 38 | 3. 05 | 4. 43 † Insoluble organic | | | | | matter | 25. 76 | 20. 46 | 25. 43 | 26. 01 | 27. 69 Insoluble mineral matter | 4. 05 | 7. 47 | 9. 67 | 23. 38 | 20. 85 +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 | | | | | * Containing nitrogen | . 149 | . 17 | . 27 | . 26 | . 42 Equal to ammonia | . 181 | . 20 | . 32 | . 31 | . 51 † Containing nitrogen | . 494 | . 58 | . 92 | 1. 01 | 1. 09 Equal to ammonia | . 599 | . 70 | 1. 11 | 1. 23 | 1. 31 Total amount of nitrogen | . 643 | . 75 | 1. 19 | 1. 27 | 1. 51 Equal to ammonia | . 780 | . 90 | 1. 43 | 1. 54 | 1. 82 Ammonia in free state | . 034 | . 022 | . 055 | . 015 | . 019 Ammonia in form of salts | | | | | easily decomposed | | | | | by quicklime | . 088 | . 054 | . 101 | . 103 | . 146 Total amount of organic | | | | | matter | 28. 24 | 23. 09 | 30. 06 | 30. 14 | 33. 06 Total amount of mineral | | | | | substance | 5. 59 | 9. 59 | 13. 05 | 26. 43 | 25. 28 -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Table Showing the Composition of Experimental Heap (No. II. ) Fresh Farmyard Manure Under Shed, Calculated Dry, at Different Periods of the Year. -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |When put|Feb. 14, |Apr. 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | | -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- * Soluble organic matter | 7. 33 | 8. 04 | 10. 74 | 7. 30 | 9. 20 Soluble inorganic matter | 4. 55 | 6. 48 | 7. 84 | 5. 39 | 7. 59 † Insoluble organic | | | | | matter | 76. 15 | 62. 60 | 58. 99 | 45. 97 | 47. 46 Insoluble mineral matter | 11. 97 | 22. 88 | 22. 43 | 41. 34 | 35. 75 +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 |100. 00 | | | | | * Containing nitrogen | . 44 | . 53 | . 63 | . 46 | . 72 Equal to ammonia | . 53 | . 66 | . 75 | . 56 | . 88 † Containing nitrogen | 1. 46 | 1. 77 | 2. 14 | 1. 78 | 1. 88 Equal to ammonia | 1. 77 | 2. 14 | 2. 59 | 2. 16 | 2. 26 Total amount of nitrogen | 1. 90 | 2. 30 | 2. 77 | 2. 24 | 2. 60 Equal to ammonia | 2. 30 | 2. 80 | 3. 35 | 2. 72 | 3. 08 Ammonia in free state | . 10 | . 067 | . 127 | . 026 | . 033 Ammonia in form of salts, | | | | | easily decomposed | | | | | by quicklime | . 26 | . 165 | . 234 | . 182 | . 250 Total amount of organic | | | | | matter | 83. 48 | 70. 64 | 69. 73 | 53. 27 | 56. 66 Total amount of mineral | | | | | substance | 16. 52 | 29. 36 | 30. 27 | 46. 73 | 43. 34 -------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- The above analyses are of value to those who buy fresh and fermentedmanure. They can form some idea of what they are getting. If they buy aton of fresh manure in November, they get 12¾ lbs. Of nitrogen, and 30¾lbs. Of soluble mineral matter. If they buy a ton of the same manurethat has been kept under cover until February, they get, nitrogen, 15lbs. ; soluble minerals, 42½ lbs. In April, they get, nitrogen, 23¾ lbs. ;soluble minerals, 67½ lbs. In August, they get, nitrogen, 25½ lbs. ;soluble minerals, 61 lbs. In November, when the manure is over one yearold, they get, in a ton, nitrogen, 30¼ lbs. ; soluble minerals, 88½ lbs. When manure has not been exposed, it is clear that a purchaser canafford to pay considerably more for a ton of rotted manure than for aton of fresh manure. But waiving this point for the present, let us seehow the matter stands with the farmer who makes and uses the manure. What does he gain by keeping and fermenting the manure under cover? The following table shows the weight and composition of the entire heapof manure, kept under cover, at different times: Table Showing Composition of Entire Experimental Heap (No. II. ) Fresh Farm-Yard Manure, Under Shed. -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Weight of manure | 3, 258. |1, 613. |1, 297. |1, 235. +---------+---------+---------+-------- Amount of water in the manure | 2, 156. | 917. 6 | 563. 2 | 514. 5 Amount of dry matter | 1, 102. | 695. 4 | 733. 8 | 720. 5 * Consisting of soluble | | | | organic matter | 80. 77| 74. 68 | 53. 56 | 66. 28 Soluble mineral matter | 50. 14| 54. 51 | 39. 55 | 54. 68 † Insoluble organic matter | 839. 17| 410. 24 | 337. 32 | 341. 97 Insoluble mineral matter | 131. 92| 155. 97 | 303. 37 | 257. 57 +---------+---------+---------+-------- | 1, 102. | 695. 4 | 733. 8 | 720. 5 | | | | * Containing nitrogen | 4. 85| 4. 38 | 3. 46 | 5. 25 Equal to ammonia | 5. 88| 5. 33 | 4. 20 | 6. 37 † Containing nitrogen | 16. 08| 14. 88 | 13. 08 | 13. 54 Equal to ammonia | 19. 59| 17. 46 | 15. 88 | 16. 44 Total amount of nitrogen | | | | in manure | 20. 93| 19. 26 | 16. 54 | 18. 79 Equal to ammonia | 25. 40| 22. 79 | 20. 08 | 22. 81 The manure contains ammonia | | | | in free state | 1. 10| . 88 | . 19 | . 23 The manure contains ammonia | | | | in form of salts, easily | | | | decomposed by quicklime | 2. 86| 1. 62 | 1. 33 | 1. 80 Total amount of organic matter | 919. 94| 484. 92 | 390. 88 | 408. 25 Total amount of mineral matter | 182. 06| 210. 48 | 342. 92 | 312. 35 -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- This is the table, as given by Dr. Vœlcker. For the sake of comparison, we will figure out what the changes would be in a heap of five tons(10, 000 lbs. ) of manure, when fermented under cover, precisely in thesame way as we did with the heap fermented in the open air, exposed tothe rain. The following is the table: Contents of a Heap Of Manure at Different Periods. Fermented Under Cover. -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Total weight of manure in heap | 10, 000 | 4, 960 | 4, 000 |3, 790 Water in the heap of manure | 6, 617 | 2, 822 | 1, 737 |1, 579 Total organic matter | 2, 824 | 1, 490 | 1, 205 |1, 253 Total inorganic matter | 559 | 646 | 1, 057 | 958 Total nitrogen in heap | 64. 3| 59 | 50. 8| 57. 2 Total soluble organic matter | 248 | 230 | 165 | 203. 5 Insoluble organic matter | 2, 576 | 1, 260 | 1, 040 |1, 049 Soluble mineral matter | 154 | 167 | 122 | 168 Insoluble mineral matter | 405 | 479 | 935 | 790 Nitrogen in soluble matter | 14. 9| 13. 4| 10. 4| 15. 9 Nitrogen in insoluble matter | 49. 4| 45. 6| 40. 4| 41. 3 Total dry matter in heap | 3, 383 | 2, 038 | 2, 263 |2, 211 -------------------------------+---------+---------+------------------ It will be seen that the heap of manure kept under cover contained, onthe 30th of April, _less_ soluble organic matter, _less_ soluble mineralmatter, _less_ soluble nitrogenous matter, and _less_ total nitrogenthan the heap of manure exposed to the weather. This is precisely what Ishould have expected. The heap of manure in the shed probably fermentedmore rapidly than the heap out of doors, and there was not water enoughin the manure to retain the carbonate of ammonia, or to favor theproduction of organic acids. _The heap was too dry. _ If it could havereceived enough of the liquid from the stables to have kept itmoderately moist, the result would have been very different. We will postpone further consideration of this point at present, andlook at the results of another of Dr. Vœlcker’s interesting experiments. Dr. Vœlcker wished to ascertain the effect of three common methods ofmanaging manure: 1st. Keeping it in a _heap_ in the open air in the barn-yard, or field. 2d. Keeping it in a _heap_ under cover in a shed. 3d. Keeping it _spread out_ over the barn-yard. “You say these are common methods of managing manure, ” remarked theDeacon, “but I never knew any one in this country take the trouble tospread manure over the yard. ” “Perhaps not, ” I replied, “but you have known a good many farmers whoadopt this very method of keeping their manure. They do not spreadit--but they let it lie spread out over the yards, just wherever ithappens to be. ” Let us see what the effect of this treatment is on the composition andvalue of the manure. We have examined the effect of keeping manure in a heap in the open air, and also of keeping it in a heap under cover. Now let us see how thesemethods compare with the practice of leaving it exposed to the rains, spread out in the yard. On the 3rd of November, 1854, Dr. Vœlcker weighed out 1, 652 lbs. Ofmanure similar to that used in the preceding experiments, and spread itout in the yard. It was weighed April 30, and again August 23, andNovember 15. The following table gives the actual weight of the manure at thedifferent periods, also the actual amount of the water, organic matter, ash, nitrogen, etc. : Table Showing the Weight and Composition of Entire Mass of Experimental Manure (No. Iii. ), Fresh Farm-Yard Manure, Spread in Open Yard at Different Periods of the Year. In Natural State. -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Weight of manure |1, 652. |1, 429. |1, 012. |950. +---------+---------+---------+-------- Amount of water in the manure |1, 093. |1, 143. | 709. 3 |622. 8 Amount of dry matter | 559. | 285. 5 | 302. 7 |327. 2 * Consisting of soluble | | | | organic matter | 40. 97 | 16. 55 | 4. 96 | 3. 95 Soluble mineral matter | 25. 43 | 14. 41 | 6. 47 | 5. 52 † Insoluble organic matter | 425. 67 | 163. 79 | 106. 81 | 94. 45 Insoluble mineral matter | 66. 93 | 90. 75 | 184. 46 |223. 28 +---------+---------+---------+-------- | 559. 00 | 285. 50 | 302. 70 |327. 20 | | | | * Containing nitrogen | 3. 28 | 1. 19 | . 60 | . 32 Equal to ammonia | 3. 98 | 1. 44 | . 73 | . 39 † Containing nitrogen | 6. 21 | 6. 51 | 3. 54 | 3. 56 Equal to ammonia | 7. 54 | 7. 90 | 4. 29 | 4. 25 Total amount of nitrogen in | | | | manure | 9. 19 | 7. 70 | 4. 14 | 3. 88 Equal to ammonia | 11. 52 | 9. 34 | 5. 02 | 4. 64 The manure contains ammonia | | | | in free state | . 55 | . 14 | . 13 | . 0055 The manure contains ammonia | | | | in form of salts, easily | | | | decomposed by quicklime | 1. 45 | . 62 | . 55 | . 28 Total amount of organic matter | 466. 64 | 180. 34 | 111. 77 | 98. 40 Total amount of mineral matter | 92. 36 | 105. 16 | 190. 93 |228. 80 -------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------- “One moment, ” said the Deacon. “These tables are a little confusing. Thetable you have just given shows the actual weight of the manure in theheap, and what it contained at different periods. ” --“Yes, ” said I, “andthe table following shows what 100 lbs. Of this manure, spread out inthe yard, contained at the different dates mentioned. It shows howgreatly manure deteriorates by being exposed to rain, spread out on thesurface of the yard. The table merits careful study. ” Table Showing Composition of Experimental Heap (No. III. ). Fresh Farm Yard Manure, Spread in Open Yard, at Different Periods of the Year. In Natural State. -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- Water | 66. 17 | 80. 02 | 70. 09 | 65. 56 * Soluble organic matter | 2. 48 | 1. 16 | . 49 | . 42 Soluble inorganic matter | 1. 54 | 1. 01 | . 64 | . 57 † Insoluble organic matter | 25. 76 | 11. 46 | 10. 56 | 9. 94 Insoluble mineral matter | 4. 05 | 6. 35 | 18. 22 | 23. 51 +---------+---------+--------+--------- | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | | | | * Containing nitrogen | . 149 | . 08 | . 06 | . 03 Equal to ammonia | . 181 | . 69 | . 07 | . 036 † Containing nitrogen | . 494 | . 45 | . 35 | . 36 Equal to ammonia | . 599 | . 54 | . 42 | . 46 Total amount of nitrogen | . 643 | . 53 | . 41 | . 39 Equal to ammonia | . 780 | . 63 | . 49 | . 496 Ammonia in free state | . 034 | . 010 | . 012| . 0006 Ammonia in form of salts, | | | | easily decomposed by | | | | quicklime | . 088 | . 045 | . 051| . 030 Total amount of organic matter | 28. 24 | 12. 62 | 11. 05 | 10. 36 Total amount of mineral | | | | substance | 5. 59 | 7. 36 | 18. 86 | 24. 08 -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- The following table shows the composition of the manure, calculated dry: Table Showing Composition of Experimental Heap (No. III. ), Fresh Farm Yard Manure, Spread in Open Yard, at Different Periods of the Year. Calculated Dry. -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- |When put |April 30, |Aug. 23, |Nov. 15, |up, Nov. |1855. |1855. |1855. |3, 1854. | | | -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- * Soluble organic matter | 7. 33 | 5. 80 | 1. 64 | 1. 21 Soluble inorganic matter | 4. 55 | 5. 05 | 2. 14 | 1. 69 † Insoluble organic matter | 76. 15 | 57. 37 | 35. 30 | 28. 86 Insoluble mineral matter | 11. 97 | 31. 78 | 60. 92 | 68. 24 +---------+---------+--------+--------- | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | 100. 00 | | | | * Containing nitrogen | . 44 | . 42 | . 20 | . 10 Equal to ammonia | . 53 | . 51 | . 24 | . 12 † Containing nitrogen | 1. 46 | 2. 28 | 1. 17 | 1. 09 Equal to ammonia | 1. 77 | 2. 76 | 1. 41 | 1. 32 Total amount of nitrogen | 1. 90 | 2. 70 | 1. 37 | 1. 19 Equal to ammonia | 2. 30 | 3. 27 | 1. 65 | 1. 44 Ammonia in free state | . 10 | . 05 | . 040| . 0017 Ammonia in form of salts, | | | | easily decomposed by | | | | quicklime | . 26 | . 225 | . 171| . 087 Total amount of organic matter | 83. 48 | 63. 17 | 36. 94 | 30. 07 Total amount of mineral | | | | substance | 16. 52 | 36. 83 | 63. 06 | 69. 93 -------------------------------+---------+---------+--------+--------- I have made out the following table, showing what would be the changesin a heap of 5 tons (10, 000 lbs. ) of manure, spread out in the yard, sothat we can readily see the effect of this method of management ascompared with the other two methods of keeping the manure in compactheaps, one exposed, the other under cover. The following is the table: Contents of the Mass of Manure, Spread Out in Farm-Yard, and Exposed to Rain, Etc. ------------------------------+-----------+--------+---------+-------- |When |Apr. 30. |Aug. 23. |Nov. 15. |spread out, | | | |Nov. 3. | | | ------------------------------+-----------+--------+---------+-------- | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Total weight of manure | 10, 000 | 8, 350 | 6, 130 | 5, 750 Water in the manure | 6, 617 | 6, 922 | 4, 297 | 3, 771 Total organic matter | 2, 824 | 1, 092 | 677 | 595 Total inorganic matter | 559 | 636 | 1, 155 | 1, 384 Total nitrogen in manure | 64. 3 | 45. 9 | 25 | 22. 4 Total soluble organic matter | 248 | 100 | 30 | 24 Insoluble organic matter | 2, 576 | 992 | 647 | 571 Soluble mineral matter | 154 | 87 | 39 | 33 Insoluble mineral matter | 405 | 549 | 1, 116 | 1, 351 Nitrogen in soluble matter | 14. 9 | 6. 9 | 3. 6 | 1. 7 Nitrogen in insoluble matter | 49. 4 | 39 | 21. 4 | 20. 7 ------------------------------+-----------+--------+---------+-------- It is not necessary to make many remarks on this table. The facts speakfor themselves. It will be seen that there is considerable loss even byletting the manure lie spread out until spring; but, serious as thisloss is, it is small compared to the loss sustained by allowing themanure to lie exposed in the yard during the summer. In the five tons of fresh manure, we have, November 3, 64. 3 lbs. Ofnitrogen; April 30, we have 46 lbs. ; August 23, only 25 lbs. This is agreat loss of the most valuable constituent of the manure. Of solublemineral matter, the next most valuable ingredient, we have in the fivetons of fresh manure, November 3, 154 lbs. ; April 30, 87 lbs. ; andAugust 23, only 39 lbs. Of soluble nitrogen, the most active andvaluable part of the manure, we have, November 3, nearly 15 lbs. ; April30, not quite 7 lbs. ; August 23, 3½ lbs. ; and November 15, not quite 1¾lbs. Dr. Vœlcker made still another experiment. He took 1, 613 lbs. Of_well-rotted_ dung (mixed manure from horses, cows, and pigs, ) and keptit in a heap, exposed to the weather, from December 5 to April 30, August 23, and November 15, weighing it and analyzing it at thesedifferent dates. I think it is not necessary to give the results indetail. From the 5th of December to the 30th of April, there was _noloss_ of nitrogen in the heap, and comparatively little loss of solublemineral matters; but from April 30 to August 23, there was considerableloss in both these valuable ingredients, which were washed out of theheap by rain. Dr. Vœlcker draws the following conclusions from his experiments: “Having described at length my experiments with farm-yard manure, ” hesays, “it may not be amiss to state briefly the more prominent andpractically interesting points which have been developed in the courseof this investigation. I would, therefore, observe: “1. Perfectly fresh farm yard manure contains but a small proportion offree ammonia. “2. The nitrogen in fresh dung exists principally in the state ofinsoluble nitrogenized matters. “3. The soluble organic and mineral constituents of dung are much morevaluable fertilizers than the insoluble. Particular care, therefore, should be bestowed upon the preservation of the liquid excrements ofanimals, and for the same reason the manure should be kept in perfectlywater-proof pits of sufficient capacity to render the setting up ofdung-heaps in the corner of fields, as much as it is possible, unnecessary. “4. Farm-yard manure, even in quite a fresh state, contains phosphate oflime, which is much more soluble than has hitherto been suspected. “5. The urine of the horse, cow, and pig, does not contain anyappreciable quantity of phosphate of lime, whilst the drainings ofdung-heaps contain considerable quantities of this valuable fertilizer. The drainings of dung-heaps, partly for this reason, are more valuablethan the urine of our domestic animals, and, therefore, ought to beprevented by all available means from running to waste. “6. The most effectual means of preventing loss in fertilizing mattersis to cart the manure directly on the field whenever circumstances allowthis to be done. “7. On all soils with a moderate proportion of clay, no fear need to beentertained of valuable fertilizing substances becoming wasted if themanure cannot be plowed in at once. Fresh, and even well-rotten, dungcontains very little free ammonia; and since active fermentation, andwith it the further evolution of free ammonia, is stopped by spreadingout the manure on the field, valuable volatile manuring matters can notescape into the air by adopting this plan. “As all soils with a moderate proportion of clay possess in a remarkabledegree the power of absorbing and retaining manuring matters, none ofthe saline and soluble organic constituents are wasted even by a heavyfall of rain. It may, indeed, be questioned whether it is more advisableto plow in the manure at once, or to let it lie for some time on thesurface, and to give the rain full opportunity to wash it into the soil. “It appears to me a matter of the greatest importance to regulate theapplication of manure to our fields, so that its constituents may becomeproperly diluted and uniformly distributed amongst a large mass of soil. By plowing in the manure at once, it appears to me, this desirable endcan not be reached so perfectly as by allowing the rain to wash ingradually the manure evenly spread on the surface of the field. “By adopting such a course, in case practical experience should confirmmy theoretical reasoning, the objection could no longer be maintainedthat the land is not ready for carting manure upon it. I am inclined torecommend, as a general rule: Cart the manure on the field, spread it atonce, and wait for a favorable opportunity to plow it in. In the case ofclay soils, I have no hesitation to say the manure may be spread evensix months before it is plowed in, without losing any appreciablequantity in manuring matter. “I am perfectly aware, that on stiff clay land, farm-yard manure, moreespecially long dung, when plowed in before the frost sets in, exercisesa most beneficial action by keeping the soil loose, and admitting thefree access of frost, which pulverizes the land, and would, therefore, by no means recommend to leave the manure spread on the surface withoutplowing it in. All I wish to enforce is, that when no other choice isleft but either to set up the manure in a heap in a corner of the field, or to spread it on the field, without plowing it in directly, to adoptthe latter plan. In the case of very light sandy soils, it may perhapsnot be advisable to spread out the manure a long time before it isplowed in, since such soils do not possess the power of retainingmanuring matters in any marked degree. On light sandy soils, I wouldsuggest to manure with well-fermented dung, shortly before the cropintended to be grown is sown. “8. Well-rotten dung contains, likewise, little free ammonia, but a verymuch larger proportion of soluble organic and saline mineral mattersthan fresh manure. “9. Rotten dung is richer in nitrogen than fresh. “10. Weight for weight, rotten dung is more valuable than fresh. “11. In the fermentation of dung, a very considerable proportion of theorganic matters in fresh manure is dissipated into the air in the formof carbonic acid and other gases. “12. Properly regulated, however, the fermentation of dung is notattended with any great loss of nitrogen, nor of saline mineral matters. “13. During the fermentation of dung, ulmic, humic, and other organicacids are formed, as well as gypsum, which fix the ammonia generated inthe decomposition of the nitrogenized constituents of dung. “14. During the fermentation of dung, the phosphate of lime which itcontains is rendered more soluble than in fresh manure. “15. In the interior and heated portions of manure-heaps, ammonia isgiven off; but, on passing into the external and cold layers ofdung-heaps, the free ammonia is retained in the heap. “16. Ammonia is not given off from the surface of well-compresseddung-heaps, but on turning manure-heaps, it is wasted in appreciablequantities. Dung-heaps, for this reason, should not be turned morefrequently than absolutely necessary. “17. No advantage appears to result from carrying on the fermentation ofdung too far, but every disadvantage. “18. Farm-yard manure becomes deteriorated in value, when kept in heapsexposed to the weather, the more the longer it is kept. “19. The loss in manuring matters, which is incurred in keepingmanure-heaps exposed to the weather, is not so much due to thevolatilization of ammonia as to the removal of ammoniacal salts, solublenitrogenized organic matters, and valuable mineral matters, by the rainwhich falls in the period during which the manure is kept. “20. If rain is excluded from dung-heaps, or little rain falls at atime, the loss in ammonia is trifling, and no saline matters, of course, are removed; but, if much rain falls, especially if it descends in heavyshowers upon the dung-heap, a serious loss in ammonia, soluble organicmatter, phosphate of lime, and salts of potash is incurred, and themanure becomes rapidly deteriorated in value, whilst at the same time itis diminished in weight. “21. Well-rotten dung is more readily affected by the deterioratinginfluence of rain than fresh manure. “22. Practically speaking, all the essentially valuable manuringconstituents are preserved by keeping farm-yard manure under cover. “23. If the animals have been supplied with plenty of litter, fresh dungcontains an insufficient quantity of water to induce an activefermentation. In this case, fresh dung can not be properly fermentedunder cover, except water or liquid manure is pumped over the heap fromtime to time. “Where much straw is used in the manufacture of dung, and no provisionis made to supply the manure in the pit at any time with the requisiteamount of moisture, it may not be advisable to put up a roof over thedung-pit. On the other hand, on farms where there is a deficiency ofstraw, so that the moisture of the excrements of our domestic animals isbarely absorbed by the litter, the advantage of erecting a roof over thedung-pit will be found very great. “24. The worst method of making manure is to produce it by animals keptin open yards, since a large proportion of valuable fertilizing mattersis wasted in a short time; and after a lapse of twelve months, at leasttwo-thirds of the substance of the manure is wasted, and only one-third, inferior in quality to an equal weight of fresh dung, is left behind. “25. The most rational plan of keeping manure in heaps appears to methat adopted by Mr. Lawrence, of Cirencester, and described by him atlength in Morton’s ‘Cyclopædia of Agriculture, ’ under the head of‘Manure. ’” CHAPTER XVI. AN ENGLISH PLAN OF KEEPING MANURE. “I would like to know, ” said the Deacon, “how Mr. Lawrence manages hismanure, especially as his method has received such high commendation. ” Charley got the second volume of “Morton’s Cyclopædia of Agriculture, ”from the book shelves, and turned to the article on “Manure. ” He foundthat Mr. Lawrence adopted the “Box System” of feeding cattle, and usedcut or chaffed straw for bedding. And Mr. Lawrence claims that by thisplan “manure will have been made under the most perfect conditions. ” And“when the boxes are full at those periods of the year at which manure isrequired for the succeeding crops, it will be most advantageouslydisposed of by being transferred at once to the land, and covered in. ” “Good, ” said the Deacon, “I think he is right there. ” Charley continued, and read as follows: “But there will be accumulations of manure requiring removal from thehomestead at other seasons, at which it cannot be so applied, and whenit must be stored for future use. The following has been found aneffectual and economical mode of accomplishing this; more particularlywhen cut litter is used, it saves the cost of repeated turnings, andeffectually prevents the decomposition and waste of the most active andvolatile principle. “Some three or more spots are selected according to the size of thefarm, in convenient positions for access to the land under tillage, andby the side of the farm roads. The sites fixed on are then excavatedabout two feet under the surrounding surface. In the bottom is laid somethree or four inches of earth to absorb any moisture, on which themanure is emptied from the carts. This is evenly spread, and welltrodden as the heap is forming. As soon as this is about a foot abovethe ground level, to allow for sinking, the heap is gradually gatheredin, until it is completed in the form of an ordinary steep roof, slightly rounded at the top by the final treading. In the course ofbuilding this up, about a bushel of salt, to two cart-loads of dung issprinkled amongst it. The base laid out at any one time should notexceed that required by the manure ready for the complete formation ofthe heap as far as it goes; and within a day or two after such portionis built up, and it has settled into shape, a thin coat of earth in amoist state is plastered _entirely_ over the surface. Under theseconditions decomposition does not take place, in consequence of theexclusion of the air; or at any rate to so limited an extent, that theammonia is absorbed by the earth, for there is not a trace of itperceptible about the heap; though, when put together without suchcovering, this is perceptible enough to leeward at a hundred yards’distance. “When heaps thus formed are resorted to in the autumn, either for theyoung seeds, or for plowing in on the stubbles after preparing for thesucceeding root crop, the manure will be found undiminished in quantityand unimpaired in quality; in fact, simply consolidated. Decompositionthen proceeds within the soil, where all its results are appropriated, and rendered available for the succeeding cereal as well as the rootcrop. “It would be inconvenient to plaster the heap, were the ridge, whensettled, above six or seven feet from the ground level; the base may beformed about ten to twelve feet wide, and the ridge about nine feet fromthe base, which settles down to about seven feet; this may be extendedto any length as further supplies of manure require removal. One man issufficient to form the heap, and it is expedient to employ the same manfor this service, who soon gets into the way of performing the workneatly and quickly. It has been asked where a farmer is to get the earthto cover his heaps--it may be answered, keep your roads scraped whenthey get muddy on the surface during rainy weather--in itself goodeconomy--and leave this in small heaps beyond the margin of your roads. This, in the course of the year, will be found an ample provision forthe purpose, for it is unnecessary to lay on a coat more than one or twoinches in thickness, which should be done when in a moist state. At anyrate, there will always be found an accumulation on headlands that maybe drawn upon if need be. “Farmers who have not been in the habit of bestowing care on themanufacture and subsequent preservation of their manure, and watchingresults, have no conception of the importance of this. A barrowful ofsuch manure as has been described, would produce a greater weight ofroots and corn, than that so graphically described by the most talentedand accomplished of our agricultural authors--as the contents of‘neighbour Drychaff’s dung-cart, that creaking hearse, that is carryingto the field the dead body whose spirit has departed. ’ “There is a source of valuable and extremely useful manure on everyfarm, of which very few farmers avail themselves--the gathering togetherin one spot of all combustible waste and rubbish, the clippings ofhedges, scouring of ditches, grassy accumulation on the sides of roadsand fences, etc. , combined with a good deal of earth. If these arecarted at leisure times into a large circle, or in two rows, to supplythe fire kindled in the center, in a spot which is frequented by thelaborers on the farm, with a three-pronged fork and a shovel attendant, and each passer-by is encouraged to add to the pile whenever he sees thesmoke passing away so freely as to indicate rapid combustion, a verylarge quantity of valuable ashes are collected between March andOctober. In the latter month the fire should be allowed to go out; theashes are then thrown into a long ridge, as high as they will stand, andthatched while dry. This will be found an invaluable store in April, May, and June, capable of supplying from twenty to forty bushels ofashes per acre, according to the care and industry of the collector, todrill with the seeds of the root crop. ” The Deacon got sleepy before Charley finished reading. “We can notafford to be at so much trouble in this country, ” he said, and took uphis hat and left. The Deacon is not altogether wrong. Our climate is very different fromthat of England, and it is seldom that farmers need to draw out manure, and pile it in the field, except in winter, and then it is notnecessary, I think, either to dig a pit or to cover the heap. Those whodraw manure from the city in summer, may probably adopt some of Mr. Lawrence’s suggestions with advantage. The plan of collecting rubbish, brush, old wood, and sods, andconverting them into ashes or charcoal, is one which we could oftenadopt with decided advantage. Our premises would be cleaner, and weshould have less fungus to speck and crack our apples and pears, and, inaddition, we should have a quantity of ashes or burnt earth, that is notonly a manure itself, but is specially useful to mix with moistsuperphosphate and other artificial manures, to make them dry enough andbulky enough to be easily and evenly distributed by the drill. Artificial manures, so mixed with these ashes, or dry, charred earth, are less likely to injure the seed than when sown with the seed in thedrill-rows, unmixed with some such material. Sifted coal ashes are alsovery useful for this purpose. CHAPTER XVII. SOLUBLE PHOSPHATES IN FARMYARD MANURE. There is one thing in these experiments of Dr. Vœlcker’s which deservesspecial attention, and that is the comparatively large amount of_soluble phosphate of lime_ in the ash of farm-yard manure. I do notthink the fact is generally known. In estimating the value of animalmanures, as compared with artificial manures, it is usually assumed thatthe phosphates in the former are insoluble, and, therefore, of lessvalue than the soluble phosphates in superphosphate of lime and otherartificial manures. Dr. Vœlcker found in the ash of _fresh_ farm-yard manure, phosphoricacid equal to 12. 23 per cent of phosphate of lime, and of this 5. 35 was_soluble_ phosphate of lime. In the ash of well-rotted manure, he found phosphoric acid equal to12. 11 per cent of phosphate of lime, and of this, 4. 75 was solublephosphate of lime. “That is, indeed, an important fact, ” said the Doctor, “but I thoughtProfessor Vœlcker claimed that ‘during the fermentation of dung, thephosphate of lime which it contains is rendered more soluble than infresh manure. ’” “He did say so, ” I replied, “and it may be true, but the above figuresdo not seem to prove it. When he wrote the sentence you have quoted, heprobably had reference to the fact that he found more soluble phosphateof lime in rotted manure than in fresh manure. Thus, he found in 5 tonsof fresh and 5 tons of rotted, manure, the following ingredients: SP: Soluble Phosphate of Lime. IP: Insoluble phosphates. TP: Total Phosphates. TSA: Total Soluble Ash. TIA: Total Insoluble Ash. TA: Total Ash. --------------+-----+-----+-----+-------------+-----+-----+----- | | | | Potash | | | 5 Tons. | SP | IP | TP +------+------+ TSA | TIA | TA (10, 000 LBS. ) | | | | Sol. |Insol. | | | --------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+-----+-----+----- Fresh manure | 29. 9| 38. 6| 68. 5| 57. 3 | 9. 9 | 154 | 405 | 559 Rotted manure | 38. 2|57. 3 |95. 5 | 44. 6 | 4. 5 | 147 | 658 | 805 --------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+-----+-----+----- “It will be seen from the above figures that _rotted manure containsmore soluble phosphate of lime than fresh manure_. “But it does not follow from this fact that any of the insolublephosphates in fresh manure have been rendered soluble during thefermentation of the manure. “There are more insoluble phosphates in the rotted manure than in thefresh, but we do not conclude from this fact that any of the phosphateshave been rendered insoluble during the process of fermentation--neitherare we warranted in concluding that any of them have been renderedsoluble, simply because we find more soluble phosphates in the rottedmanure. ” “Very true, ” said the Doctor, “but it has been shown that _in the heap_of manure, during fermentation, there was an _actual increase_ ofsoluble mineral matter during the first six months, and, to say theleast, it is highly probable that some of this increase of solublemineral matter contained more or less soluble phosphates, and perhapsDr. Vœlcker had some facts to show that such was the case, although hemay not have published them. At any rate, he evidently thinks that thephosphates in manure are rendered more soluble by fermentation. ” “Perhaps, ” said I, “we can not do better than to let the matter rest inthat form. I am merely anxious not to draw definite conclusions from thefacts which the facts do not positively prove. I am strongly in favor offermenting manure, and should be glad to have it shown that fermentationdoes actually convert insoluble phosphates into a soluble form. ” There is one thing, however, that these experiments clearly prove, andthat is, that there is a far larger quantity of _soluble_ phosphates inmanure than is generally supposed. Of the total phosphoric acid in thefresh manure, 43 per cent is in a soluble condition; and in the rottedmanure, 40 per cent is soluble. This is an important fact, and one which is generally overlooked. Itenhances the value of farm-yard or stable manure, as compared withartificial manures. But of this we may have more to say when we come tothat part of the subject. I want to make one remark. I think there canbe little doubt that the proportion of soluble phosphates is greater inrich manure, made from grain-fed animals, than in poor manure madeprincipally from straw. In other words, of 100 lbs. Of total phosphoricacid, more of it would be in a soluble condition in the rich than in thepoor manure. CHAPTER XVIII. HOW THE DEACON MAKES MANURE. “I think, ” said the Deacon, “you are talking too much about the scienceof manure making. Science is all well enough, but practice is better. ” “That depends, ” said I, “on the practice. Suppose you tell us how youmanage your manure. ” “Well, ” said the Deacon, “I do not know much about plant-food, andnitrogen, and phosphoric acid, but I think manure is a good thing, andthe more you have of it the better. I do not believe in your practice ofspreading manure on the land and letting it lie exposed to the sun andwinds. I want to draw it out in the spring and plow it under for corn. I think this long, coarse manure loosens the soil and makes it light, and warm, and porous. And then my plan saves labor. More than half of mymanure is handled but once. It is made in the yard and sheds, and liesthere until it is drawn to the field in the spring. The manure from thecow and horse stables, and from the pig-pens, is thrown into the yard, and nothing is done to it except to level it down occasionally. Inproportion to the stock kept, I think I make twice as much manure as youdo. ” “Yes, ” said I, “twice as much _in bulk_, but one load of my manure isworth four loads of your long, coarse manure, composed principally ofcorn-stalks, straw, and water. I think you are wise in not spending muchtime in piling and working over such manure. ” The Deacon and I have a standing quarrel about manure. We differ on allpoints. He is a good man, but not what we call a good farmer. He clearedup his farm from the original forest, and he has always been content toreceive what his land would give him. If he gets good crops, well, ifnot, his expenses are moderate, and he manages to make both ends meet. I tell him he could double his crops, and quadruple his profits, bybetter farming--but though he cannot disprove the facts, he is unwillingto make any change in his system of farming. And so he continues to makejust as much manure as the crops he is obliged to feed out leave in hisyards, and no more. He does not, in fact, _make_ any manure. He takeswhat comes, and gets it on to his land with as little labor as possible. It is no use arguing with such a man. And it certainly will not do tocontend that his method of _managing_ manure is all wrong. His error isin making such poor manure. But with such poor stuff as he has in hisyard, I believe he is right to get rid of it with the least expensepossible. I presume, too, that the Deacon is not altogether wrong in regard to thegood mechanical effects of manure on undrained and indifferentlycultivated land. I have no doubt that he bases his opinion onexperience. The good effects of such manure as he makes must be largelydue to its mechanical action--it can do little towards supplying themore important and valuable elements of plant-food. I commend the Deacon’s system of managing manure to all such as make asimilar article. But I think there is a more excellent way. Feed thestock better, make richer manure, and then it will pay to bestow alittle labor in taking care of it. CHAPTER XIX. HOW JOHN JOHNSTON MANAGES HIS MANURE. One of the oldest and most successful farmers, in the State of New York, is John Johnston, of Geneva. He has a farm on the borders of SenecaLake. It is high, rolling land, but needed underdraining. This has beenthoroughly done--and done with great profit and advantage. The soil is aheavy clay loam. Mr. Johnston has been in the habit of summer-fallowinglargely for wheat, generally plowing three, and sometimes four times. Hehas been a very successful wheat-grower, almost invariably obtaininglarge crops of wheat, both of grain and straw. The straw he feeds tosheep in winter, putting more straw in the racks than the sheep can eatup clean, and using what they leave for bedding. The sheep run in yardsenclosed with tight board fences, and have sheds under the barn to liein at pleasure. Although the soil is rather heavy for Indian corn, Mr. Johnston succeedsin growing large crops of this great American cereal. Corn and stalksare both fed out on the farm. Mr. J. Has not yet practised cutting uphis straw and stalks into chaff. The land is admirably adapted to the growth of red clover, and greatcrops of clover and timothy-hay are raised, and fed out on the farm. Gypsum, or plaster, is sown quite freely on the clover in the spring. Comparatively few roots are raised--not to exceed an acre--and theseonly quite recently. The main crops are winter wheat, spring barley, Indian corn, clover, and timothy-hay, and clover-seed. The materials for making manure, then, are wheat and barley straw, Indian corn, corn-stalks, clover, and timothy-hay. These are all raisedon the farm. But Mr. Johnston has for many years purchased linseed-oilcake, to feed to his sheep and cattle. This last fact must not be overlooked. Mr. J. Commenced to feed oil-cakewhen its value was little known here, and when he bought it for, I think, seven or eight dollars a ton. He continued to use it even whenhe had to pay fifty dollars per ton. Mr. J. Has great faith inmanure--and it is a faith resting on good evidence and long experience. If he had not fed out so much oil-cake and clover-hay, he would not havefound his manure so valuable. “How much oil-cake does he use?” asked the Deacon. “He gives his sheep, on the average, about 1 lb. Each per day. ” If he feeds out a ton of clover-hay, two tons of straw, (for feed andbedding, ) and one ton of oil-cake, the manure obtained from thisquantity of food and litter, would be worth, according to Mr. Lawes’table, given on page 45, $34. 72. On the other hand, if he fed out one ton of corn, one ton of clover-hay, and two tons of straw, for feed and bedding, the manure would be worth$21. 65. If he fed one ton of corn, and three tons of straw, the manure would beworth only $14. 69. He would get _as much manure_ from the three tons of straw and one tonof corn, as from the two tons of straw, one ton of clover-hay, and oneton of oil-cake, while, as before said, the manure in the one case wouldbe worth $14. 69, and in the other $34. 72. In other words, a load of the good manure would be worth, when spreadout on the land in the field or garden, more than two loads of the strawand corn manure. To get the same amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, youhave to spend more than twice the labor in cleaning out the stables oryards, more than twice the labor of throwing or wheeling it to themanure pile, more than twice the labor of turning the manure in thepile, more than twice the labor of loading it on the carts or wagons, more than twice the labor of drawing it to the field, more than twicethe labor of unloading it into heaps, and more than twice the labor ofspreading it in the one case than in the other, and, after all, twentytons of this poor manure would not produce as good an effect the firstseason as ten tons of the richer manure. “Why so?” asked the Deacon. “Simply because the poor manure is not so active as the richer manure. It will not decompose so readily. Its nitrogen, phosphoric acid, andpotash, are not so available. The twenty tons, _may_, in the long run, do as much good as the ten tons, but I very much doubt it. At any rate, I would greatly prefer the ten tons of the good manure to twenty tons ofthe poor--even when spread out on the land, ready to plow under. Whatthe difference would be in the value of the manure _in the yard_, youcan figure for yourself. It would depend on the cost of handling, drawing, and spreading the extra ten tons. ” The Deacon estimates the cost of loading, drawing, unloading, andspreading, at fifty cents a ton. This is probably not far out of theway, though much depends on the distance the manure has to be drawn, andalso on the condition of the manure, etc. The four tons of feed and bedding will make, at a rough estimate aboutten tons of manure. This ten tons of straw and corn manure, according to Mr. Lawes’estimate, is worth, _in the field_, $14. 69. And if it costs fifty centsa load to get it on the land, its value, _in the yard_, would be$9. 69--or nearly ninety-seven cents a ton. The ten tons of good manure, according to the same estimate, is worth, _in the field_, $34. 72, and, consequently, would be worth, _in theyard_, $29. 72. In other words, a ton of poor manure is worth, in theyard, ninety-seven cents a ton, and the good manure $2. 97. And so in describing John Johnston’s method of managing manure, thisfact must be borne in mind. It might not pay the Deacon to spend muchlabor on manure worth only ninety-seven cents a ton, while it might payJohn Johnston to bestow some considerable time and labor on manure worth$2. 97 per ton. “But is it really worth this sum?” asked the Deacon. “In reply to that, ” said I, “all I claim is that the figures arecomparative. If your manure, made as above described, is worthninety-seven cents a ton in the yard, _then_ John Johnston’s manure, made as stated, is _certainly_ worth, at least, $2. 97 per ton in theyard. ” Of this there can be no doubt. “If you think, ” I continued, “your manure, so made, is worth only halfas much as Mr. Lawes’ estimate; in other words, if your ten tons ofmanure, instead of being worth $14. 69 in the field, is worth only $7. 35;then John Johnston’s ten tons of manure, instead of being worth $34. 72in the field, is worth only $17. 36. ” “That looks a little more reasonable, ” said the Deacon, “John Johnston’smanure, instead of being worth $2. 97 per ton in the yard, is worth only$1. 48 per ton, and mine, instead of being worth ninety-seven cents aton, is worth forty-eight and a half cents a ton. ” The Deacon sat for a few minutes looking at these figures. “They do notseem so extravagantly high as I thought them at first, ” he said, “and ifyou will reduce the figures in Mr. Lawes’ table one-half all through, itwill be much nearer the truth. I think my manure is worth forty-eightand a half cents a ton in the yard, and if your figures are correct, I suppose I must admit that John Johnston’s manure is worth $1. 48 perton in the yard. ” I was very glad to get such an admission from the Deacon. He did not seethat he had made a mistake in the figures, and so I got him to go overthe calculation again. “You take a pencil, Deacon, ” said I, “and write down the figures: Manure from a ton of oil-cake $19. 72 Manure from a ton of clover-hay 9. 64 Manure from two tons of straw 5. 36 -------- $34. 72 “This would make about ten tons of manure. We have agreed to reduce theestimate one-half, and consequently we have $17. 36 as the value of theten tons of manure. “This is John Johnston’s manure. It is worth $1. 73 per ton in the field. “It costs, we have estimated, 50 cents a ton to handle the manure, andconsequently it is worth in the yard $1. 23 per ton. ” “This is less than we made it before, ” said the Deacon. “Never mind that, ” said I, “the figures are correct. Now write down whatyour manure is worth: Manure from 1 ton of corn $6. 65 Manure from 3 tons of straw 8. 04 -------- $14. 69 “This will make about ten tons of manure. In this case, as in the other, we are to reduce the estimate one-half. Consequently, we have $7. 35 asthe value of this ten tons of manure in the field, or 73½ cents a ton. It costs, we have estimated, 50 cents a ton to handle the manure, and, therefore, it is worth _in the yard_, 23½ cents a ton. ” “John Johnston’s manure is worth in the yard, $1. 23 per ton. TheDeacon’s manure is worth in the yard, 23½ cents per ton. ” “There is some mistake, ” exclaimed the Deacon, “you said, at first, thatone load of John Johnston’s manure was worth as much as two of my loads. Now you make one load of his manure worth more than five loads of mymanure. This is absurd. ” “Not at all, Deacon, ” said I, “you made the figures yourself. Youthought Mr. Lawes’ estimate too high. You reduced it one-half. Thefigures are correct, and you must accept the conclusion. If JohnJohnston’s manure is only worth $1. 23 per ton in the yard, yours, madefrom 1 ton of corn and 3 tons of straw, is only worth 23½ cents perton. ” “And now, Deacon, ” I continued, “while you have a pencil in your hand, I want you to make one more calculation. Assuming that Mr. Lawes’estimate is too high, and we reduce it one-half, figure up what manureis worth when made from straw alone. You take 4 tons of wheat straw, feed out part, and use part for bedding. It will give you about 10 tonsof manure. And this 10 tons cost you 50 cents a ton to load, draw out, and spread. Now figure: “Four tons of straw is worth, for manure, according to Mr. Lawes’ table, $2. 68 per ton. We have agreed to reduce the figures one half, and so the 10 tons of manure from the 4 tons of straw is worth $5. 36 Drawing out 10 tons of manure at 50 cents 5. 00 -------- Value of 10 tons of straw-manure _in yard_ $0. 36 “In other words, if John Johnston’s manure is worth only $1. 23 per tonin the yard, the straw-made manure is worth only a little over 3½ centsa ton in the yard. ” “That is _too_ absurd, ” said the Deacon. “Very well, ” I replied, “for once I am glad to agree with you. But ifthis is absurd, then it follows that Mr. Lawes’ estimate of the value ofcertain foods for manure is not so extravagant as you supposed--which isprecisely what I wished to prove. ” “You have not told us how Mr. Johnston manages his manure, ” said theDeacon. “There is nothing very remarkable about it, ” I replied. “There are manyfarmers in this neighborhood who adopt the same method. I think, however, John Johnston was the first to recommend it, and subjectedhimself to some criticism from some of the so-called scientific writersat the time. “His general plan is to leave the manure in the yards, basements, andsheds, under the sheep, until spring. He usually sells his fat sheep inMarch. As soon as the sheep are removed, the manure is either thrown upinto loose heaps in the yard, or drawn directly to the field, where itis to be used, and made into a heap there. The manure is not spread onthe land until the autumn. It remains in the heaps or piles all summer, being usually turned once, and sometimes twice. The manure becomesthoroughly rotted. ” Mr. Johnston, like the Deacon, applies his manure to the corn crop. Butthe Deacon draws out his fresh green manure in the spring, on sod-land, and plows it under. Mr. Johnston, on the other hand, keeps his manure ina heap through the summer, spreads it on the sod in September, or thefirst week in October. Here it lies until next spring. The grass andclover grow up through manure, and the grass and manure are turned undernext spring, and the land planted to corn. Mr. Johnston is thoroughly convinced that he gets far more benefit fromthe manure when applied on the surface, and left exposed for severalmonths, than if he plowed it under at once. I like to write and talk about John Johnston. I like to visit him. He isso delightfully enthusiastic, believes so thoroughly in good farming, and has been so eminently successful, that a day spent in his companycan not fail to encourage any farmer to renewed efforts in improving hissoil. “You _must_ drain, ” he wrote to me; “when I first commencedfarming, I never made any money until I began to underdrain. ” But it isnot underdraining alone that is the cause of his eminent success. Whenhe bought his farm, “near Geneva, ” over fifty years ago, there was apile of manure in the yard that had lain there year after year, until itwas, as he said, “as black as my hat. ” The former owner regarded it as anuisance, and a few months before young Johnston bought the farm, hadgiven some darkies a cow on condition that they would draw out thismanure. They drew out six loads, took the cow--and that was the lastseen of them. Johnston drew out this manure, raised a good crop ofwheat, and that gave him a start. He says he has been asked a great manytimes to what he owes his success as a farmer, and he has replied thathe could not tell whether it was “dung or credit. ” It was probablyneither. It was the man--his intelligence, industry, and good commonsense. That heap of black mould was merely an instrument in his handsthat he could turn to good account. His first crop of wheat gave him “credit” and this also he used toadvantage. He believed that good farming would pay, and it was thisfaith in a generous soil that made him willing to spend the moneyobtained from the first crop of wheat in enriching the land, and toavail himself of his credit. Had he lacked this faith--had he hoardedevery sixpence he could have ground out of the soil, who would have everheard of John Johnston? He has been liberal with his crops and hisanimals, and has ever found them grateful. This is the real lesson whichhis life teaches. He once wrote me he had something to show me. He did not tell me what itwas, and when I got there, he took me to a field of grass that was to bemown for hay. The field had been in winter wheat the year before. At thetime of sowing the wheat, the whole field was seeded down with timothy. No clover was sown, either then or in the spring; but after the wheatwas sown, he put on a slight dressing of manure on two portions of thefield that he thought were poor. He told the man to spread it out of thewagon just as thin as he could distribute it evenly over the land. Itwas a very light manuring, but the manure was rich, and thoroughlyrotted. I do not recollect whether the effect of the manure wasparticularly noticed on the wheat; but on the grass, the followingspring, the effect was sufficiently striking. Those two portions of thefield where the manure was spread were _covered with a splendid crop ofred clover_. You could see the exact line, in both cases, where themanure reached. It looked quite curious. No clover-seed was sown, andyet there was as fine a crop of clover as one could desire. On looking into the matter more closely, we found that there was more orless clover all over the field, but where the manure was not used, itcould hardly be seen. The plants were small, and the timothy hid themfrom view. But where the manure was used, these plants of clover hadbeen stimulated in their growth until they covered the ground. Theleaves were broad and vigorous, while in the other case they were small, and almost dried up. This is probably the right explanation. The manuredid not “bring in the clover;” it simply increased the growth of thatalready in the soil. It shows the value of manure for grass. This is what Mr. Johnston wanted to show me. “I might have written andtold you, but you would not have got a clear idea of the matter. ” Thisis true. One had to see the great luxuriance of that piece of clover tofully appreciate the effect of the manure. Mr. J. Said the manure onthat grass was worth $30 an acre--that is, on the three crops of grass, before the field is again plowed. I have no doubt that this is true, andthat the future crops on the land will also be benefited--not directlyfrom the manure, perhaps, but from the clover-roots in the soil. And ifthe field were pastured, the effect on future crops would be verydecided. CHAPTER XX. MY OWN PLAN OF MANAGING MANURE. One of the charms and the advantages of agriculture is that a farmermust think for himself. He should study principles, and apply them inpractice, as best suits his circumstances. My own method of managing manure gives me many of the advantages claimedfor the Deacon’s method, and John Johnston’s, also. “I do not understand what you mean, ” said the Deacon; “my method differsessentially from that of John Johnston. ” “True, ” I replied, “you use your winter-made manure in the spring; whileMr. Johnston piles his, and gets it thoroughly fermented; but to dothis, he has to keep it until the autumn, and it does not benefit hiscorn-crop before the next summer. He loses the use of his manure for ayear. ” I think my method secures both these advantages. I get my winter-mademanure fermented and in good condition, and yet have it ready for springcrops. In the first place, I should remark that my usual plan is to cut up allthe fodder for horses, cows, and sheep. For horses, I sometimes use longstraw for bedding, but, as a rule, I prefer to run everything through afeed-cutter. We do not steam the food, and we let the cows and sheephave a liberal supply of cut corn-stalks and straw, and what they do noteat is thrown out of the mangers and racks, and used for bedding. I should state, too, that I keep a good many pigs, seldom having lessthan 50 breeding sows. My pigs are mostly sold at from two to fourmonths old, but we probably average 150 head the year round. A good dealof my manure, therefore, comes from the pig-pens, and from two basementcellars, where my store hogs sleep in winter. In addition to the pigs, we have on the farm from 150 to 200 Cotswoldand grade sheep; 10 cows, and 8 horses. These are our manure makers. The raw material from which the manure is manufactured consists ofwheat, barley, rye, and oat-straw, corn-stalks, corn-fodder, clover andtimothy-hay, clover seed-hay, bean-straw, pea-straw, potato-tops, mangel-wurzel, turnips, rape, and mustard. These are all raised on thefarm; and, in addition to the home-grown oats, peas, and corn, we buyand feed out considerable quantities of bran, shorts, fine-middlings, malt-combs, corn-meal, and a little oil-cake. I sell wheat, rye, barley, and clover-seed, apples, and potatoes, and sometimes cabbages andturnips. Probably, on the average, for each $100 I receive from the saleof these crops, I purchase $25 worth of bran, malt-combs, corn-meal, andother feed for animals. My farm is now rapidly increasing in fertilityand productiveness. The crops, on the average, are certainly at leastdouble what they were when I bought the farm thirteen years ago; andmuch of this increase has taken place during the last five or six years, and I expect to see still greater improvement year by year. “Never mind all that, ” said the Deacon; “we all know that manure willenrich land, and I will concede that your farm has greatly improved, andcan not help but improve if you continue to make and use as muchmanure. ” “I expect to make more and more manure every year, ” said I. “The largerthe crops, the more manure we can make; and the more manure we make, thelarger the crops. ” The real point of difference between my plan of managing manure, and theplan adopted by the Deacon, is essentially this: I aim to keep all mymanure in a compact pile, where it will slowly ferment all winter. TheDeacon throws his horse-manure into a heap, just outside the stabledoor, and the cow-manure into another heap, and the pig-manure intoanother heap. These heaps are more or less scattered, and are exposed tothe rain, and snow, and frost. The horse-manure is quite likely toferment too rapidly, and if in a large heap, and the weather is warm, itnot unlikely “fire-fangs” in the center of the heap. On the other hand, the cow-manure lies cold and dead, and during the winter freezes intosolid lumps. I wheel or cart all my manure into one central heap. The main object isto keep it as compact as possible. There are two advantages in this:1st, the manure is less exposed to the rain, and (2d), when freezingweather sets in, only a few inches of the external portion of the heapis frozen. I have practised this plan for several years, and can keep myheap of manure slowly fermenting during the whole winter. But in order to ensure this result, it is necessary to begin making theheap before winter sets in. The plan is this: Having selected the spot in the yard most convenient for making theheap, collect all the manure that can be found in the sheepyards, sheds, cow and horse stables, pig-pens, and hen-house, together with leaves, weeds, and refuse from the garden, and wheel or cart it to the intendedheap. If you set a farm-man to do the work, tell him you want to make ahot-bed about five feet high, six feet wide, and six feet long. I do notthink I have ever seen a farm where enough material could not be found, say in November, to make such a heap. And this is all that is needed. Ifthe manure is rich, if it is obtained from animals eating clover-hay, bran, grain, or other food rich in nitrogen, it will soon ferment. Butif the manure is poor, consisting largely of straw, it will be verydesirable to make it richer by mixing with it bone-dust, blood, hen-droppings, woollen rags, chamber-lye, and animal matter of any kindthat you can find. The richer you can make the manure, the more readily will it ferment. A good plan is to take the horse or sheep manure, a few weeks previous, and use it for bedding the pigs. It will absorb the liquid of the pigs, and make rich manure, which will soon ferment when placed in a heap. If the manure in the heap is too dry, it is a good plan, when you arekilling hogs, to throw on to the manure all the warm water, hair, blood, intestines, etc. You may think I am making too much of such a simplematter, but I have had letters from farmers who have tried this plan ofmanaging manure, and they say that they can not keep it from freezing. One reason for this is, that they do not start the heap early enough, and do not take pains to get the manure into an active fermentationbefore winter sets in. Much depends on this. In starting a fire, youtake pains to get a little fine, dry wood, that will burn readily, andwhen the fire is fairly going, put on larger sticks, and presently youhave such a fire that you can burn wood, coal, stubble, sods, oranything you wish. And so it is with a manure-heap. Get the fire, orfermentation, or, more strictly speaking, putrefaction fairly started, and there will be little trouble, if the heap is large enough, and freshmaterial is added from time to time, of continuing the fermentation allwinter. Another point to be observed, and especially in cold weather, is to keepthe sides of the heap straight, and the _top level_. You must expose themanure in the heap as little as possible to frost and cold winds. Therule should be to spread every wheel-barrowful of manure as soon as itis put on the heap. If left unspread on top of the heap, it will freeze;and if afterwards covered with other manure, it will requireconsiderable heat to melt it, and thus reduce the temperature of thewhole heap. It is far less work to manage a heap of manure in this way than may besupposed from my description of the plan. The truth is, I find, in pointof fact, that it is _not_ an easy thing to manage manure in this way;and I fear not one farmer in ten will succeed the first winter heundertakes it, unless he gives it his personal attention. It is wellworth trying, however, because if your heap should freeze up, it willbe, at any rate, in no worse condition than if managed in the ordinaryway; and if you do succeed, even in part, you will have manure in goodcondition for immediate use in the spring. As I have said before, I keep a good many pigs. Now pigs, if fed onslops, void a large quantity of liquid manure, and it is not always easyto furnish straw enough to absorb it. When straw and stalks are cut intochaff, they will absorb much more liquid than when used whole. For thisreason we usually cut all our straw and stalks. We also use the litterfrom the horse-stable for bedding the store hogs, and also sometimes, when comparatively dry, we use the refuse sheep bedding for the samepurpose. Where the sheep barn is contiguous to the pig-pens, and whenthe sheep bedding can be thrown at once into the pig-pens or cellar, itis well to use bedding freely for the sheep and lambs, and remove itfrequently, throwing it into the pig-pens. I do not want my sheep to becompelled to eat up the straw and corn-stalks too close. I want them topick out what they like, and then throw away what they leave in thetroughs for bedding. Sometimes we take out a five-bushel basketful ofthese direct from the troughs, for bedding young pigs, or sows and pigsin the pens, but as a rule, we use them first for bedding the sheep, andthen afterwards use the sheep bedding in the fattening or storepig-pens. “And sometimes, ” remarked the Deacon, “you use a little long straw foryour young pigs to sleep on, so that they can bury themselves in thestraw and keep warm. ” “True, ” I replied, “and it is not a bad plan, but we are not now talkingabout the management of pigs, but how we treat our manure, and how wemanage to have it ferment all winter. ” A good deal of our pig-manure is, to borrow a phrase from thepomologists, “double-worked. ” It is horse or sheep-manure, used forbedding pigs and cows. It is saturated with urine, and is much richer innitrogenous material than ordinary manure, and consequently will fermentor putrefy much more rapidly. Usually pig-manure is considered “cold, ”or sluggish, but this doubleworked pig-manure will ferment even morerapidly than sheep or horse-manure alone. Unmixed cow-manure is heavy and cold, and when kept in a heap by itselfout of doors, is almost certain to freeze up solid during the winter. We usually wheel out our cow-dung every day, and spread on the manureheap. This is one of the things that needs attention. There will be a constanttendency to put all the cow-dung together, instead of mixing it with thelighter and more active manure from the horses, sheep, and pigs. Spreadit out and cover it with some of the more strawy manure, which is not soliable to freeze. Should it so happen--as will most likely be the case--that on looking atyour heap some morning when the thermometer is below zero, you find thatseveral wheel-barrowfuls of manure that were put on the heap the daybefore, were not spread, and are now crusted over with ice, it will bewell to break up the barrowfuls, even if necessary to use a crowbar, andplace the frozen lumps of manure on the outside of the heap, rather thanto let them lie in the center of the pile. Your aim should be always tokeep the center of the heap warm and in a state of fermentation. You donot want the fire to go out, and it will not go out if the heap isproperly managed, even should all the sides and top be crusted over witha layer of frozen manure. During very severe weather, and when the top is frozen, it is a goodplan, when you are about to wheel some fresh manure on to the heap, toremove a portion of the frozen crust on top of the heap, near thecenter, and make a hole for the fresh manure, which should be spread andcovered up. When the heap is high enough, say five feet, we commence another heapalongside. In doing this, our plan is to clean out some of thesheep-sheds or pig-pens, where the manure has accumulated for some time. This gives us much more than the daily supply. Place this manure on theoutside of the new heap, and then take a quantity of hot, fermenting, manure from the middle of the old heap, and throw it into the center ofthe new heap, and then cover it up with the fresh manure. I would put ineight or ten bushels, or as much as will warm up the center of the newheap, and start fermentation. The colder the weather, the more of thishot manure should you take from the old heap--the more the better. Freshmanure should be added to the old heap to fill up the hole made by theremoval of the hot manure. “You draw out a great many loads of manure during the winter, ” said theDeacon, “and pile it in the field, and I have always thought it a goodplan, as you do the work when there is little else to do, and when theground is frozen. ” Yes, this is an improvement on my old plan. I formerly used to turn overthe heap of manure in the barn-yard in March, or as soon as fermentationhad ceased. The object of turning the heap is (1st, ) to mix the manure and make itof uniform quality; (2d, ) to break the lumps and make the manure fine;and (3d, ) to lighten up the manure and make it loose, thus letting inthe air and inducing a second fermentation. It is a good plan, and wellrepays for the labor. In doing the work, build up the end and sides ofthe new heap straight, and keep the top flat. Have an eye on the mandoing the work, and see that he breaks up the manure and mixes itthoroughly, and that he _goes to the bottom of the heap_. My new plan that the Deacon alludes to, is, instead of turning the heapin the yard, to draw the manure from the heap in the yard, and pile itup in another heap in the field where it is to be used. This has all theeffects of turning, and at the same time saves a good deal of team-workin the spring. [Illustration: _A, B, Manure Heaps; C, D, E, Ridges, 2½ ft. Apart. _] The location of the manure-heap in the field deserves someconsideration. If the manure is to be used for root-crops or potatoes, and if the land is to be ridged, and the manure put in the ridges, thenit will be desirable to put the heap on the headland, or, better still, to make two heaps, one on the headland top of the field, and the otheron the headland at the bottom of the field, as shown in the annexedengraving. We draw the manure with a cart, the horse walking between two of theridges (D), and the wheels of the cart going in C and E. The manure ispulled out at the back end of the cart into small heaps, about fivepaces apart. “That is what I object to with you agricultural writers, ” said theDoctor; “you say ‘about five paces, ’ and sometimes ‘about five paces’would mean 4 yards, and sometimes 6 yards; and if you put 10 tons ofmanure per acre in the one case, you would put 15 tons in theother--which makes quite a difference in the dose. ” The Doctor is right. Let us figure a little. If your cart holds 20bushels, and if the manure weighs 75 lbs. To the bushel, and you wish toput on 10 tons of manure per acre, or 1, 500 bushels, or 13⅓ cart-loads, then, as there are 43, 560 square feet in an acre, you want a bushel ofmanure to 29 square feet, or say a space 2 yards long, by nearly 5 feetwide. Now, as our ridges are 2½ feet apart, and as our usual plan is to manure5 ridges at a time, or 12½ feet wide, a load of 20 bushels of manurewill go over a space 46½ feet long, nearly, or say 15½ yards; and so, a load would make 3 heaps, 15½ feet apart, and there would be 6⅔ bushelsin each heap. If the manure is to be spread on the surface of the land, there is nonecessity for placing the heap on the headland. You can make the heap orheaps. --“Where most convenient, ” broke in the Deacon. --“No, not by anymeans, ” I replied; “for if that was the rule, the men would certainlyput the heap just where it happened to be the least trouble for them todraw and throw off the loads. ” The aim should be to put the heap just where it will require the leastlabor to draw the manure on to the land in the spring. On what we call “rolling, ” or hilly land, I would put the heap on thehighest land, so that in the spring the horses would be going down hillwith the full carts or wagons. Of course, it would be very unwise toadopt this plan if the manure was not drawn from the yards until spring, when the land was soft; but I am now speaking of drawing out the manurein the winter, when there is sleighing, or when the ground is frozen. Nofarmer will object to a little extra labor for the teams in the winter, if it will save work and time in the spring. [Illustration: _Field, 40×20 Rods, showing Position of two Heaps of Manure, a, a. _] If the land is level, then the heap or heaps should be placed where theleast distance will have to be traveled in drawing the manure from theheap to the land. If there is only one heap, the best point would be inthe center of the field. If two heaps, and the field is longer than itis broad, say 20 rods wide, and 40 rods long, then the heaps should bemade as shown on the previous page. If the field is square, say 40 × 40 rods, and we can have four heaps ofmanure, then, other things being equal, the best points for the heapsare shown in the annexed figure: [Illustration: _Field, 40×40 Rods, showing Position of four Heaps of Manure, a, a, a, a. _] Having determined where to make the heaps, the next question is inregard to size. We make one about 8 feet wide and 6 feet high, thelength being determined by the quantity of the manure we have to draw. In cold weather, it is well to finish the heap each day as far as yougo, so that the sloping side at the end of the heap will not be frozenduring the night. Build up the sides square, so that the top of the heapshall be as broad as the bottom. You will have to see that this is done, for the average farm-man, if left to himself, will certainly narrow upthe heap like the roof of a house. The reason he does this is that hethrows the manure from the load into the center of the heap, and he cannot build up the sides straight and square without getting on to theheap occasionally, and placing a layer round the outsides. He should beinstructed, too, to break up the lumps, and mix the manure, working itover until it is loose and fine. It there are any frozen masses ofmanure, place them on the east or south outside, and not in the middleof the heap. If there is any manure in the sheds, or basements, or cellars, orpig-pens, clean it out, and draw it at once to the pile in the field, and mix it with the manure you are drawing from the heap in the yard. We generally draw with two teams and three wagons. We have one man tofill the wagon in the yard, and two men to drive and unload. When theman comes back from the field, he places his empty wagon by the side ofthe heap in the yard, and takes off the horses and puts them to theloaded wagon, and drives to the heap in the field. If we have men andteams enough, we draw with three teams and three wagons. In this case, we put a reliable man at the heap, who helps the driver to unload, andsees that the heap is built properly. The driver helps the man in theyard to load up. In the former plan, we have two teams and three men; inthe latter case, we have three teams and five men, and as we have twomen loading and unloading, instead of one, we ought to draw out doublethe quantity of manure in a day. If the weather is cold and windy, weput the blankets on the horses under the harness, so that they will notbe chilled while standing at the heap in the yard or field. They willtrot back lively with the empty wagon or sleigh, and the work willproceed briskly, and the manure be less exposed to the cold. “You do not, ” said the Doctor, “draw the manure on to the heap with acart, and dump it, as I have seen it done in England?” I did so a few years ago, and might do so again if I was piling manurein the spring, to be kept over summer for use in the fall. Thecompression caused by drawing the cart over the manure, has a tendencyto exclude the air and thus retard fermentation. In the winter there iscertainly no necessity for resorting to any means for checkingfermentation. In the spring or summer it may be well to compress theheap a little, but not more, I think, than can be done by the tramplingof the workman in spreading the manure on the heap. “You do not, ” said the Doctor, “adopt the old-fashioned English plan ofkeeping your manure in a basin in the barn-yard, and yet I should thinkit has some advantages. ” “I practised it here, ” said I, “for some years. I plowed and scraped alarge hole or basin in the yard four or five feet deep, with a gradualslope at one end for convenience in drawing out the loads--the othersides being much steeper. I also made a tank at the bottom to hold thedrainage, and had a pump in it to pump the liquid back on to the heap indry weather. We threw or wheeled the manure from the stables andpig-pens into this basin, but I did not like the plan, for two reasons:(1, ) the manure being spread over so large a surface froze duringwinter, and (2, ) during the spring there was so much water in the basinthat it checked fermentation. ” Now, instead of spreading it all over the basin, we commenced a smallheap on one of the sloping sides of the basin; with a horse and cart wedrew to this heap, just as winter set in, every bit of manure that couldbe found on the premises, and everything that would make manure. Whengot all together, it made a heap seven or eight feet wide, twenty feetlong, and three or four feet high. We then laid planks on the heap, andevery day, as the pig-pens, cow and horse stables were cleaned out, themanure was wheeled on to the heap and shaken out and spread about. Theheap soon commenced to ferment, and when the cold weather set in, although the sides and some parts of the top froze a little, the insidekept quite warm. Little chimneys were formed in the heap, where the heatand steam escaped. Other parts of the heap would be covered with a thincrust of frozen manure. By taking a few forkfuls of the latter, andplacing them on the top of the “chimneys, ” they checked the escape ofsteam, and had a tendency to distribute the heat to other parts of theheap. In this way the fermentation became more general throughout allthe mass, and not so violent at any one spot. “But why be at all this trouble?”--For several reasons. First. It saveslabor in the end. Two hours’ work, in winter, will save three hours’work in the spring. And three hours’ work in the spring is worth morethan four hours’ work in the winter. So that we save half the expense ofhandling the manure. 2d. When manure is allowed to lie scattered aboutover a large surface, it is liable to have much of its value washed outby the rain. In a compact heap of this kind, the rain or snow that fallson it is not more than the manure needs to keep it moist enough forfermentation. 3d. There is as much fascination in this fermenting heapof manure as there is in having money in a savings bank. One iscontinually trying to add to it. Many a cart-load or wheel-barrowful ofmaterial will be deposited that would otherwise be allowed to run towaste. 4th. The manure, if turned over in February or March, will be incapital order for applying to root crops; or if your hay and strawcontains weed-seeds, the manure will be in good condition to spread as atop-dressing on grass-land early in the spring. This, I think, is betterthan keeping it in the yards all summer, and then drawing it out on thegrass land in September. You gain six months’ or a year’s time. You geta splendid growth of rich grass, and the red-root seeds will germinatenext September just as well as if the manure was drawn out at that time. If the manure is drawn out early in the spring, and spread outimmediately, and then harrowed two or three times with a Thomas’smoothing-harrow, there is no danger of its imparting a rank flavor tothe grass. I know from repeated trials that when part of a pasture istop-dressed, cows and sheep will keep it much more closely cropped downthan the part which has not been manured. The idea to the contraryoriginated from not spreading the manure evenly. “But why ferment the manure at all? Why not draw it out fresh from theyards? Does fermentation increase the amount of plant-food in themanure?”--No. But it renders the plant-food in the manure moreimmediately available. It makes it more soluble. We ferment manure forthe same reason that we decompose bone-dust or mineral phosphates withsulphuric acid, and convert them into superphosphate, or for the samereason that we grind our corn and cook the meal. These processes addnothing to the amount of plant-food in the bones or the nutriment in thecorn. They only increase its availability. So in fermenting manure. Whenthe liquid and solid excrements from well-fed animals, with the strawnecessary to absorb the liquid, are placed in a heap, fermentation setsin and soon effects very important changes in the nature and compositionof the materials. The insoluble woody fibre of the straw is decomposedand converted into humic and ulmic acids. These are insoluble; and whenmanure consists almost wholly of straw or corn stalks, there would belittle gained by fermenting it. But when there is a good proportion ofmanure from well fed animals in the heap, carbonate of ammonia is formedfrom the nitrogenous compounds in the manure, and this ammonia uniteswith the humic and ulmic acids and forms humate and ulmate of ammonia. These ammoniacal salts are soluble in water--as the brown color of thedrainings of a manure heap sufficiently indicates. Properly fermented manure, therefore, of good quality, is a much moreactive and immediately useful fertilizer than fresh, unfermented manure. There need be no loss of ammonia from evaporation, and the manure is farless bulky, and costs far less labor to draw out and spread. The onlyloss that is likely to occur is from leaching, and this must bespecially guarded against. CHAPTER XXI. THE MANAGEMENT OF MANURES. --Continued. WHY DO WE FERMENT MANURE? However much farmers may differ in regard to the advantages ordisadvantages of fermenting manure, I have never met with one whocontended that it was good, either in theory or practice, to leavemanure for months, scattered over a barn-yard, exposed to the spring andautumn rains, and to the summer’s sun and wind. All admit that, if it isnecessary to leave manure in the yards, it should be either thrown intoa basin, or put into a pile or heap, where it will be compact, and notmuch exposed. We did not need the experiments of Dr. Vœlcker to convince us that therewas great waste in leaving manure exposed to the leaching action of ourheavy rains. We did not know exactly how much we lost, but we knew itmust be considerable. No one advocates the practice of exposing manure, and it is of no use to discuss the matter. All will admit that it isunwise and wasteful to allow manure to lie scattered and exposed overthe barn-yards any longer than is absolutely necessary. We should either draw it directly to the field and use it, or we shouldmake it into a compact heap, where it will not receive more rain than isneeded to keep it moist. One reason for piling manure, therefore, is to preserve it from loss, until we wish to use it on the land. “We all admit that, ” said the Deacon, “but is there anything actuallygained by fermenting it in the heap?”--In one sense, no; but in another, and very important sense, yes. When we cook corn-meal for our littlepigs, we add nothing to it. We have no more meal after it is cooked thanbefore. There are no more starch, or oil, or nitrogenous matters in themeal, but we think the pigs can digest the food more readily. And so, infermenting manure, we add nothing to it; there is no more actualnitrogen, or phosphoric acid, or potash, or any other ingredient afterfermentation than there was before, but these ingredients are renderedmore soluble, and can be more rapidly taken up by the plants. In thissense, therefore, there is a great gain. One thing is certain, we do not, in many cases, get anything like asmuch benefit from our manure as the ingredients it contains would leadus to expect. Mr. Lawes, on his clayey soil at Rothamsted, England, has grown overthirty crops of wheat, year after year, on the same land. One plot hasreceived 14 tons of barn-yard manure per acre every year, and yet theproduce from this plot is no larger, and, in fact, is frequently muchless, than from a few hundred pounds of artificial manure containing farless nitrogen. For nineteen years, 1852 to 1870, some of the plots have received thesame manure year after year. The following shows the _average_ yield forthe nineteen years: _Wheat _Straw per acre. _ per acre. _ Plot 5. --Mixed mineral manure, alone 17 bus. 15 cwt. ” 6. --Mixed mineral manure, and 200 lbs. Ammoniacal salts 27 bus. 25 cwt. ” 7. --Mixed mineral manure, and 400 lbs. Ammoniacal salts 36 bus. 36 cwt. ” 9. --Mixed mineral manure, and 550 lbs. Nitrate of soda 37 bus. 41 cwt. ” 2. --14 tons farm-yard dung 36 bus. 34 cwt. The 14 tons (31, 360 lbs. ) of farm-yard manure contained about 8, 540 lbs. Organic matter, 868 lbs. Mineral matter, and 200 lbs. Nitrogen. The 400lbs. Of ammoniacal salts, and the 550 lbs. Nitrate of soda, eachcontained 82 lbs. Of nitrogen; and it will be seen that this 82 lbs. Ofnitrogen produced as great an effect as the 200 lbs. Of nitrogen inbarn-yard manure. Similar experiments have been made on barley, with even more strikingresults. The plot dressed with 300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime, and 200lbs. Ammoniacal salts per acre, produced as large a crop as 14 tons offarm-yard manure. The average yield of barley for nineteen crops grownon the same land each year was 48 bus. And 28 cwt. Of straw per acre onboth plots. In other words, 41 lbs. Of nitrogen, in ammoniacal salts, produced as great an effect as 200 lbs. Of nitrogen in farm-yard manure!During the nineteen years, one plot had received 162, 260 lbs. Of organicmatter, 16, 492 lbs. Of mineral matter, and 3, 800 lbs. Of nitrogen; whilethe other had received only 5, 700 lbs. Mineral matter, and 779 lbs. Ofnitrogen--and yet one has produced as large a crop as the other. Why this difference? It will not do to say that more nitrogen wasapplied in the farm-yard manure than was needed. Mr. Lawes says: “Forsome years, an amount of ammonia-salts, containing 82 lbs. Of nitrogen, was applied to one series of plots (of barley), but this was found to betoo much, the crop generally being too heavy and laid. Yet probablyabout 200 lbs. Of nitrogen was annually supplied in the dung, but withit there was no over-luxuriance, and no more crop, than where 41 lbs. Ofnitrogen was supplied in the form of ammonia or nitric acid. ” It would seem that there can be but one explanation of theseaccurately-ascertained facts. The nitrogenous matter in the manure isnot in an available condition. It is in the manure, but the plants cannot take it up until it is decomposed and rendered soluble. Dr. Vœlckeranalyzed “perfectly fresh horse-dung, ” and found that of _free_ ammoniathere was not more than one pound in 15 tons! And yet these 15 tonscontained nitrogen enough to furnish 140 lbs. Of ammonia. “But, ” it may be asked, “will not this fresh manure decompose in thesoil, and furnish ammonia?” In light, sandy soil, I presume it will doso to a considerable extent. We know that clay mixed with manure retardsfermentation, but sand mixed with manure accelerates fermentation. This, at any rate, is the case when sand is added in small quantities to aheap of fermenting manure. But I do not suppose it would have the sameeffect when a small quantity of manure is mixed with a large amount ofsand, as is the case when manure is applied to land, and plowed under. At any rate, practical farmers, with almost entire unanimity, thinkwell-rotted manure is better for sandy land than fresh manure. As to how rapidly, or rather how slowly, manure decomposes in a ratherheavy loamy soil, the above experiments of Mr. Lawes afford veryconclusive, but at the same time very discouraging evidence. During the19 years, 3, 800 lbs. Of nitrogen, and 16, 492 lbs. Of mineral matter, inthe form of farm-yard manure, were applied to an acre of land, and the19 crops of barley in grain and straw removed only 3, 724 lbs. Of mineralmatter, and 1, 064 lbs. Of nitrogen. The soil now contains, unless it hasdrained away, 1, 736 lbs. More nitrogen per acre than it did when theexperiments commenced. And yet 41 lbs. Of nitrogen in an _availablecondition_ is sufficient to produce a good large crop of barley, and 82lbs. Per acre furnished more than the plants could organize. “Those are very interesting experiments, ” said the Doctor, “and show whyit is that our farmers can afford to pay a higher price for nitrogen andphosphoric acid in superphosphate, and other artificial manures, thanfor the same amount of nitrogen and phosphoric acid in stable-manure. ” We will not discuss this point at present. What I want to ascertain is, whether we can not find some method of making our farm-yard manure morereadily available. Piling it up, and letting it ferment, is one methodof doing this, though I think other methods will yet be discovered. Possibly it will be found that spreading well-rotted manure on thesurface of the land will be one of the most practical and simplestmethods of accomplishing this object. “We pile the manure, therefore, ” said Charley, “first, because we do notwish it to lie exposed to the rain in the yards, and, second, becausefermenting it in the heap renders it more soluble, and otherwise moreavailable for the crops, when applied to the land. ” That is it exactly, and another reason for piling manure is, that thefermentation greatly reduces its bulk, and we have less labor to performin drawing it out and spreading it. Ellwanger & Barry, who draw severalthousand loads of stable-manure every year, and pile it up to ferment, tell me that it takes three loads of fresh manure to make one load ofrotted manure. This, of course, has reference to bulk, and not weight. Three tons of fresh barn-yard manure, according to the experiments ofDr. Vœlcker, will make about two tons when well rotted. Even this is agreat saving of labor, and the rotted manure can be more easily spread, and mixed more thoroughly with the soil--a point of great importance. “Another reason for fermenting manure, ” said the Squire, “is thedestruction of weed-seeds. ” “That is true, ” said I, “and a very important reason; but I try not tothink about this method of killing weed-seeds. It is a great deal betterto kill the weeds. There can be no doubt that a fermenting manure-heapwill kill many of the weed-seeds, but enough will usually escape tore-seed the land. ” It is fortunate, however, that the best means to kill weed-seeds in themanure, are also the best for rendering the manure most efficient. I wastalking to John Johnston on this subject a few days ago. He told me howhe piled manure in his yards. “I commence, ” he said, “where the heap is intended to be, and throw themanure on one side, until the bare ground is reached. ” “What is the use of that?” I asked. “If you do not do so, ” he replied, “there will be some portion of themanure under the heap that will be so compact that it will not ferment, and the weed-seeds will not be killed. ” “You think, ” said I, “that weed-seeds can be killed in this way?” “I know they can, ” he replied, “but the heap must be carefully made, sothat it will ferment evenly, and when the pile is turned, the bottom andsides should be thrown into the center of the heap. ” LOSS OF AMMONIA BY FERMENTING MANURE. If you throw a quantity of fresh horse-manure into a loose heap, fermentation proceeds with great rapidity. Much heat is produced, and ifthe manure is under cover, or there is not rain enough to keep the heapmoist, the manure will “fire-fang” and a large proportion of thecarbonate of ammonia produced by the fermentation will escape into theatmosphere and be lost. As I have said before, we use our horse-manure for bedding the store andfattening pigs. We throw the manure every morning and evening, when thestable is cleaned out, into an empty stall near the door of the stable, and there it remains until wanted to bed the pigs. We find it isnecessary to remove it frequently, especially in the summer, asfermentation soon sets in, and the escape of the ammonia is detected byits well known pungent smell. Throw this manure into the pig-cellar andlet the pigs trample it down, and there is no longer any escape ofammonia. At any rate, I have never perceived any. Litmus paper willdetect ammonia in an atmosphere containing only one seventy-fivethousandth part of it; and, as Prof. S. W. Johnson once remarked, “It iscertain that a healthy nose is not far inferior in delicacy to litmuspaper. ” I feel sure that no ammonia escapes from this horse-manure afterit is trampled down by the pigs, although it contains an additionalquantity of “potential ammonia” from the liquid and solid droppings ofthese animals. Water has a strong attraction for ammonia. One gallon of ice-cold waterwill absorb 1, 150 gallons of ammonia. If the manure, therefore, is moderately moist, the ammonia is not likelyto escape. Furthermore, as Dr. Vœlcker has shown us, during thefermentation of the manure in a heap, ulmic and humic, crenic andapocrenic acids are produced, and these unite with the ammonia and “fix”it--in other words, they change it from a volatile gas into anon-volatile salt. If the heap of manure, therefore, is moist enough and large enough, allthe evidence goes to show, that there is little or no loss of ammonia. If the centre of the heap gets so hot and so dry that the ammonia is notretained, there is still no necessity for loss. The sides of the heap are cool and moist, and will retain the carbonateof ammonia, the acids mentioned also coming into play. The ammonia is much more likely to escape from the top of the heap thanfrom the sides. The heat and steam form little chimneys, and when afermenting manure-heap is covered with snow, these little chimneys arereadily seen. If you think the manure is fermenting too rapidly, andthat the ammonia is escaping, trample the manure down firmly about thechimneys, thus closing them up, and if need be, or if convenient, throwmore manure on top, or throw on a few pailfuls of water. It is a good plan, too, where convenient, to cover the heap with soil. I sometimes do this when piling manure in the field, not from fear oflosing ammonia, but in order to retain moisture in the heap. With properprecautions, I think we may safely dismiss the idea of any serious lossof ammonia from fermenting manure. THE WASTE OF MANURE FROM LEACHING. As we have endeavored to show, there is little danger of losing ammoniaby keeping and fermenting manure. But this is not the only question tobe considered. We have seen that in 10, 000 lbs. Of fresh farm-yardmanure, there is about 64 lbs. Of nitrogen. Of this, about 15 lbs. Aresoluble, and 49 lbs. Insoluble. Of mineral matter, we have in thisquantity of manure, 559 lbs. , of which 154 lbs. Are soluble in water, and 405 lbs. Insoluble. If we had a heap of five tons of fermentingmanure in a stable, the escape of half an ounce of carbonate of ammoniawould make a tremendous smell, and we should at once use means to checkthe escape of this precious substance. But it will be seen that we havein this five tons of fresh manure, nitrogenous matter, capable offorming over 180 lbs. Of carbonate of ammonia, over 42 lbs. Of which isin a soluble condition. This may be leached day after day, slowly andimperceptibly, with no heat, or smell, to attract attention. How often do we see manure lying under the eaves of an unspouted shed orbarn, where one of our heavy showers will saturate it in a few minutes, and yet where it will lie for hours, and days, and weeks, until it wouldseem that a large proportion of its soluble matter would be washed outof it! The loss is unquestionably very great, and would be greater if itwere not for the coarse nature of the material, which allows the waterto pass through it rapidly and without coming in direct contact withonly the outside portions of the particles of hay, straw, etc. , of whichthe manure is largely composed. If the manure was ground up very fine, as it would be when prepared for analysis, the loss of soluble matterwould be still more serious. Or, if the manure was first fermented, sothat the particles of matter would be more or less decomposed and brokenup fine, the rain would wash out a large amount of soluble matter, andprove much more injurious than if the manure was fresh and unfermented. “That is an argument, ” said the Deacon, “against your plan of piling andfermenting manure. ” “Not at all, ” I replied; “it is a strong reason for not letting manurelie under the eaves of an unspouted building--especially _good_ manure, that is made from rich food. The better the manure, the more it willlose from bad management. I have never recommended any one to pile theirmanure where it would receive from ten to twenty times as much water aswould fall on the surface of the heap. ” “But you do recommend piling manure and fermenting it in the open airand keeping the top flat, so that it will catch all the rain, and Ithink your heaps must sometimes get pretty well soaked. ” “Soaking the heap of manure, ” I replied, “does not wash out any of itssoluble matter, _provided_ you carry the matter no further than thepoint of saturation. The water may, and doubtless does, wash out thesoluble matter from some portions of the manure, but if the water doesnot filter through the heap, but is all absorbed by the manure, there isno loss. It is when the water passes through the heap that it runs awaywith our soluble nitrogenous and mineral matter, and with any readyformed ammonia it may find in the manure. ” How to keep cows tied up in the barn, and at the same time save all theurine, is one of the most difficult problems I have to deal with in themanagement of manure on my farm. The best plan I have yet tried is, tothrow horse-manure, or sheep-manure, back of the cows, where it willreceive and absorb the urine. The plan works well, but it is a questionof labor, and the answer will depend on the arrangement of thebuildings. If the horses are kept near the cows, it will be littletrouble to throw the horse-litter, every day, under or back of the cows. In my own case, my cows are kept in a basement, with a tight barn-flooroverhead. When this barn-floor is occupied with sheep, we keep themwell-bedded with straw, and it is an easy matter to throw this soiledbedding down to the cow-stable below, where it is used to absorb theurine of the cows, and is then wheeled out to the manure-heap in theyard. At other times, we use dry earth as an absorbent. CHAPTER XXII. MANURE ON DAIRY-FARMS. Farms devoted principally to dairying ought to be richer and moreproductive than farms largely devoted to the production of grain. Nearly all the produce of the farm is used to feed the cows, and littleis sold but milk, or cheese, or butter. When butter alone is sold, there ought to be no loss of fertilizingmatter--as pure butter or oil contains no nitrogen, phosphoric acid, orpotash. It contains nothing but carbonaceous matter, which can beremoved from the farm without detriment. And even in the case of milk, or cheese, the advantage is all on theside of the dairyman, as compared with the grain-grower. A dollar’sworth of milk or cheese removes far less nitrogen, phosphoric acid, andpotash, than a dollar’s worth of wheat or other grain. Five hundred lbs. Of cheese contains about 25 lbs. Of nitrogen, and 20 lbs. Of mineralmatter. A cow that would make this amount of cheese would eat not lessthan six tons of hay, or its equivalent in grass or grain, in a year. And this amount of food, supposing it to be half clover and halfordinary meadow-hay, would contain 240 lbs. Of nitrogen and 810 lbs. Ofmineral matter. In other words, a cow eats 240 lbs. Of nitrogen, and 25lbs. Are removed in the cheese, or not quite 10½ per cent, and ofmineral matter not quite 2½ per cent is removed. If it takes three acresto produce this amount of food, there will be 8⅓ lbs. Of nitrogenremoved by the cheese, per acre, while 30 bushels of wheat would removein the grain 32 lbs. Of nitrogen, and 10 to 15 lbs. In the straw. Sothat a crop of wheat removes from five to six times as much nitrogen peracre as a crop of cheese; and the removal of mineral matter in cheese isquite insignificant as compared with the amount removed in a crop ofwheat or corn. If our grain-growing farmers can keep up the fertility oftheir land, as they undoubtedly can, the dairymen ought to be makingtheirs richer and more productive every year. “All that is quite true, ” said the Doctor, “and yet from what I haveseen and heard, the farms in the dairy districts, do not, as a rule, show any rapid improvement. In fact, we hear it often alleged that thesoil is becoming exhausted of phosphates, and that the quantity andquality of the grass is deteriorating. ” “There may be some truth in this, ” said I, “and yet I will hazard theprediction that in no other branch of agriculture shall we witness amore decided improvement during the next twenty-five years than on farmslargely devoted to the dairy. Grain-growing farmers, like our friend theDeacon, here, who sells his grain and never brings home a load ofmanure, and rarely buys even a ton of bran to feed to stock, and whosells more or less hay, must certainly be impoverishing their soils ofphosphates much more rapidly than the dairyman who consumes nearly allhis produce on the farm, and sells little except milk, butter, cheese, young calves, and old cows. ” “Bones had a wonderful effect, ” said the Doctor, “on the old pastures inthe dairy district of Cheshire in England. ” “Undoubtedly, ” I replied, “and so they will here, and so wouldwell-rotted manure. There is nothing in this fact to prove that dairyingspecially robs the soil of phosphates. It is not phosphates that thedairyman needs so much as richer manure. ” “What would you add to the manure to make it richer?” asked the Doctor. “Nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, ” I replied. “But how?” asked the Deacon. “I suppose, ” said the Doctor, “by buying guano and the German potashsalts. ” “That would be a good plan, ” said I; “but I would do it by buying bran, mill-feed, brewer’s-grains, malt-combs, corn-meal, oil-cake, or whateverwas best and cheapest in proportion to value. Bran or mill-feed canoften be bought at a price at which it will pay to use it freely formanure. A few tons of bran worked into a pile of cow-dung would warm itup and add considerably to its value. It would supply the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in which ordinary manure is deficient. Inshort, it would convert poor manure into rich manure. ” “Well, well, ” exclaimed the Deacon, “I knew you talked of mixingdried-blood and bone-dust with your manure, but I did not think youwould advocate anything quite so extravagant as taking good, wholesomebran and spout-feed and throwing it on to your manure-pile. ” “Why, Deacon, ” said I, “we do it every day. I am putting about a ton ofspout-feed, malt-combs and corn-meal each week into my manure-pile, andthat is the reason why it ferments so readily even in the winter. Itconverts my poor manure into good, rich, well-decomposed dung, one loadof which is worth three loads of your long, strawy manure. ” “Do you not wet it and let it ferment before putting it in the pile?” “No, Deacon, ” said I, “I feed the bran, malt-combs and corn-meal to thecows, pigs, and sheep, and let them do the mixing. They work it up fine, moisten it, break up the particles, take out the carbonaceous matter, which we do not need for manure, and the cows and sheep and horses mixit up thoroughly with the hay, straw, and corn-stalks, leaving the wholein just the right condition to put into a pile to ferment or to applydirectly to the land. ” “Oh! I see, ” said the Deacon, “I did not think you used bran formanure. ” “Yes, I do, Deacon, ” said I, “but I use it for food _first_, and this isprecisely what I would urge you and all others to do. I feel sure thatour dairymen can well afford to buy more mill-feed, corn-meal, oil-cake, etc. , and mix it with their cow-dung--or rather, let the cows do themixing. ” LETTER FROM THE HON. HARRIS LEWIS. I wrote to the Hon. Harris Lewis, the well-known dairyman of HerkimerCo. , N. Y. , asking him some questions in regard to making and managingmanure on dairy farms. The questions will be understood from theanswers. He writes as follows: “My Friend Harris. --This being the first leisure time I have had sincethe receipt of your last letter, I devote it to answering yourquestions: “1st. I have no manure cellar. “I bed my cows with dry basswood sawdust, saving all the liquid manure, keeping the cows clean, and the stable odors down to a tolerable degree. This bedding breaks up the tenacity of the cow-manure, rendering it aseasy to pulverize and manage as clear horse-manure. I would say it isjust lovely to bed cows with dry basswood sawdust. This manure, if leftin a large pile, will ferment and burn like horse-manure in about 10days. Hence I draw it out as made where I desire to use it, leaving itin small heaps, convenient to spread. “My pigs and calves are bedded with straw, and this is piled and rottedbefore using. “I use most of my manure on grass land, and mangels, some on corn andpotatoes; but it pays me best, when in proper condition, to apply all Ido not need for mangels, on meadow and pasture. “Forty loads, or about 18 to 20 cords is a homœopathic dose for an acre, and this quantity, or more, applied once in three years to grass land, agrees with it first rate. “The land where I grow mangels gets about this dose every year. “I would say that my up-land meadows have been mown twice each year fora great many years. “I have been using refuse salt from Syracuse, on my mangels, at the rateof about six bushels per acre, applied broadcast in two applications. Myhen-manure is pulverized, and sifted through a common coal sieve. Thefine I use for dusting the mangels after they have been singled out, andthe lumps, if any, are used to warm up the red peppers. “I have sometimes mixed my hen-manure with dry muck, in the proportionof one bushel of hen-manure to 10 of muck, and received a profit from ittoo big to tell of, on corn, and on mangels. “I have sprinkled the refuse salt on my cow-stable floors sometimes, butwhere all the liquid is saved, I think we have salt enough for mostcrops. “I have abandoned the use of plaster on my pastures for the reason thatmilk produced on green-clover is not so good as that produced on thegrasses proper. I use all the wood ashes I can get, on my mangels as aduster, and consider their value greater than the burners do who sellthem to me for 15 cts. A bushel. I have never used much lime, and havenot received the expected benefits from its use so far. But wood ashesagree with my land as well as manure does. The last question you ask, but one, is this: ‘What is the usual plan of managing manure in thedairy districts?’ The usual method is to cut holes in the sides of thestable, about every ten feet along the whole length of the barn behindthe cows, and pitch the manure out through these holes, under the eavesof the barn, where it remains until too much in the way, when it isdrawn out and commonly applied to grass land in lumps as big as yourhead. This practice is getting out of fashion a little now, but nearlyone-half of all the cow-manure made in Herkimer Co. Is lost, wasted. “Your last question, ‘What improvement would you suggest, ’ I answer bysaying it is of no use to make any to these men, it would be wasted liketheir manure. “The market value of manure in this county is 50 cts. Per big load, orabout one dollar per cord. ” “That is a capital letter, ” said the Deacon. “It is right to the point, and no nonsense about it. ” “He must make a good deal of manure, ” said the Doctor, “to be able touse 40 loads to the acre on his meadows and pastures once in threeyears, and the same quantity every year on his field of mangel-wurzel. ” “That is precisely what I have been contending for, ” I replied; “thedairymen _can_ make large quantities of manure if they make an effort todo it, and their farms ought to be constantly improving. Two crops ofhay on the same meadow, each year, will enable a farmer to keep a largeherd of cows, and make a great quantity of manure--and when you haveonce got the manure, there is no difficulty in keeping up and increasingthe productiveness of the land. ” HOW TO MAKE MORE AND BETTER MANURE ON DAIRY FARMS. “You are right, ” said the Doctor, “in saying that there is no difficultyin keeping up and increasing the productiveness of our dairy farms, whenyou have once got plenty of manure--but the difficulty is to get a goodsupply of manure to start with. ” This is true, and it is comparatively slow work to bring up a farm, unless you have plenty of capital and can buy all the artificial manureyou want. By the free use of artificial manures, you could make a farmvery productive in one or two years. But the slower and cheaper methodwill be the one adopted by most of our young and intelligent dairymen. Few of us are born with silver spoons in our mouths. We have to earn ourmoney before we can spend it, and we are none the worse for thediscipline. Suppose a young man has a farm of 100 acres, devoted principally todairying. Some of the land lies on a creek or river, while otherportions are higher and drier. In the spring of the year, a stream ofwater runs through a part of the farm from the adjoining hills down tothe creek or river. The farm now supports ten head of cows, threehorses, half a dozen sheep, and a few pigs. The land is worth $75 peracre, but does not pay the interest on half that sum. It is gettingworse instead of better. Weeds are multiplying, and the more valuablegrasses are dying out. What is to be done? In the first place, let it be distinctly understood that the land is_not_ exhausted. As I have before said, the productiveness of a farmdoes not depend so much on the absolute amount of plant-food which thesoil contains, as on the amount of plant-food which is immediatelyavailable for the use of the plants. An acre of land that produces halfa ton of hay, may contain as much plant-food as an acre that producesthree tons of hay. In the one case the plant-food is locked up in such aform that the crops cannot absorb it, while in the other it is in anavailable condition. I have no doubt there are fields on the farm I amalluding to, that contain 3, 000 lbs. Of nitrogen, and an equal amount ofphosphoric acid, per acre, in the first six inches of the surface soil. This is as much nitrogen as is contained in 100 tons of meadow-hay, andmore phosphoric acid than is contained in 350 tons of meadow-hay. Theseare the two ingredients on which the fertility of our farms mainlydepend. And yet there are soils containing this quantity of plant-foodthat do not produce more than half a ton of hay per acre. In some fields, or parts of fields, the land is wet and the plantscannot take up the food, even while an abundance of it is within reach. The remedy in this case is under-draining. On other fields, theplant-food is locked up in insoluble combinations. In this case we mustplow up the soil, pulverize it, and expose it to the oxygen of theatmosphere. We must treat the soil as my mother used to tell me to treatmy coffee, when I complained that it was not sweet enough. “I put plentyof sugar in, ” she said, “and if you will stir it up, the coffee will besweeter. ” The sugar lay undissolved at the bottom of the cup; and so itis with many of our soils. There is plenty of plant-food in them, but itneeds stirring up. They contain, it may be, 3, 000 lbs. Of nitrogen, andother plant-food in still greater proportion, and we are only getting acrop that contains 18 lbs. Of nitrogen a year, and of this probably therain supplies 9 lbs. Let us stir up the soil and see if we cannot set100 lbs. Of this 3, 000 lbs. Of nitrogen free, and get three tons of hayper acre instead of half a ton. There are men who own a large amount ofvaluable property in vacant city lots, who do not get enough from themto pay their taxes. If they would sell half of them, and put buildingson the other half, they might soon have a handsome income. And so it iswith many farmers. They have the elements of 100 tons of hay lyingdormant in every acre of their land, while they are content to receivehalf a ton a year. They have property enough, but it is unproductive, while they pay high taxes for the privilege of holding it, and highwages for the pleasure of boarding two or three hired men. We have, say, 3, 000 lbs. Of nitrogen locked up in each acre of our soil, and we get 8 or 10 lbs. Every year in rain and dew, and yet, practically, all that we want, to make our farms highly productive, is100 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre per annum. And furthermore, it should beremembered, that to keep our farms rich, after we have once got themrich, it is not necessary to develope this amount of nitrogen from thesoil every year. In the case of clover-hay, the entire loss of nitrogenin the animal and in the milk would not exceed 15 per cent, so that, when we feed out 100 lbs. Of nitrogen, we have 85 lbs. Left in themanure. We want to develope 100 lbs. Of nitrogen in the soil, to enableus to raise a good crop to start with, and when this is once done, anannual development of 15 lbs. Per acre in addition to the manure, wouldkeep up the productiveness of the soil. Is it not worth while, therefore, to make an earnest effort to get started?--to get 100 lbs. Ofnitrogen in the most available condition in the soil? As I said before, this is practically all that is needed to give uslarge crops. This amount of nitrogen represents about twelve tons ofaverage barn-yard manure--that is to say, twelve tons contains 100 lbs. Of nitrogen. But in point of fact it is not in an immediately availablecondition. It would probably take at least two years before all thenitrogen it contains would be given up to the plants. We want, therefore, in order to give us a good start, 24 tons of barn-yard manureon every acre of land. How to get this is the great problem which ouryoung dairy farmer has to solve. In the grain-growing districts we getit in part by summer-fallowing, and I believe the dairyman might oftendo the same thing with advantage. A thorough summer-fallow would notonly clean the land, but would render some of the latent plant-foodavailable. This will be organized in the next crop, and when thedairyman has once got the plant-food, he has decidedly the advantageover the grain-growing farmer in his ability to retain it. He need notlose over 16 per cent a year of nitrogen, and not one per cent _of theother elements of plant-food_. The land lying on the borders of the creek could be greatly benefited bycutting surface ditches to let off the water; and later, probably itwill be found that a few underdrains can be put in to advantage. Thesealluvial soils on the borders of creeks and rivers are grand sources ofnitrogen and other plant-food. I do not know the fact, but it is quiteprobable that the meadows which Harris Lewis mows twice a year, are onthe banks of the river, and are perhaps flooded in the spring. But, bethis as it may, there is a field on the farm I am alluding to, lying onthe creek, which now produces a bountiful growth of weeds, rushes, andcoarse grasses, which I am sure could easily be made to produce greatcrops of hay. The creek overflows in the spring, and the water lies onsome of the lower parts of the field until it is evaporated. A fewditches would allow all the water to pass off, and this alone would be agreat improvement. If the field was flooded in May or June, andthoroughly cultivated and harrowed, the sod would be sufficiently rottedto plow again in August. Then a thorough harrowing, rolling, andcultivating, would make it as mellow as a garden, and it could be seededdown with timothy and other good grasses the last of August, orbeginning of September, and produce a good crop of hay the next year. Or, if thought better, it might be sown to rye and seeded down with it. In either case the land would be greatly improved, and would be aproductive meadow or pasture for years to come--or until our youngdairyman could afford to give it one of Harris Lewis’ “homœopathic”doses of 40 loads of good manure per acre. He would then be able to cuttwo crops of hay a year--and such hay! But we are anticipating. That stream which runs through the farm in the spring, and then driesup, could be made to irrigate several acres of the land adjoining. Thiswould double, or treble, or quadruple, (“hold on, ” said the Deacon, ) thecrops of grass as far as the water reached. The Deacon does not seem tocredit this statement; but I have seen wonderful effects produced bysuch a plan. What I am endeavoring to show, is, that these and similar means willgive us larger crops of hay and grass, and these in turn will enable usto keep more cows, and make more manure, and the manure will enable usto grow larger crops on other portions of the farm. I am aware that many will object to plowing up old grass land, and I donot wish to be misunderstood on this point. If a farmer has a meadowthat will produce two or three tons of hay, or support a cow, to theacre, it would be folly to break it up. It is already doing all, ornearly all, that can be asked or desired. But suppose you have a pieceof naturally good land that does not produce a ton of hay per acre, orpasture a cow on three acres, if such land can be plowed without greatdifficulty, I would break it up as early in the fall as possible, andsummer-fallow it thoroughly, and seed it down again, heavily, with grassseeds the next August. If the land does not need draining, it will notforget this treatment for many years, and it will be the farmer’s ownfault if it ever runs down again. In this country, where wages are so high, we must raise large crops peracre, or not raise any. Where land is cheap, it may sometimes pay tocompel a cow to travel over three or four acres to get her food, but wecannot afford to raise our hay in half ton crops; it costs too much toharvest them. High wages, high taxes, and high-priced land, necessitatehigh farming; and by high farming, I mean growing large crops everyyear, and on every portion of the farm; but high wages and _low-pricedland_ do not necessarily demand high farming. If the land is cheap wecan suffer it to lie idle without much loss. But when we _raise_ crops, whether on high-priced land or on low-priced land, we must raise goodcrops, or the expense of cultivating and harvesting them will eat up allthe profits. In the dairy districts, I believe land, in proportion toits quality and nearness to market, commands a higher price than land inthe grain-growing districts. Hence it follows that high farming shouldbe the aim of the American dairyman. I am told that there are farms in the dairy districts of this Stateworth from one hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars per acre, onwhich a cow to four acres for the year is considered a good average. Ata meeting of the Little Falls Farmers’ Club, the Hon. Josiah Shull, gavea statement of the receipts and expenses of his farm of 81½ acres. Thefarm cost $130 per acre. He kept twenty cows, and fatted one for beef. The receipts were as follows: Twenty cows yielding 8, 337 lbs. Of cheese, at about 14¼ cents per pound $1, 186. 33 Increase on beef cow 40. 00 Calves 45. 00 --------- Total receipts $1, 271. 33 Expenses. Boy, six months and board $180. 00 Man by the year, and board 360. 00 Carting milk and manufacturing cheese 215. 00 ------- Total cost of labor $755. 00 The Other Expenses Were: Fertilizers, plants, etc. $ 18. 00 Horse-shoeing and other repairs of farming implements, (which is certainly pretty cheap, ) 50. 00 Wear and tear of implements 65. 00 Average repairs of place and buildings 175. 00 Average depreciation and interest on stock 180. 00 Insurance 4. 00 Incidentals, (also pretty low, ) 50. 00 ------- $620. 00 Total receipts $1, 271. 33. Total expenses 1, 375. 00. This statement, it is said, the Club considered a very fair estimate. Now, here is a farm costing $10, 595, the receipts from which, sayingnothing about interest, are less than the expenses. And if you add twocents per pound more to the price of the cheese, the profit would stillbe only about $50 per year. The trouble is not so much in the low priceof cheese, _as in the low product per acre_. I know some grain-growingfarmers who have done no better than this for a few years past. Mr. Shull places the annual depreciation and interest on stock at $180, equal to nearly one-seventh of the total receipts of the farm. It wouldpay the wages and board of another man for six months. Can not it beavoided? Good beef is relatively much higher in this State than goodcheese. Some of the dairy authorities tell us that cheese is thecheapest animal food in the world, while beef is the dearest. Why, then, should our dairymen confine their attention to the production of thecheapest of farm products, and neglect almost entirely the production ofthe dearest? If beef is high and cheese low, why not raise more beef? Onlow-priced land it may be profitable to raise and keep cows solely forthe production of cheese, and when the cows are no longer profitable forthis purpose, to sacrifice them--to throw them aside as we do a worn-outmachine. And in similar circumstances we may be able to keep sheepsolely for their wool, but on high-priced land we can not afford to keepsheep merely for their wool. We must adopt a higher system of farmingand feeding, and keep sheep that will give us wool, lambs, and mutton. In parts of South America, where land costs nothing, cattle can be keptfor their bones, tallow, and hides, but where food is costly we mustmake better use of it. A cow is a machine for converting vegetable foodinto veal, butter, cheese, and beef. The first cost of the machine, if agood one, is considerable--say $100. This machine has to be kept runningnight and day, summer and winter, week days and Sundays. If we wererunning a steam-flouring mill that could never be allowed to stop, weshould be careful to lay in a good supply of coal and also have plentyof grain on hand to grind, so that the mill would never have to runempty. No sensible man would keep up steam merely to run the mill. Hewould want to grind all the time, and as much as possible; and yet coalis a much cheaper source of power than the hay and corn with which werun our milk-producing machine. How often is the latter allowed to runempty? The machine is running night and day--must run, but is it alwaysrunning to advantage? Do we furnish fuel enough to enable it to do fullwork, or only little more than enough to run the machinery? “What has all this to do with making manure on dairy farms?” asked theDeacon; “you are wandering from the point. ” “I hope not; I am trying to show that good feeding will pay better thanpoor feeding--and better food means better manure. ” I estimate that it takes from 15 to 18 lbs. Of ordinary hay per day torun this cow-machine, which we have been talking about, even when keptwarm and comfortable; and if exposed to cold storms, probably not lessthan 20 lbs. Of hay a day, or its equivalent, and this merely to keepthe machine running, without doing any work. It requires this to keepthe cow alive, and to prevent her losing flesh. If not supplied with therequisite amount of food for this purpose, she will take enough fat andflesh from her own body to make up the deficiency; and if she cannot getit, the machine will stop--in other words, the cow will die. We have, then, a machine that costs say $100; that will last on anaverage eight years; that requires careful management; that must haveconstant watching, or it will be liable to get out of order, and thatrequires, merely to keep it running, say 20 lbs. Of hay per day. Now, what do we get in return? If we furnish only 20 lbs. Of hay per day weget--_nothing_ except manure. If we furnish 25 lbs. Of hay per day, orits equivalent, we get, say half a pound of cheese per day. If wefurnish 30 lbs. We get one pound of cheese per day, or 365 lbs. A year. We may not get the one pound of cheese every day in the year; sometimesthe cow, instead of giving milk, is furnishing food for her embryo calf, or storing up fat and flesh; and this fat and flesh will be used by andby to produce milk. But it all comes from the food eaten by the cow; andis equal to one pound of cheese per day for 30 lbs. Of hay or itsequivalent consumed; 20 lbs. Of hay gives us nothing; 25 lbs. Of haygives us half a pound of cheese, or 40 lbs. Of cheese from one ton ofhay; 30 lbs. Gives us one pound, or 66⅔ lbs. Of cheese from one ton ofhay; 35 lbs. Gives us 1½ lbs. , or 85 5/7 lbs. Of cheese to one ton ofhay; 40 lbs. Gives us 2 lbs. Of cheese, or 100 lbs. Of cheese from oneton of hay; 45 lbs. Gives us 2⅓ lbs. Of cheese, or 111 lbs. Of cheesefrom one ton of hay; 50 lbs. Gives us 3 lbs. Of cheese, or 120 lbs. Ofcheese from one ton of hay. On this basis, one ton of hay, _in excess of the amount required to keepup the animal heat and sustain the vital functions_, gives us 200 lbs. Of cheese. The point I wish to illustrate by these figures, which are ofcourse hypothetical, is, that it is exceedingly desirable to get animalsthat will eat, digest, and assimilate a large amount of food, over andabove that required to keep up the heat of the body and sustain thevital functions. When a cow eats only 25 lbs. Of hay a day, it requiresone ton of hay to produce 40 lbs. Of cheese. But if we could induce herto eat, digest, and assimilate 50 lbs. A day, one ton would produce 120lbs. Of cheese. If a cow eats 33 lbs. Of hay per day, or its equivalentin grass, it will require four acres of land, with a productive capacityequal to 1½ tons of hay per acre, to keep her a year. Such a cow, according to the figures given above, will produce 401½ lbs. Of cheese ayear, or its equivalent in growth. A farm of 80 acres, on this basis, would support 20 cows, yielding, say 8, 000 lbs. Of cheese. Increase theproductive power of the farm one half, (I hope the Deacon has not goneto sleep), and keep 20 cows that will eat half as much again food, andwe should then get 21, 600 lbs. Of cheese. If cheese is worth 15 centsper lb. , a farm of 80 acres, producing 1½ tons of hay, or itsequivalent, per acre, and supporting 20 cows, would give us a grossreturn of $1, 204. 50. The same farm so improved as to produce 2¼ tons ofhay or its equivalent, per acre--fed to 20 cows _capable of eating, digesting, and assimilating it_--would give a gross return of $3, 240. In presenting these figures, I hope you will not think me a visionary. I do not think it is possible to get a cow to produce 3 lbs. Of cheese aday throughout the whole year. But I do think it quite possible to sobreed and feed a cow that she will produce 3 lbs. Of cheese per day, _orits equivalent_ in veal, flesh, or fat. We frequently have cows thatproduce 3 lbs. Of cheese a day for several weeks; and a cow _can_ be sofed that she will produce 3 lbs. Of cheese a day without losing weight. And if she can extract this amount of matter out of the food for a partof the year, why can not she do so for the whole year? Are the powers ofdigestion weaker in the fall and winter than in spring and summer? Ifnot, we unquestionably sustain great loss by allowing this digestivepower to run to waste. This digestive power costs us 20 lbs. Of hay aday. We can ill afford to let it lie dormant. But the Deacon will tellme that the cows are allowed all the food they will eat, winter andsummer. Then we must, if they have digestive power to spare, endeavor topersuade them to eat more. If they eat as much hay or grass as theirstomachs are capable of holding, we must endeavor to give them richerhay or grass. Not one farmer in a thousand seems to appreciate theadvantage of having hay or grass containing a high percentage ofnutriment. I have endeavored to show that a cow eating six tons of hay, or its equivalent, in a year, would produce 400 lbs. Of cheese, worth$60. While a cow capable of eating, digesting, and turning to goodaccount, nine tons of hay, or its equivalent, would produce 1, 090 lbs. Of cheese, or its equivalent in other products, worth $162. “I am sorry to interrupt the gentleman, ” said the Deacon with mockgravity. “Then pray don’t, ” said I; “I will not detain you long, and the subjectis one which ought to interest you and every other farmer who keeps hiscows on poor grass in summer, and corn-stalks and straw in winter. ” I was going to say, when the Deacon interrupted me, that the stomach ofa cow may not allow her to eat nine tons of hay a year, but it willallow her to eat six tons; and if these six tons contain as muchnutriment as the nine tons, what is the real difference in its value?Ordinarily we should probably estimate the one at $10 per ton, and theother at $15. But according to the above figures, one is worth $10 perton and the other $27. To get rich grass, therefore, should be the aimof the American dairyman. I hope the Deacon begins to see whatconnection this has with a large pile of rich manure. I do not mean merely a heavy growth of grass, but grass containing ahigh percentage of nutriment. Our long winters and heavy snows are agreat advantage to us in this respect. Our grass in the spring, afterits long rest, ought to start up like asparagus, and, under theorganizing influence of our clear skies, and powerful sun, ought to beexceedingly nutritious. Comparatively few farmers, however, live up totheir privileges in this respect. Our climate is better than ourfarming, the sun richer than our neglected soil. England may be able toproduce more grass per acre in a year than we can, but we ought toproduce richer grass, and, consequently, more cheese to a cow. And Ibelieve, in fact, that such is often the case. The English dairyman hasthe advantage of a longer season of growth. We have a shorter season buta brighter sun, and if we do not have richer grass it is due to the wantof draining, clean culture, and manuring. The object of Americandairymen should be, not only to obtain more grass per acre, but toincrease its nutriment in a given bulk. If we could increase itone-half, making six tons equal to nine tons, we have shown that it isnearly three times as valuable. Whether this can be done, I have not nowtime to consider; but at any rate if your land produces as many weeds asdo some fields on my farm, not to say the Deacon’s, and if theplant-food that these weeds absorb, could be organized by nutritiousgrasses, this alone would do a good deal towards accomplishing theobject. Whether this can be done or not, we want cows that can eat andturn to good account as much food per annum as is contained in nine tonsof ordinary meadow-hay; and we want this nutriment in a bulk notexceeding six tons of hay. _If possible_, we should get this amount ofnutriment in grass or hay. But if we can not do this, we must _feedenough concentrated food_ to bring it up to the desired standard. “But will it pay?” asked the Deacon; “I have not much faith in buyingfeed. A farmer ought to raise everything he feeds out. ” “As a rule, this may be true, ” I replied, “but there are manyexceptions. I am trying to show that it will often pay a dairyman wellto buy feed rich in nitrogen and phosphates, so as to make rich manure, and give him a start. After he gets his land rich, there is littledifficulty in keeping up its productiveness. “Now, I have said--and the figures, if anything, are too low--that if acow, eating six tons of hay, or its equivalent, a year, produces 400lbs. Of cheese, a cow capable of eating, digesting, and turning to goodaccount nine tons of hay, or its equivalent, a year, would produce 1, 090lbs. Of cheese, or its equivalent in other products. ” I would like to say much more on this subject, but I hope enough hasbeen said to show that there is great advantage in feeding rich food, even so far as the production of milk or beef is concerned; and if thisis the case, then there is no difficulty in making rich manure on adairy farm. And I am delighted to know that many farmers in the dairy districts arepurchasing more and more bran and meal every year. Taking milk, andbeef, and manure all into the account, I feel sure that it will be foundhighly profitable; but you must have good cows--cows that can turn theirextra food to good account. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the different breeds ofcows. All I wish to show is, that to make better manure, we must usericher food; and to feed this to advantage, we must have animals thatcan turn a large amount of food, over and above the amount required tosustain the vital functions, into milk, flesh, etc. “You do not think, ” said the Deacon, “that a well-bred cow makes anyricher manure than a common cow?” Of course not; but to make rich manure, we must feed well; and we cannot afford to feed well unless we have good animals. HOW TO SAVE AND APPLY MANURE ON A DAIRY-FARM. We can not go into details on this subject. The truth is, there areseveral good methods of saving manure, and which is best dependsentirely on circumstances. The real point is to save the urine, and keepthe cow-stable clean and sweet. There are three prominent methodsadopted: 1st. To throw all the liquid and solid excrements into a manure-cellarunderneath the cow-stable. In this cellar, dry swamp-muck, dry earth, orother absorbent material, is mixed with the manure in sufficientquantity to keep down offensive odors. A little dry earth or muck isalso used in the stable, scattering it twice a day in the gutters andunder the hind legs of the cows. Where this is carried out, it has manyand decided advantages. 2d. To wheel or throw out the solid parts of the manure, and to have adrain for carrying the liquid into a tank, where it can be pumped on tothe heap of manure in the yard. Where many horses or sheep are kept, andonly a few cows, this plan can often be used to advantage, as the heapof manure in the yard, consisting of horse-manure, sheep-manure, and asmall portion of cow-dung, will be able to absorb all the urine of thecows. 3d. To use sufficient bedding to absorb all the urine in the stable. Inmy own case, as I have said before, we usually chaff all our straw andstalks. The orts are used for bedding, and we also use a little dryearth--or, to be more exact, I use it when I attend to the mattermyself, but have always found more or less trouble in getting the workdone properly, unless I give it personal attention. To use “dirt” tokeep the stable clean, is not a popular plan in this neighborhood. Wherethere is an abundance of straw, and especially if cut into chaff, theeasiest way to keep the stable clean, and the cows comfortable, is touse enough of this chaffed straw to absorb all the liquid. Clean out thestable twice a day, and wheel the manure directly to the heap, andspread it. In regard to the application of manure on a dairy-farm, we have seenwhat Harris Lewis does with his. I also wrote to T. L. Harison, Esq. , of St. Lawrence Co. , N. Y. ; and knowing that he is not only a veryintelligent farmer and breeder, but also one of our best agriculturalwriters, I asked him if he had written anything on the subject ofmanures. “St. Lawrence Co. , ” said the Deacon, “produces capital grass, oats, andbarley, but is, I should think, too far north for winter wheat; but whatdid Mr Harison say?”--Here is his letter: “I never wrote anything about manure. Catch me at it! Nor do I knowanything about the management of barn-yard manure worth telling. My ownpractice is dictated quite as much by convenience as by considerationsof economy. ” “Good, ” said the Deacon; “he writes like a sensible man. ” “My rotation, ” he continues, “is such that the bulk of the manure madeis applied to _one crop_; that is, to my hoed crops, corn, potatoes, androots, in the second year. “The manure from the stables is thrown or wheeled out under the shedsadjoining, and as fast as it becomes so large a quantity as to be in theway, or whenever there is an opportunity, it is hauled out to the field, where it is to be used, and put in large piles. It is turned once, ifpossible, in the spring, and then spread. “The quantity applied, is, as near as may be, 25 loads per acre; but aswe use a great deal of straw, we haul out 30 loads, and estimate that inthe spring it will be about 25 loads. “If we have any more (and occasionally we have 100 loads over), we pileit near the barn, and turn it once or twice during the summer, and useit as seems most profitable--sometimes to top-dress an old grass-field, that for some reason we prefer not to break for another year. Sometimesit goes on a piece of fall wheat, and sometimes is kept over for abarley field the following spring, and harrowed in just before sowing. “I should spread the manure as it comes from the sheds, instead ofpiling it, but the great quantity of snow we usually have, has alwaysseemed to be an insuperable obstacle. It is an advantage to pile it, andto give it one turning, but, on the other hand, the piles made in coldweather freeze through, and they take a provokingly long time to thawout in the spring. I never found manure _piled_ out of doors to get toomuch water from rain. “I have given up using gypsum, except a little in the stables, becausethe clover grows too strong without it, and so long as this is the case, I do not need gypsum. But I sometimes have a piece of oats or barleythat stands still, and looks sick, and a dose of gypsum helps it verymuch. ” “That is a fact worth remembering, ” said the Deacon. “I use some superphosphate, ” continues Mr. Harison, “and some groundbones on my turnips. We also use superphosphate on oats, barley, andwheat (about 200 lbs. Per acre), and find it pays. Last year, ourestimate was, on 10 acres of oats, comparing with a strip in the middle, left for the purpose, that the 200 lbs. Of superphosphate increased thecrop 15 bushels per acre, and gave a gain in quality. It was the“Manhattan, ” which has about three per cent ammonia, and seven to eightper cent soluble phosphoric acid. “My rotation, which I stick to as close as I can, is: 1, oats; 2, corn, and potatoes, and roots; 3, barley or spring wheat; 4, 5, and 6, grass(clover or timothy, with a little mixture occasionally). “I am trying to get to 4, fall wheat, but it is mighty risky. ” “That is a very sensible letter, ” said the Deacon; “but it is evidentthat he raises more grain than I supposed was generally the case in thedairy districts; and the fact that his clover is so heavy that he doesnot need plaster, indicates that his land is rich. ” It merely confirms what I have said all along, and that is, that thedairymen, if they will feed their animals liberally, and cultivate theirsoil thoroughly, can soon have productive farms. There are very few ofus in this section who can make manure enough to give all our corn, potatoes, and roots, 25 loads of rotted manure per acre, and have someto spare. In the spring of 1877, Mr. Harison wrote: “I have been hauling outmanure all winter as fast as made, and putting it on the land. At firstwe spread it; but when deep snows came, we put it in small heaps. Thefield looks as if there had been a grain crop on it left uncut. ” “That last remark, ” said the Doctor, “indicates that the manure looksmore like straw than well-rotted dung, and is an argument in favor ofyour plan of piling the manure in the yard or field, instead ofspreading it on the land, or putting it in small heaps. ” CHAPTER XXIII. MANAGEMENT OF MANURES ON GRAIN-FARMS. “I am surprised to find, ” said the Deacon, “that Mr. Harison, living ashe does in the great grass and dairy district of this State, shouldraise so much grain. He has nearly as large a proportion of his landunder the plow as some of the best wheat-growers of Western New York. ” This remark of the Deacon is right to the point. The truth is, that someof our best wheat-growers are plowing less land, and are raising moregrass, and keeping more stock; and some of the dairymen, though notkeeping less stock, are plowing more land. The better farmers of bothsections are approaching each other. At all events, it is certain that the wheat growers will keep morestock. I wrote to the Hon. Geo. Geddes, of Onondaga Co. , N. Y. , wellknown as a large wheat-grower, and as a life-long advocate of keeping upthe fertility of our farms by growing clover. He replies as follows: “I regret that I have not time to give your letter the consideration itdeserves. The subject you have undertaken is truly a difficult one. Thecircumstances of a grain-raiser and a dairyman are so unlike, that theirviews in regard to the treatment of the manure produced on the farmwould vary as greatly as the lines of farming they follow. “The grain-grower has straw in excess; he tries hard to get it into suchform that he can draw it to his fields, and get it at work, at the leastcost in labor. So he covers his barn-yards deep with straw, after eachsnow-storm, and gets his cattle, sheep, and horses, to trample it underfoot; and he makes his pigs convert all he can into such form that itwill do to apply it to his pastures, etc. , in winter or early spring. “A load of such manure is large, perhaps, but of no very great value, ascompared with well-rotted stable-manure from grain-fed horses; but it isas good as much that I have seen drawn from city stables, and carriedfar, to restore the worn-out hay-fields on the shores of the NorthRiver--in fact, quite like it. “The dairyman, generally, has but little straw, and his manure is mostlydung of cows, worth much more, per cord, than the straw-litter of thegrain-growers. “The grain-grower will want no sheds for keeping off the rain, but, rather, he will desire more water than will fall on an open yard. Themilkman will wish to protect his cow-dung from all rains, or even snows;so he is a great advocate of manure-sheds. These two classes of farmerswill adopt quite unlike methods of applying their manure to crops. “I have cited these two classes of farmers, simply to show thedifficulty of making any universal laws in regard to the treatment anduse of barn-yard manure. * * * “I think you and I are fully agreed in regard to the farm being the truesource of the manure that is to make the land grow better with use, andstill produce crops--perhaps you will go with me so far as to say, thegreater the crops, the more manure they will make--and the more manure, the larger the crops. “Now, I object to any special farming, when applied to a whole greatdivision of country, such as merely raising grain, or devoted entirelyto dairying. “I saw at Rome, N. Y. , these two leading branches of New York farmingunited on the Huntington tract of 1, 300 acres. Three or four farms (Iforget which) had separate and distinct management, conducted bydifferent families, but each had a dairy combined with the raising oflarge crops of grain, such as wheat, corn, oats, etc. These grain-crops, with suitable areas of meadow and pasture, sustained the dairy, and thecows converted much of the grain, and all of the forage, into manure. Thus was combined, to mutual advantage, these two important branches ofNew York farming. Wheat and cheese to sell, and constant improvement incrops. “In our own case, sheep have been combined with grain-raising. So wehave sold wool, wheat, and barley, and, in all my life, not five tons ofhay. Clover, you know, has been our great forage-crop. We have winteredour sheep mostly on clover-hay, having some timothy mixed with it, thatwas necessarily cut (to make into hay with the medium, or early clover, )when it was but grass. We have fed such hay to our cows and horses, andhave usually worked into manure the corn-stalks of about 20 acres ofgood corn, each winter, and we have worked all the straw into shape toapply as manure that we could, spreading it thickly on pastures and suchother fields as were convenient. Some straw we have sold, mostly topaper-makers. ” “That, ” said the Deacon, “is good, old-fashioned farming. Plenty ofstraw for bedding, and good clover and timothy-hay for feed, with wool, wheat, and barley to sell. No talk about oil-cake, malt-combs, andmangels; nothing about superphosphate, guano, or swamp-muck. ” Mr. Geddes and Mr. Johnston are both representative farmers; both arelarge wheat-growers; both keep their land clean and thoroughlycultivated; both use gypsum freely; both raise large crops of clover andtimothy; both keep sheep, and yet they represent two entirely differentsystems of farming. One is the great advocate of clover; the other isthe great advocate of manure. I once wrote to Mr. Geddes, asking his opinion as to the best time toplow under clover for wheat. He replied as follows: “Plow under the clover when it is at full growth. But your question canmuch better be answered at the end of a long, free talk, which can bestbe had here. I have many times asked you to come here, not to see finefarming, for we have none to show, but to see land that has been used totest the effects of clover for nearly 70 years. On the ground, I couldtalk to a willing auditor long, if not wisely. I am getting tired ofbeing misunderstood, and of having my statements doubted when I talkabout clover as the great renovator of land. You preach agriculturaltruth, and the facts you would gather in this neighborhood are worthyour knowing, and worth giving to the world. So come here and gathersome facts about clover. All that I shall try to prove to you is, thatthe fact that clover and plaster are by far the cheapest manures thatcan be had for our lands, has been demonstrated by many farmers beyond adoubt--so much cheaper than barn-yard manure that the mere loading ofand spreading costs more than the plaster and clover. Do not quote me assaying this, but come and see the farms hereabouts, and talk with ourfarmers. ” Of course I went, and had a capital time. Mr. Geddes has a magnificentfarm of about 400 acres, some four miles from Syracuse. It is in highcondition, and is continually improving, and this is due to growinglarge and frequent crops of clover, and _to good, deep plowing, andclean and thorough culture_. We drove round among the farmers. “Here is a man, ” said Mr. G. , “who runin debt $45 per acre for his farm. He has educated his family, paid offhis debt, and reports his net profits at from $2, 000 to $2, 500 a year ona farm of 90 acres; and this is due to clover. You see he is building anew barn, and that does not look as though his land was running downunder the system. ” The next farmer we came to was also putting up a newbarn, and another farmer was enlarging an old one. “Now, these farmershave never paid a dollar for manure of any kind except plaster, andtheir lands certainly do not deteriorate. ” From Syracuse, I went to Geneva, to see our old friend John Johnston. “Why did you not tell me you were coming?” he said. “I would have metyou at the cars. But I am right glad to see you. I want to show you mywheat, where I put on 250 lbs. Of guano per acre last fall. People heredon’t know that I used it, and you must not mention it. It is grand. ” I do not know that I ever saw a finer piece of wheat. It was the Diehlvariety, sown 14th September, at the rate of 1¼ bushels per acre. It wasquite thick enough. One breadth of the drill was sown at the rate of twobushels per acre. This is earlier. “But, ” said Mr. J. , “the other willhave larger heads, and will yield more. ” After examining the wheat, wewent to look at the piles of muck and manure in the barn-yard, and fromthese to a splendid crop of timothy. “It will go 2½ tons of hay peracre, ” said Mr. J. , “and now look at this adjoining field. It is just asgood land naturally, and there is merely a fence between, and yet thegrass and clover are so poor as hardly to be worth cutting. ” “What makes the difference?” I asked. Mr. Johnston, emphatically, “Manure. ” The poor field did not belong to him! Mr. Johnston’s farm was originally a cold, wet, clayey soil. Mr. Geddes’land did not need draining, or very little. Of course, land that needsdraining, is richer after it is drained, than land that is naturallydrained. And though Mr. Johnston was always a good farmer, yet he sayshe “never made money until he commenced to drain. ” The accumulatedfertility in the land could then be made available by good tillage, andfrom that day to this, his land has been growing richer and richer. And, in fact, the same is true of Mr. Geddes’ farm. It is richer land to-daythan when first plowed, while there is one field that for seventy yearshas had no manure applied to it, except plaster. How is this to beexplained? Mr. Geddes would say it was due to clover and plaster. Butthis does not fully satisfy those who claim, (and truly), that “alwaystaking out of the meal-tub and never putting in, soon comes to thebottom. ” The clover can add nothing to the land, that it did not getfrom the soil, except organic matter obtained from the atmosphere, andthe plaster furnishes little or nothing except lime and sulphuric acid. There are all the other ingredients of plant-food to be accountedfor--phosphoric acid, potash, soda, magnesia, etc. A crop of clover, orcorn, or wheat, or barley, or oats, will not come to perfection unlessevery one of these elements is present in the soil in an availablecondition. Mr. Geddes has not furnished a single ounce of any one ofthem. “Where do they come from?” I answer, _from the soil itself_. There is probably enough of theseelements in the soil to last ten thousand years; and if we return to thesoil all the straw, chaff, and bran, and sell nothing but fine flour, meat, butter, etc. , there is probably enough to last a million years, and you and I need not trouble ourselves with speculations as to whatwill happen after that time. Nearly all our soils are practicallyinexhaustible. But of course these elements are not in an availablecondition. If they were, the rains would wash them all into the ocean. They are rendered available by a kind of fermentation. A manure-heappacked as hard and solid as a rock would not decay; but break it up, make it fine, turn it occasionally so as to expose it to the atmosphere, and with the proper degree of moisture and heat it will ferment rapidly, and all its elements will soon become available food for plants. Nothinghas been created by the process. It was all there. We have simply madeit _available_. So it is with the soil. Break it up, make it fine, turnit occasionally, expose it to the atmosphere, and the elements itcontains become available. I do not think that Mr. Geddes’ land is any better, naturally, thanyours or mine. We can all raise fair crops by cultivating the landthoroughly, and by never allowing a weed to grow. On Mr. Lawes’experimental wheat-field, the plot that has never received a particle ofmanure, produces _every year_ an average of about 15 bushels per acre. And the whole crop is removed--grain, straw, and chaff. Nothing isreturned. And that the land is not remarkably rich, is evident from thefact that some of the farms in the neighborhood, produce, under theordinary system of management, but little more wheat, once in four orfive years than is raised _every year_ on this experimental plot withoutany manure. Why? Because these farmers do not half work their land, and the manurethey make is little better than rotten straw. Mr. Lawes’ wheat-field isplowed twice every year, and when I was there, the crop was hand-hoedtwo or three times in the spring. Not a weed is suffered to grow. Andthis is all there is to it. Now, of course, instead of raising 15 bushels of wheat every year, it isa good deal better to raise a crop of 30 bushels every other year, andstill better to raise 45 bushels every third year. And it is here thatclover comes to our aid. It will enable us to do this very thing, andthe land runs no greater risk of exhaustion than Mr. Lawes’ unmanuredwheat crop. Mr. Geddes and I do not differ as much as you suppose. In fact, I do notbelieve that we differ at all. He has for years been an earnest advocatefor growing clover as a renovating crop. He thinks it by far thecheapest manure that can be obtained in this section. I agree with himmost fully in all these particulars. He formed his opinion fromexperience and observation. I derived mine from the Rothamstedexperiments. And the more I see of practical farming, the more am Isatisfied of their truth. Clover is, unquestionably, the greatrenovating crop of American agriculture. A crop of clover, equal to twotons of hay, when plowed under, will furnish more ammonia to the soilthan twenty tons of straw-made manure, drawn out fresh and wet in thespring, or than twelve tons of our ordinary barn-yard manure. No wonderMr. Geddes and other intelligent farmers recommend plowing under cloveras manure. I differ from them in no respect except this: that it is notabsolutely essential to plow clover under in the green state in order toget its fertilizing effect; but, if made into hay, and this hay is fedto animals, and all the manure carefully saved, and returned to theland, there need be comparatively little loss. The animals will seldomtake out more than from five to ten per cent of all the nitrogenfurnished in the food--and less still of mineral matter. I advocategrowing all the clover you possibly can--so does Mr. Geddes. He says, plow it under for manure. So say I--unless you can make more fromfeeding out the clover-hay, than will pay you for waiting a year, andfor cutting and curing the clover and drawing back the manure. If youplow it under, you are sure of it. There is no loss. In feeding it out, you may lose more or less from leaching, and injurious fermentation. But, of course, you need not lose anything, except the little that isretained in the flesh, or wool, or milk, of the animals. As things _are_on many farms, it is perhaps best to plow under the clover for manure atonce. As things ought to be, it is a most wasteful practice. If you knowhow to feed out the hay to advantage, and take pains to save the manure(and to add to its value by feeding oil-cake, bran, etc. , with it), itis far better to mow your clover, once for hay, and once for seed, thanto plow it under. Buy oil-cake and bran with the money got from theseed, and growing clover-seed will not injure the land. I am glad to hear that Mr. Geddes occasionally sells straw. I once sold15 tons of straw to the paper-makers for $150, they drawing itthemselves, and some of my neighbors criticised me severely for doingso. It is not considered an orthodox practice. I do not advocate sellingstraw as a rule; but, if you have more than you can use to advantage, and it is bringing a good price, sell part of the straw and buy bran, oil-cake, etc. , with the money. To feed nothing but straw to stock ispoor economy; and to rot it down for manure is no better. Straw itselfis not worth $3. 00 a ton for manure; and as one ton of straw, spread inan open yard to rot, will make, in spring, about four tons of so-calledmanure, and if it costs 50 cents a ton to draw out and spread it, thestraw, even at this comparatively high estimate of its value, nets you, when fed out alone, or rotted down, only $1. 00 a ton. I had about 30 tons of straw. Fed out alone or rotted down it would make120 tons of manure. After deducting the expense of hauling, andspreading, it nets me on the land, $30. Now sell half the straw for$150, and buy three tons of oil-cake to feed out with the other half, and you would have about seventy tons of manure. The manure from thefifteen tons of straw is worth, say $45, and from the three tons ofoil-cake, $60, or $105. It will cost $35 to draw and spread it, and willthus net on the land, $70. So far as the manure question is concerned, therefore, it is far better to sell half your straw, and buy oil-cakewith the money, than to feed it out alone--and I think it is also farbetter for the stock. Of course, it would be better for the farm, not tosell any of the straw, and to buy six tons of oil-cake to feed out withit; but those of us who are short of capital, must be content to bringup our land by slow degrees. “I am at a loss to understand, ” wrote Mr. Geddes, “what you mean, whenyou say that a ton of straw will make, in the spring of the year, fourtons of so-called manure. If you had said that four tons of straw wouldmake one ton of manure, I should have thought nothing of it. But how youcan turn one ton of straw into four tons of anything that anybody willcall manure, I do not see. In a conversation I had with Hon. Lewis F. Allen, of Black Rock, more than a year ago, he told me that he hadenquired of the man who furnished hay for feeding cattle at the CentralYards, in Buffalo, as to the loads of manure he sold, and though I cannot now say the exact quantity to a ton of hay, I remember that it wasvery little--far less than I had before supposed. Please explain thisstraw-manure matter. ” Boussingault, the great French chemist-farmer, repeatedly analyzed themanure from his barn-yard. “The animals which had produced this dung, were 30 horses, 30 oxen, and from 10 to 20 pigs. The absolute quantityof moisture was ascertained, by first drying in the air a considerableweight of dung, and after pounding, continuing and completing, thedrying of a given quantity. ” No one can doubt the accuracy of theresults. The dung made in the Winter of 1837-8, contained 79. 6 per cent of water. ” ” 1838-9, ” 77. 8 ” ” ” ” Autumn ” 1839, ” 80. 4 ” ” ” ” Fresh solid cow-dung contains, according to the same authority, 90 percent of water. I have frequently seen manure drawn out in the spring, that had not beendecomposed at all, and with more or less snow among it, and with waterdripping from the wagon, while it was being loaded. It was, in fact, straw saturated with water, and discolored by the droppings of animals. Now, how much of such manure would a ton of dry straw make? If we shouldtake 20 lbs. Of straw, trample it down, and from time to time sprinkleit with water and snow, until we had got on 80 lbs. , and then put on 20lbs. More straw, and 80 lbs. More water, and keep on until we had usedup a ton of straw, how much “so-called manure, ” should we have to drawout? 2, 000 lbs. Of straw, and 8, 000 lbs. Water = 10, 000 lbs. So-called manure. In other words, we get five tons of such manure from one ton of straw. This is, perhaps, an extreme case, but there can be little doubt, that aton of straw, trampled down by cattle, and sheep, in an open barn-yard, exposed to snow and rain, would weigh four tons when drawn out wet inthe spring. Yes, it is quite an argument in favor of manure cellars. I have alwayshad a prejudice against them--probably, because the first one I saw wasbadly managed. There is, however, no necessity, even in an ordinary openbarn-yard, with more or less sheds and stables, of having so much waterin the manure when drawn out. The real point of my remarks, which sosurprised Mr. Geddes, was this: We have to draw out so much water withour manure, under any circumstances, that we should try to have it asrich as possible. It is certainly true, that, _if_ the manure from a tonof straw is worth $3, that from a ton of clover-hay, is worth $10. Andit costs no more to draw out and spread the one than the other. I havenever yet found a farmer who would believe that a ton of clover-hay, rotted down in the barn-yard, would make three or four tons of manure;but he would readily assent to the proposition, that it took four orfive tons of green clover to make a ton of hay; and that if these fouror five tons of green-clover were rotted in the yard, it would makethree or four tons of manure. And yet, the only difference between thegreen-clover and the hay, is, that the latter has lost some 60 or 70 percent of water in curing. Add that amount of water to the hay, and itwill make as much manure as the green-clover from which the hay wasmade. GYPSUM AND CLOVER AS MANURE. A good farmer came in while we were talking. “Nothing like plaster andclover, ” he said, “for keeping up a wheat-farm. ” And you will find thisthe general opinion of nearly all American wheat-growers. It must beaccepted as a fact. But the deductions drawn from the fact are asvarious as they are numerous. Let us look first at the fact. And, if you like, we will take my ownfarm as an example. About 60 years ago, it was covered with the primevalforest. The trees, on the higher and drier land, were first cut down, and many of them burnt on the land. Wheat was sown among the stumps. Thecrop varied in different years, from 10 to 30 bushels per acre. When 30bushels were grown, the fact was remembered. When 10 bushels only weregrown, little was said about it in after years, until now there is ageneral impression that our wheat crops were formerly much larger peracre than now. I doubt it; but we will not discuss the point. One thingis certain, the land would produce good crops of clover; and when thisclover was plowed under for manure, we got better crops of wheatafterwards. This was the rule. Later, we commenced to use gypsum as atop-dressing on clover. The effect was often wonderful. Farmers willtell you that they sowed 200 lbs. Of plaster per acre, on their youngclover, in the spring, and it _doubled the crop_. This statementexpresses an agricultural, and not an arithmetical fact. We do not knowthat the crop on the plastered portion was twice as heavy as on theunplastered. We know that it was larger, and more luxuriant. There was agreater, and more vigorous growth. And this extra growth was caused bythe small top-dressing of powdered gypsum rock. It was a great fact inagriculture. I will call it fact, No. 1. Then, when the clover was turned under, we usually got good wheat. Thisis fact, No. 2. On these two facts, hang many of our agriculturaltheories. We may state these facts in many ways. Still, it all comes tothis: Clover is good for wheat; plaster is good for clover. There is another fact, which is a matter of general observation andremark. You rarely find a good farmer who does not pay special attentionto his clover-crop. When I was riding with Mr. Geddes, among the farmersof Onondaga County, on passing a farm where everything lookedthrifty--good fences, good buildings, good garden, good stock, and theland clean and in good condition--I would ask who lived there, or someother question. No matter what. The answer was always the same. “Oh! heis another of our clover men. ” We will call this fact, No. 3. And when, a year afterwards, Mr. Geddes returned my visit, and I drovehim around among the farmers of Monroe County, he found precisely thesame state of facts. All our good farmers were clover men. Among thegood wheat-growers in Michigan, you will find the same state of things. These are the facts. Let us not quarrel over them. CHAPTER XXIV. THE CHEAPEST MANURE A FARMER CAN USE. I do not know who first said, “The cheapest manure a farmer can useis--clover-seed, ” but the saying has become part of our agriculturalliterature, and deserves a passing remark. I have heard good farmers in Western New York say, that if they had afield sown with wheat that they were going to plow the spring after thecrop was harvested, they would sow 10 lbs. Of clover-seed on the wheatin the spring. They thought that the growth of the clover in the fall, after the wheat was cut, and the growth the next spring, before the landwas plowed, would afford manure worth much more than the cost of theclover-seed. “I do not doubt it, ” said the Deacon; “but would it not be better to letthe crop grow a few months longer, and then plow it under?” “But that is not the point, ” I remarked; “we sometimes adopt a rotationwhen Indian-corn follows a crop of wheat. In such a case, good farmerssometimes plow the land in the fall, and again the next spring, and thenplant corn. This is one method. But I have known, as I said before, goodfarmers to seed down the wheat with clover; and the following spring, say the third week in May, plow under the young clover, and plantimmediately on the furrow. If the land is warm, and in good condition, you will frequently get clover, by this time, a foot high, and will havetwo or three tons of succulent vegetation to turn under; and the farmerwho first recommended the practice to me, said that the cut-worms wereso fond of this green-clover that they did not molest the youngcorn-plants. I once tried the plan myself, and found it to work well;but since then, I have kept so many pigs and sheep, that clover has beentoo useful to plow under. But we will not discuss this point at present. “What I wanted to say is this: Here we have a field in wheat. Half of it(A) we seed down with 12 lbs. Of clover-seed per acre; the other half(B) not. The clover-seed and sowing on A, cost, say, $2 per acre. Weplow B in the fall; this will cost us about as much as the clover seedsown on A. In the spring, A and B are both plowed and planted to corn. Now, which half of the field will be in the cleanest and best condition, and which will produce the best corn, and the best barley, or oats, afterwards?” “I vote for A, ” said the Deacon. “I vote for A, ” said the Doctor. “I vote for A, ” said the Squire. “I should think, ” modestly suggested Charley, “that it would dependsomewhat on the soil, ” and Charley is right. On a clean, moderately richpiece of light, sandy soil, I should certainly expect much better corn, and better barley or oats, on A, where the clover was grown, than on B. But if the field was a strong loam, that needed thorough cultivation toget it mellow enough for corn, I am inclined to think that B would comeout ahead. At any rate, I am sure that on my own farm, moderately stiffland, if I was going to plant corn after wheat, I should _not_ seed itdown with clover. I would plow the wheat stubble immediately afterharvest, and harrow and cultivate it to kill the weeds, and then, sixweeks or two months later, I would plow it again. I would draw outmanure in the winter, pile it up in the field to ferment, and the nextspring spread it, and plow it under, and then-- “And then what?” asked the Deacon. --“Why the truth is, ” said I, “then Iwould not plant corn at all. I should either sow the field to barley, ordrill in mangel-wurzel or Swede-turnips. But if I _did_ plant corn, I should expect better corn than if I had sown clover with the wheat;and the land, if the corn was well cultivated, would be remarkablyclean, and in fine condition; and the next time the land was seeded downwith clover, we could reasonably expect a great crop. ” The truth is, that clover-seed is sometimes a very cheap manure, andfarmers are in no danger of sowing too much of it. I do not mean sowingtoo much seed per acre, but they are in no danger of sowing too manyacres with clover. On this point, there is no difference of opinion. Itis only when we come to explain the action of clover--when we drawdeductions from the facts of the case--that we enter a field bristlingall over with controversy. “You have just finished threshing, ” said the Deacon, “and for my part, I would rather hear how your wheat turned out, than to listen to any ofyour chemical talk about nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. ” “The wheat, ” said I, “turned out full as well as I expected. Fourteenacres of it was after wheat, and eight acres of it after oats. Boththese fields were seeded down with clover last year, but the cloverfailed, and there was nothing to be done but to risk them again withwheat. The remainder was after barley. In all, there was not quite 40acres, and we had 954 bushels of Diehl wheat. This is not bad in thecircumstances; but I shall not be content until I can average, takingone year with another, 35 to 40 bushels per acre. If the land had beenrich enough, there would unquestionably have been 40 bushels per acrethis year. That is to say, the _season_ was quite capable of producingthis amount; and I think the mechanical condition of the land was alsoequal to it; all that was needed was sufficient available plant-food inthe soil. ” “I can see no reason, ” said the Doctor, “why you may not average 40bushels of wheat per acre in a good season. ” “The field of 14 acres, ” said I, “where wheat followed wheat, yielded 23bushels per acre. Last year it yielded 22 bushels per acre; and so wegot in the two years 45 bushels per acre. ” This field has had no manure of any kind for years. In fact, since theland was cleared, 40 or 50 years ago, I presume that all the manure thathas been applied would not, in the aggregate, be equal to more than agood crop of clover-hay. The available plant-food required to producethese two crops of wheat came from the soil itself, and from the rain, dews, and atmosphere. The land is now seeded down with clover, and withthe aid of a bushel or two of plaster per acre, next spring, it is notimprobable that, if mown twice for hay next year, it will yield in thetwo crops three tons of hay per acre. Now, three tons of clover-hay contain about 33 lbs. Of phosphoric acid, 90 lbs. Of potash, and 150 lbs. Of nitrogen. The last crop of wheat, of 22 bushels per acre, and say 1, 500 lbs. Ofstraw, would contain: In the grain. In the straw. In total crop. Phosphoric acid 11½ lbs. 3¾ lbs. 15¼ lbs. Potash 6¾ ” 9¾ ” 16½ ” Nitrogen 23 ” 9½ ” 32½ ” It seems very unkind in the wheat-plants not to give me more than 22bushels per acre, when the clover-plants coming after will findphosphoric acid enough for 40 bushels of wheat, and potash and nitrogenenough for nearly 100 bushels of wheat per acre. And these are the threeimportant constituents of plant-food. Why, then, did I get only 22 bushels of wheat per acre? I got 23 bushelson the same land the year previous, and it is not improbable that if Ihad sown the same land to wheat again this fall, I should get 12 or 15bushels per acre again next year. But the clover will find plant-foodenough for 40 bushels of wheat. “There is not much doubt, ” said the Deacon, “that you will get a goodcrop of clover, if you will keep the sheep off of the land this fall. But I do not see what you mean by the clover-plants finding food enoughfor 40 bushels of wheat, while in point of fact, if you had sown thefield again to wheat this fall, you would not, as you say, probably getmore than 12 or 15 bushels of wheat. ” “He means this, ” said the Doctor. “If he had sown the land to wheat thisfall, without manure, he would probably not get over 15 bushels of wheatper acre, and yet you both agree that the land will, in all probability, produce next year, if mown twice, three tons of clover-hay per acre, without any manure. “Now, if we admit that the clover gets no more nitrogen from the rainand dews, and from the atmosphere, than the wheat will get, then itfollows that this soil, which will only produce 15 bushels of wheat peracre, does, in point of fact, contain plant-food enough for 40 bushelsof wheat, and the usual proportion of straw. “The two crops take up from the soil as follows: Phosphoric acid. Potash. Nitrogen. 15 bushels wheat and straw 10¼ lbs. 11¼ lbs. 22 lbs. 3 tons clover-hay 33 ” 90 ” 150 ” “These facts and figures, ” continued the Doctor, “are worth looking atand thinking about. Why can not the wheat get as much phosphoric acidout of the soil as the clover?” “Because, ” said the Deacon, “the roots of the clover go down deeper intothe subsoil than the roots of wheat. ” “That is a very good reason, so far as it goes, ” said I, “but does notinclude all the facts. I have no sort of doubt, that if I had sown thisland to wheat, and put on 75 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre, I should havegot a wheat-crop containing, in grain and straw, 30 lbs. Of phosphoricacid. And so the reason I got 15 bushels of wheat per acre, instead of40 bushels, is not because the roots of wheat do not go deep enough tofind sufficient soluble phosphoric acid. ” “Possibly, ” said the Doctor, “the nitrogen you apply may render thephosphoric acid in the soil more soluble. ” “That is true, ” said I; “and this was the answer Liebig gave to Mr. Lawes. Of which more at some future time. But this answer, like theDeacon’s, does not cover all the facts of the case; for a supply ofsoluble phosphoric acid would not, in all probability, give me a largecrop of wheat. I will give you some facts presently bearing on thispoint. “What we want to find out is, why the clover can get so much morephosphoric acid, potash, and nitrogen, than the wheat, from the samesoil?” MORE ABOUT CLOVER. The Deacon seemed to think the Doctor was going to give a scientificanswer to the question. “If the clover _can_ get more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, from the same soil than wheat, ” said he, “why not accept the fact, and act accordingly? You scientific gentlemenwant to explain everything, and sometimes make confusion worseconfounded. We know that a sheep will grow fat in a pasture where a cowwould starve. ” “True, ” said the Doctor, “and that is because the cow gathers food withher tongue, and must have the grass long enough for her to get hold ofit; while a sheep picks up the grass with her teeth and gums, and, consequently, the sheep can eat the grass down into the very ground. ” “Very well, ” said the Deacon; “and how do you know but that the roots ofthe clover gather up their food sheep-fashion, while the wheat-roots eatlike a cow?” “That is not a very scientific way of putting it, ” said the Doctor; “butI am inclined to think the Deacon has the right idea. ” “Perhaps, then, ” said I, “we had better let it go at that until we getmore light on the subject. We must conclude that the wheat can not getfood enough from the soil to yield a maximum crop, not because there isnot food enough in the field, but the roots of the wheat are soconstituted that they can not gather it up; while clover-roots, foragingin the same soil, can find all they want. ” “Clover, ” said the Deacon, “is the scavenger of the farm; like a pig, itgathers up what would otherwise be wasted. ” “Of course, these illustrations, ” said the Doctor, “do not give us anyclear idea of _how_ the clover-plants take up food. We must recollectthat the roots of plants take up their food in solution; and it has justoccurred to me that, possibly, Mr. Lawes’ experiments on the amount ofwater given off by plants during their growth, may throw some light onthe subject we are discussing. ” “Mr. Lawes found, ” continued the Doctor, “that a wheat-plant, from March19 to June 28, or 101 days, evaporated through its leaves, etc. , 45, 713grains of water; while a clover-plant, standing alongside, and inprecisely similar condition, evaporated 55, 093 grains. The clover wascut June 28, when in full bloom. The wheat-plant was allowed to growuntil ripe, Sept. 7. From June 28 to Sept. 7, or 72 days, thewheat-plant evaporated 67, 814 grains. ” “One moment, ” said the Deacon; “as I understand, the clover-plantevaporated more water than the wheat-plant, until the 28th of June, butthat during the next 71 days, the wheat-plant evaporated more water thanit had during the previous 101 days. ” “Yes, ” said I, “and if these facts prove nothing else, they at leastshow that there is a great difference between wheat and clover. I was atRothamsted when these experiments were made. During the first nine daysof the experiment, the clover-plant evaporated 399. 6 grains of water;while the wheat-plant, standing alongside, evaporated only 128. 7 grains. In other words, the clover-plant evaporated three times as much water asthe wheat-plant. During the next 31 days, the wheat-plant evaporated1, 267. 8 grains, and the clover-plant 1, 643. 0 grains; but during the next27 days, from April 28 to May 25, the wheat-plant evaporated 162. 4grains of water per day, while the clover-plant only evaporated 109. 2grains per day. During the next 34 days, from May 25 to June 28, thewheat-plant evaporated 1, 177. 4 grains per day, and the clover-plant1, 473. 5 grains per day. ” “In June, ” said the Deacon, “the clover evaporates ten times as muchwater per day as it did in May. How much water would an acre of cloverevaporate?” “Let Charley figure it out, ” said the Doctor. “Suppose each plantoccupies 10 square inches of land; there are 6, 272, 640 square inches inan acre, and, consequently, there would be 627, 264 clover-plants on anacre. Each plant evaporated 1, 473. 5 grains per day, and there are 7, 000grains in a pound. ” Charley made the calculation, and found that an acre of clover, from May25 to June 28, evaporated 528, 598 lbs. Of water, or 15, 547 lbs. Per day. A much more accurate way of ascertaining how much water an acre ofclover evaporates is afforded us by these experiments. After the plantswere cut, they were weighed and analyzed; and it being known exactly howmuch water each plant had given off during its growth, we have all thefacts necessary to tell us just how much a crop of a given weight wouldevaporate. In brief, it was found that for each pound of dry substancein the wheat-plant, 247. 4 lbs. Of water had been evaporated; and foreach pound in the clover-plant, 269. 1 lbs. An acre of wheat of 15 bushels per acre of grain, and an equal weight ofstraw, would exhale during the spring and summer 177¾ tons of water, orcalculated on 172 days, the duration of the experiment, 2, 055 lbs. Perday. An acre of clover that would make two tons of hay, would pass offthrough its leaves, in 101 days, 430 tons of water, or 8, 600 lbs. Perday--more than four times as much as the wheat. These figures show that, from an agricultural point of view, there is agreat difference between, wheat and clover; and yet I think the figuresdo not show the whole of the difference. The clover was cut just at thetime when the wheat-plant was entering on its period of most rapidgrowth and exhalation, and, consequently, the figures given aboveprobably exaggerate the amount of water given off by the wheat duringthe early part of the season. It is, at any rate, quite clear, and thisis all I want to show, that an acre of good clover exhales a much largeramount of water from spring to hay-harvest than an acre of wheat. “And what, ” said the Deacon, who was evidently getting tired of thefigures, “does all this prove?” The figures prove that clover can drink a much greater quantity of waterduring March, April, May, and June, than wheat; and, consequently, toget the same amount of food, it is not necessary that the clover shouldhave as much nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, etc. , in the water asthe wheat-plant requires. I do not know that I make myself understood. “You want to show, ” said the Deacon, “that the wheat-plant requiresricher food than clover. ” Yes, I want to show that, though clover requires _more_ food per daythan wheat, yet the clover can drink such a large amount of water, thatit is not necessary to make the “sap of the soil” so rich in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, for clover, as it is for wheat. I thinkthis tells the whole story. Clover is, or may be, the grandest renovating and enriching cropcommonly grown on our farms. It owes its great value, not to any powerit may or may not possess of getting nitrogen from the atmosphere, orphosphoric acid and potash from the subsoil, but principally, if notentirely, to the fact that the roots can drink up such a large amount ofwater, and live and thrive on very weak food. HOW TO MAKE A FARM RICH BY GROWING CLOVER. Not by growing the clover, and selling it. Nothing would exhaust theland so rapidly as such a practice. We must either plow under theclover, let it rot on the surface, or pasture it, or use it for soiling, or make it into hay, feed it out to stock, and return the manure to theland. If clover got its nitrogen from the atmosphere, we might sell theclover, and depend on the roots left in the ground, to enrich the soilfor the next crop. But if, as I have endeavored to show, clover gets itsnitrogen from a weak solution in the soil, it is clear, that though fora year or two we might raise good crops from the plant-food left in theclover-roots, yet we should soon find that growing a crop of clover, andleaving only the roots in the soil, is no way to permanently enrichland. I do not say that such a practice will “exhaust” the land. Fortunately, while it is an easy matter to impoverish land, we should have to call inthe aid of the most advanced agricultural science, before we could“exhaust” land of its plant-food. The free use of Nitrate of Soda, orSulphate of Ammonia, might enable us to do something in the way ofexhausting our farms, but it would reduce our balance at a bank, or sendus to the poor-house, before we had fully robbed the land of itsplant-food. To exhaust land, by growing and selling clover, is an agriculturalimpossibility, for the simple reason that, long before the soil isexhausted, the clover would produce such a poverty-stricken crop, thatwe should give up the attempt. We can make our land poor, by growing clover, and selling it; or, we canmake our land rich, by growing clover, and feeding it out on the farm. Or, rather, we can make our land rich, by draining it where needed, cultivating it thoroughly, so as to develope the latent plant-foodexisting in the soil, and then by growing clover to take up and organizethis plant-food. This is how to make land rich by growing clover. It isnot, in one sense, the clover that makes the land rich; it is thedraining and cultivation, that furnishes the food for the clover. Theclover takes up this food and concentrates it. The clover does notcreate the plant-food; it merely saves it. It is the thoroughcultivation that enriches the land, not the clover. “I wish, ” writes a distinguished New York gentleman, who has a farm ofbarren sand, “you would tell us whether it is best to let clover ripenand rot on the surface, or plow it under when in blossom? I have heardthat it gave more nitrogen to the land to let it ripen and rot on it, but as I am no chemist, I do not know. ” If, instead of plowing under the clover--say the last of June, it wasleft to grow a month longer, it is quite possible that the clover-rootsand seed would contain more nitrogen than they did a month earlier. Itwas formerly thought that there was a loss of nitrogen during theripening process, but the evidence is not altogether conclusive on thepoint. Still, if I had a piece of sandy land that I wished to enrich byclover, I do not think I should plow it under in June, on the one hand, or let it grow until maturity, and rot down, on the other. I shouldrather prefer to mow the crop just as it commenced to blossom, and letthe clover lie, spread out on the land, as left by the machine. Therewould, I think, be no loss of fertilizing elements by evaporation, whilethe clover-hay would act as a mulch, and the second growth of cloverwould be encouraged by it. Mow this second crop again, about the firstweek in August. Then, unless it was desirable to continue the processanother year, the land might be plowed up in two or three weeks, turningunder the two previous crops of clover that are on the surface, togetherwith the green-clover still growing. I believe this would be better thanto let the clover exhaust itself by running to seed. CHAPTER XXV. DR. VŒLCKER’S EXPERIMENTS ON CLOVER. In the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, for 1868, Dr. Vœlcker, the able chemist of the Society, and formerly Professorof Agricultural Chemistry, at the Royal Agricultural College atCirencester, England, has given us a paper “On the Causes of theBenefits of Clover, as a preparatory Crop for Wheat. ” The paper has beenrepeatedly and extensively quoted in this country, but has not been ascritically studied as the importance of the subject demands. “Never mind all that, ” said the Deacon, “tell us what Dr. Vœlcker says. ” “Here is the paper, ” said I, “and Charley will read it to us. ” Charleyread as follows: “Agricultural chemists inform us, that in order to maintain theproductive powers of the land unimpaired, we must restore to it thephosphoric acid, potash, nitrogen, and other substances, which enterinto the composition of our farm crops; the constant removal of organicand inorganic soil constituents, by the crops usually sold off the farm, leading, as is well known, to more or less rapid deterioration andgradual exhaustion of the land. Even the best wheat soils of thisand other countries, become more and more impoverished, and sustain aloss of wheat-yielding power, when corn-crops are grown in too rapidsuccession without manure. Hence, the universal practice of manuring, and that also of consuming oil-cake, corn, and similar purchased food onland naturally poor, or partially exhausted by previous cropping. “Whilst, however, it holds good as a general rule, that no soil can becropped for any length of time, without gradually becoming more and moreinfertile, if no manure be applied to it, or if the fertilizing elementsremoved by the crops grown thereon, be not by some means or otherrestored, it is, nevertheless, a fact, that after a heavy crop of clovercarried off as hay, the land, far from being less fertile than before, is peculiarly well adapted, even without the addition of manure, to beara good crop of wheat in the following year, provided the season befavorable to its growth. This fact, indeed, is so well known, that manyfarmers justly regard the growth of clover as one of the bestpreparatory operations which the land can undergo, in order to itsproducing an abundant crop of wheat in the following year. It hasfurther been noticed, that clover mown twice, leaves the land in abetter condition, as regards its wheat-producing capabilities, than whenmown once only for hay, and the second crop fed off on the land bysheep; for, notwithstanding that in the latter instance the fertilizingelements in the clover-crop are in part restored in the sheepexcrements, yet, contrary to expectation, this partial restoration ofthe elements of fertility to the land has not the effect of producingmore or better wheat in the following year, than is reaped on land fromoff which the whole clover-crop has been carried, and to which no manurewhatever has been applied. “Again, in the opinion of several good, practical agriculturists, withwhom I have conversed on the subject, land whereon clover has been grownfor seed in the preceding year, yields a better crop of wheat than itdoes when the clover is mown twice for hay, or even only once, andafterwards fed off by sheep. ” “I do not think, ” said the Deacon, “that this agrees with our experiencehere. A good crop of clover-seed is profitable, but it is thought to berather hard on land. ” “Such, ” said I, “is the opinion of John Johnston. He thinks allowingclover to go to seed, impoverishes the soil. ” Charley, continued to read: “Whatever may be the true explanation of the apparent anomaliesconnected with the growth and chemical history of the clover-plant, thefacts just mentioned, having been noticed, not once or twice only, or bya solitary observer, but repeatedly, and by numbers of intelligentfarmers, are certainly entitled to credit; and little wisdom, as itstrikes me, is displayed by calling them into question, because theyhappen to contradict the prevailing theory, according to which a soil issaid to become more or less impoverished, in proportion to the large orsmall amount of organic and mineral soil constituents carried off in theproduce. ” “That is well said, ” I remarked, “and very truly; but I will notinterrupt the reading. ” “In the course of a long residence, ” continues Dr. Vœlcker, “in a purelyagricultural district, I have often been struck with the remarkablyhealthy appearance and good yield of wheat, on land from which a heavycrop of clover-hay was obtained in the preceding year. I have likewisehad frequent opportunities of observing, that, as a rule, wheat grown onpart of a field whereon clover has been twice mown for hay, is betterthan the produce of that on the part of the same field on which theclover has been mown only once for hay, and afterwards fed off by sheep. These observations, extending over a number of years, led me to inquireinto the reasons why clover is specially well fitted to prepare land forwheat; and in this paper, I shall endeavor, as the result of myexperiments on the subject, to give an intelligible explanation of thefact, that clover is so excellent a preparatory crop for wheat, as it ispractically known to be. “By those taking a superficial view of the subject, it may be suggestedthat any injury likely to be caused by the removal of a certain amountof fertilizing matter, is altogether insignificant, and more thancompensated for, by the benefit which results from the abundant growthof clover-roots, and the physical improvement in the soil, which takesplace in their decomposition. Looking, however, more closely into thematter, it will be found that in a good crop of clover-hay, a veryconsiderable amount of both mineral and organic substances is carriedoff the land, and that, if the total amount of such constituents in acrop had to be regarded exclusively as a measure for determining therelative degrees in which different farm crops exhaust the soil, cloverwould have to be described as about the most exhausting crop in theentire rotation. “Clover-hay, on an average, and in round numbers, contains in 100 parts: Water 17. 0 Nitrogenous substances, (flesh-forming matters)* 15. 6 Non-nitrogenous compounds 59. 9 Mineral matter, (ash) 7. 5 ----- 100. 0 ===== * Containing nitrogen 2. 5 “The mineral portion, or ash, in 100 parts of clover-hay, consists of: Phosphoric acid 7. 5 Sulphuric acid 4. 3 Carbonic acid 18. 0 Silica 3. 0 Lime 30. 0 Magnesia 8. 5 Potash 20. 0 Soda, chloride of sodium, oxide of iron, sand, loss, etc. 8. 7 ----- 100. 0 ===== “Let us suppose the land to have yielded four tons of clover-hay peracre. According to the preceding data, we find that such a crop includes224 lbs. Of nitrogen, equal to 272 lbs. Of ammonia, and 672 lbs. Ofmineral matter or ash constituents. ”In 672 lbs. Of clover-ash, we find: Phosphoric acid 51½ lbs. Sulphuric acid 29 ” Carbonic acid 121 ” Silica 20 ” Lime 201 ” Magnesia 57 ” Potash 134½ ” Soda, chloride of sodium, oxide of iron, sand, etc. 58 ” ------------ 672 lbs. ============ “Four tons of clover-hay, the produce of one acre, thus contain a largeamount of nitrogen, and remove from the soil an enormous quantity ofmineral matters, abounding in lime and potash, and containing also agood deal of phosphoric acid. “Leaving for a moment the question untouched, whether the nitrogencontained in the clover, is derived from the soil, or from theatmosphere, or partly from the one, and partly from the other, noquestion can arise as to the original source from which the mineralmatters in the clover produce are derived. In relation, therefore, tothe ash-constituents, clover must be regarded as one of the mostexhausting crops usually cultivated in this country. This appearsstrikingly to be the case, when we compare the preceding figures withthe quantity of mineral matters which an average crop of wheat removesfrom an acre of land. “The grain and straw of wheat contain, in round numbers, in 100 parts: Grains of Wheat. Straw. Water 15. 0 16. 0 Nitrogenous substances, (flesh-forming matter)* 11. 1 4. 0 Non-nitrogenous substances 72. 2 74. 9 Mineral matter, (ash) 1. 7 5. 1 ----- ------ 100. 0 100. 0 ===== ====== * Containing nitrogen 1. 78 . 64 “The ash of wheat contains, in 100 parts: Grain. Straw. Phosphoric acid 50. 0 5. 0 Sulphuric acid 0. 5 2. 7 Carbonic acid Silica 2. 5 67. 0 Lime 3. 5 5. 5 Magnesia 11. 5 2. 9 Potash 30. 0 13. 0 Soda, chloride of sodium, oxide of iron, sand, etc. 2. 0 4. 8 ----- ----- Total 100. 0 100. 0 ===== ===== “The mean produce of wheat, per acre, may be estimated at 25 bushels, which, at 60 lbs. Per bushel, gives 1, 500 lbs. ; and as the weight of thestraw is generally twice that of the grain, its produce will be 3, 000lbs. According, therefore, to the preceding data, there will be carriedaway from the soil: In 1, 500 lbs. Of the grain 25 lbs. Of mineral food, (in round numbers). In 3, 000 lbs. Of the straw 150 lbs. Of mineral food, (in round numbers). --- Total 175 lbs. “On the average of the analyses, it will be found that the compositionof these 175 lbs. Is as follows: ------------------------------+-----------+-----------+---------- | In the | In the | | grain. | straw. | Total. +-----------+-----------+---------- Phosphoric acid | 12. 5 lbs. | 7. 5 lbs. | 20. 0 lbs. Sulphuric acid | 0. 1 ” | 4. 0 ” | 4. 1 ” Carbonic acid | | | Silica | 0. 6 ” |100. 5 ” |101. 1 ” Lime | 0. 9 ” | 8. 2 ” | 9. 1 ” Magnesia | 2. 9 ” | 3. 0 ” | 5. 9 ” Potash | 7. 5 ” | 19. 5 ” | 27. 0 ” Soda, chloride of sodium, | | | oxide of iron, sand, etc. | 0. 5 ” | 7. 3 ” | 7. 8 ” +-----------+-----------+---------- | 25. Lbs. |150. Lbs. |175. Lbs. ------------------------------+-----------+-----------+---------- “The total quantity of ash constituents carried off the land, in anaverage crop of wheat, thus amounts to only 175 lbs. Per acre, whilst agood crop of clover removes as much as 672 lbs. “Nearly two-thirds of the total amount of mineral in the grain and strawof one acre of wheat, consists of silica, of which there is an amplesupply in almost every soil. The restoration of silica, therefore, neednot trouble us in any way, especially as there is not a single instanceon record, proving that silica, even in a soluble condition, has everbeen applied to land, with the slightest advantage to corn, orgrass-crops, which are rich in silica, and which, for this reason, maybe assumed to be particularly grateful for it in a soluble state. Silica, indeed, if at all capable of producing a beneficial effect, ought to be useful to these crops, either by strengthening the straw, orstems of graminaceous plants, or otherwise benefiting them; but, afterdeducting the amount of silica from the total amount of mineral mattersin the wheat produced from one acre, only a trifling quantity of otherand more valuable fertilizing ash constituents of plants will be left. On comparing the relative amounts of phosphoric acid, and potash, in anaverage crop of wheat, and a good crop of clover-hay, it will be seenthat one acre of clover-hay contains as much phosphoric acid, as two andone-half acres of wheat, and as much potash as the produce from fiveacres of the same crop. Clover thus unquestionably removes from the landvery much more mineral matter than does wheat; wheat, notwithstanding, succeeds remarkably well after clover. “Four tons of clover-hay, or the produce of an acre, contains, asalready stated, 224 lbs. Of nitrogen, or calculated as ammonia, 272 lbs. “Assuming the grain of wheat to furnish 1. 78 per cent of nitrogen, andwheat-straw, . 64 per cent, and assuming also that 1, 500 lbs. Of corn, and 3, 000 lbs. Of straw, represent the average produce per acre, therewill be in the grain of wheat, per acre, 26. 7 lbs. Of nitrogen, and inthe straw, 19. 2 lbs. , or in both together, 46 lbs. Of nitrogen; in roundnumbers, equal to about 55 lbs. Of ammonia, which is only aboutone-fifth the quantity of nitrogen in the produce of an acre of clover. Wheat, it is well known, is specially benefited by the application ofnitrogenous manures, and as clover carries off so large a quantity ofnitrogen, it is natural to expect the yield of wheat, after clover, tofall short of what the land might be presumed to produce without manure, before a crop of clover was taken from it. Experience, however, hasproved the fallacy of this presumption, for the result is exactly theopposite, inasmuch as a better and heavier crop of wheat is producedthan without the intercalation of clover. What, it may be asked, is theexplanation of this apparent anomaly? “In taking up this inquiry, I was led to pass in review the celebratedand highly important experiments, undertaken by Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert, on the continued growth of wheat on the same soil, for a longsuccession of years, and to examine, likewise carefully, many points, towhich attention is drawn, by the same authors in their memoirs on thegrowth of red clover by different manures, and on the Lois Weedon planof growing wheat. Abundant and most convincing evidence is supplied bythese indefatigable experimenters, that the wheat-producing powers of asoil are not increased in any sensible degree by the liberal supply ofall the mineral matters, which enter into the composition of the ash ofwheat, and that the abstraction of these mineral matters from the soil, in any much larger proportions than can possibly take place underordinary cultivation, in no wise affects the yield of wheat, providedthere be at the same time a liberal supply of available nitrogen withinthe soil itself. The amount of the latter, therefore, is regarded byMessrs. Lawes and Gilbert, as the measure of the increased produce ofgrain which a soil furnishes. “In conformity with these views, the farmer, when he wishes to increasethe yield of his wheat, finds it to his advantage to have recourse toammoniacal, or other nitrogenous manures, and depends more or lessentirely upon the soil, for the supply of the necessary mineral orash-constituents of wheat, having found such a supply to be amplysufficient for his requirements. As far, therefore, as the removal fromthe soil of a large amount of mineral soil-constituents, by theclover-crop, is concerned, the fact viewed in the light of theRothamsted experiments, becomes at once intelligible; for, notwithstanding the abstraction of over 600 lbs. Of mineral matter by acrop of clover, the succeeding wheat-crop does not suffer. Inasmuch, however, as we have seen, that not only much mineral matter is carriedoff the land in a crop of clover, but also much nitrogen, we might, inthe absence of direct evidence to the contrary, be led to suspect thatwheat, after clover, would not be a good crop; whereas, the fact isexactly the reverse. “It is worthy of notice, that nitrogenous manures, which have such amarked and beneficial effect upon wheat, do no good, but in certaincombinations, in some seasons, do positive harm to clover. Thus, Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert, in a series of experiments on the growth ofred-clover, by different manures, obtained 14 tons of fresh greenproduce, equal to about three and three-fourths tons of clover hay, fromthe unmanured portion of the experimental field; and where sulphates ofpotash, soda, and magnesia, or sulphate of potash and superphosphate oflime were employed, 17 to 18 tons, (equal to from about four andone-half to nearly five tons of hay), were obtained. When salts ofammonia were added to the mineral manures, the produce of clover-haywas, upon the whole, less than where the mineral manures were usedalone. The wheat, grown after the clover, on the unmanured plot, gave, however, 29½ bushels of corn, whilst in the adjoining field, where wheatwas grown after wheat, without manure, only 15½ bushels of corn per acrewere obtained. Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert notice especially, that in theclover-crop of the preceding year, very much larger quantities, both ofmineral matters and of nitrogen, were taken from the land, than wereremoved in the unmanured wheat-crop in the same year, in the adjoiningfield. Notwithstanding this, the soil from which the clover had beentaken, was in a condition to yield 14 bushels more wheat, per acre, thanthat upon which wheat had been previously grown; the yield of wheat, after clover, in these experiments, being fully equal to that in anotherfield, where large quantities of manure were used. “Taking all these circumstances into account, is there not presumptiveevidence, that, notwithstanding the removal of a large amount ofnitrogen in the clover-hay, an abundant store of available nitrogen isleft in the soil, and also that in its relations towards nitrogen in thesoil, clover differs essentially from wheat? The results of ourexperience in the growth of the two crops, appear to indicate that, whereas the growth of the wheat rapidly exhausts the land of itsavailable nitrogen, that of clover, on the contrary, tends somehow orother to accumulate nitrogen within the soil itself. If this can beshown to be the case, an intelligible explanation of the fact thatclover is so useful as a preparatory crop for wheat, will be found inthe circumstance, that, during the growth of clover, nitrogenous food, for which wheat is particularly grateful, is either stored up orrendered available in the soil. “An explanation, however plausible, can hardly be accepted as correct, if based mainly on data, which, although highly probable, are not provedto be based on fact. In chemical inquiries, especially, nothing must betaken for granted, that has not been proved by direct experiment. Thefollowing questions naturally suggest themselves in reference to thissubject: What is the amount of nitrogen in soils of differentcharacters? What is the amount more particularly after a good, and afteran indifferent crop of clover? Why is the amount of nitrogen in soils, larger after clover, than after wheat and other crops? Is the nitrogenpresent in a condition in which it is available and useful to wheat? Andlastly, are there any other circumstances, apart from the supply ofnitrogenous matter in the soil, which help to account for the beneficialeffects of clover as a preparatory crop for wheat? “In order to throw some light on these questions, and, if possible, togive distinct answers to at least some of them, I, years ago, whenresiding at Cirencester, began a series of experiments; and morerecently, I have been fortunate enough to obtain the co-operation of Mr. Robert Valentine, of Leighton Buzzard, who kindly undertook to supply mewith materials for my analysis. “My first experiments were made on a thin, calcareous, clay soil, resting on oolitic limestone, and producing generally a fair crop ofred-clover. The clover-field formed the slope of a rather steep hillock, and varied much in depth. At the top of the hill, the soil became verystony at a depth of four inches, so that it could only with difficultybe excavated to a depth of six inches, when the bare limestone-rock madeits appearance. At the bottom of the field the soil was much deeper, andthe clover stronger, than at the upper part. On the brow of the hill, where the clover appeared to be strong, a square yard was measured out;and at a little distance off, where the clover was very bad, a secondsquare yard was measured; in both plots, the soil being taken up to adepth of six inches. The soil, where the clover was good, may bedistinguished from the other, by being marked as No. 1, and that whereit was bad, as No. 2. CLOVER-SOIL NO. 1. (GOOD CLOVER). “The roots having first been shaken out to free them as much as possiblefrom the soil, were then washed once or twice with cold distilled water, and, after having been dried for a little while in the sun, wereweighed, when the square yard produced 1 lb. 10½ oz. Of cleanedclover-roots, in an air-dry state; an acre of land, or 4, 840 squareyards, accordingly yielded, in a depth of six inches, 3. 44 tons, or 3½tons in round numbers, of clover-roots. “Fully dried in a water-bath, the roots were found to contain altogether44. 67 per cent of water, and on being burnt in a platinum capsule, yielded 6. 089 of ash. A portion of the dried, finely powdered and wellmixed roots, was burned with soda lime, in a combustion tube, and thenitrogen contained in the roots otherwise determined in the usual way. Accordingly, the following is the general composition of the roots fromthe soil No. 1: Water 44. 675 Organic matter* 49. 236 Mineral matter 6. 089 ------- 100. 000 ======= * Containing nitrogen 1. 297 Equal to ammonia 1. 575 “Assuming the whole field to have produced 3½ tons of clover-roots, peracre, there will be 99. 636 lbs. , or in round numbers, 100 lbs. Ofnitrogen in the clover-roots from one acre; or, about twice as muchnitrogen as is present in the average produce of an acre of wheat. ” “That is a remarkable fact, ” said the Deacon, “as I understand nitrogenis the great thing needed by wheat, and yet the _roots_ alone of theclover, contain twice as much nitrogen as an average crop of wheat. Goon Charley, it is quite interesting. ” “The soil, ” continues Dr. Vœlcker, “which had been separated from theroots, was passed through a sieve to deprive it of any stones it mightcontain. It was then partially dried, and the nitrogen in it determinedin the usual manner, by combustion with soda-lime, when it yielded . 313per cent of nitrogen, equal to . 38 of ammonia, in one combustion; and. 373 per cent of nitrogen, equal to . 46 of ammonia, in a seconddetermination. “That the reader may have some idea of the character of this soil, itmay be stated, that it was further submitted to a general analysis, according to which, it was found to have the following composition: General Composition of Soil, No. 1. (Good Clover). Moisture 18. 73 Organic matter* 9. 72 Oxide of iron and alumina 13. 24 Carbonate of lime 8. 82 Magnesia, alkalies, etc. 1. 72 Insoluble silicious matter, (chiefly clay) 47. 77 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 313 Equal to ammonia . 380 “The second square yard from the brow of the hill, where the clover wasbad, produced 13 ounces of air-dry, and partially clean roots, or 1. 75tons per acre. On analysis, they were found to have the followingcomposition: Clover-Roots, No. 2. (Bad Clover). Water 55. 732 Organic matter* 39. 408 Mineral matter, (ash) 4. 860 ------- 100. 000 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 792 Equal to ammonia . 901 “The roots on the spot where the clover was very bad, yielded only 31lbs. Of nitrogen per acre, or scarcely one-third of the quantity whichwas obtained from the roots where the clover was good. “The soil from the second square yard, on analysis, was found, whenfreed from stones by sifting, to contain in 100 parts: Composition of Soil, No. 2. (Bad Clover). Water 17. 24 Organic matter* 9. 64 Oxide of iron and alumina 11. 89 Carbonate of lime 14. 50 Magnesia, alkalies, etc. 1. 53 Insoluble silicious matter 45. 20 ------- 100. 00 ======= 2d determination. * Containing nitrogen . 306 . 380 Equal to ammonia . 370 . 470 “Both portions of the clover-soil thus contained about the samepercentage of organic matter, and yielded nearly the same amount ofnitrogen. “In addition, however, to the nitrogen in the clover-roots, a good dealof nitrogen, in the shape of root-fibres, decayed leaves, and similarorganic matters, was disseminated throughout the fine soil in which itoccurred, and from which it could not be separated; but unfortunately, I neglected to weigh the soil from a square yard, and am, therefore, unable to state how much nitrogen per acre was present in the shape ofsmall root-fibres and other organic matters. “Before mentioning the details of the experiments made in the nextseason, I will here give the composition of the ash of the partiallycleaned clover-roots: Composition Of Ash Of Clover-Roots, (Partially Cleaned). Oxide of iron and alumina 11. 73 Lime 18. 49 Magnesia 3. 03 Potash 6. 88 Soda 1. 93 Phosphoric acid 3. 61 Sulphuric acid 2. 24 Soluble silica 19. 01 Insoluble silicious matter 24. 83 Carbonic acid, chlorine, and loss 8. 25 ------ 100. 00 ====== “This ash was obtained from clover-roots, which yielded, when perfectlydry, in round numbers, eight per cent of ash. Clover-roots, washed quiteclean, and separated from all soil, yield about five per cent of ash;but it is extremely difficult to clean a large quantity of fibrous rootsfrom all dirt, and the preceding analysis distinctly shows, that the ashof the clover-roots, analyzed by me, was mechanically mixed with a gooddeal of fine soil, for oxide of iron, and alumina, and insolublesilicious matter in any quantity, are not normal constituents ofplant-ashes. Making allowance for soil contamination, the ash ofclover-roots, it will be noticed, contains much lime and potash, as wellas an appreciable amount of phosphoric and sulphuric acid. On the decayof the clover-roots, these and other mineral fertilizing matters areleft in the surface-soil in a readily available condition, and inconsiderable proportions, when the clover stands well. Although a cropof clover removes much mineral matter from the soil, it must be borne inmind, that its roots extract from the land, soluble mineral fertilizingmatters, which, on the decay of the roots, remain in the land in aprepared and more readily available form, than that in which theyoriginally occur. The benefits arising to wheat, from the growth ofclover, may thus be due partly to this preparation and concentration ofmineral food in the surface-soil. “The clover on the hillside field, on the whole, turned out a very goodcrop; and, as the plant stood the winter well, and this field was leftanother season in clover, without being plowed up, I availed myself ofthe opportunity of making, during the following season, a number ofexperiments similar to those of the preceding year. This time, however, I selected for examination, a square yard of soil, from a spot on thebrow of the hill, where the clover was thin, and the soil itself stonyat a depth of four inches; and another plot of one square yard at thebottom of the hill, from a place where the clover was stronger than thaton the brow of the hill, and the soil at a depth of six inches containedno large stones. SOIL NO. 1. (CLOVER THIN), ON THE BROW OF THE HILL. “The roots in a square yard, six inches deep, when picked out by hand, and cleaned as much as possible, weighed, in their natural state, 2 lbs. 11 oz. ; and when dried on the top of a water-bath, for the purpose ofgetting them brittle and fit for reduction into fine powder, 1 lb. 12oz. 31 grains. In this state they were submitted as before to analysis, when they yielded in 100 parts: Composition Of Clover-Roots, No. 1, (From Brow Of Hill). Moisture 4. 34 Organic matter* 26. 53 Mineral matter 69. 13 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 816 Equal to ammonia . 991 “According to these data, an acre of land will yield three tons 12 cwts. Of nearly dry clover-roots, and in this quantity there will be about 66lbs. Of nitrogen. The whole of the soil from which the roots have beenpicked out, was passed through a half-inch sieve. The stones left in thesieve weighed 141 lbs. ; the soil which passed through weighing 218 lbs. “The soil was next dried by artificial heat, when the 218 lbs. Becamereduced to 185. 487 lbs. “In this partially dried state it contained: Moisture 4. 21 Organic matter* 9. 78 Mineral matter† 86. 01 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 391 Equal to ammonia . 475 † Including phosphoric acid . 264 “I also determined the phosphoric acid in the ash of the clover-roots. Calculated for the roots in a nearly dry state, the phosphoric acidamounts to . 287 per cent. “An acre of soil, according to the data, furnished by the six inches onthe spot where the clover was thin, produced the following quantity ofnitrogen: Ton. Cwts. Lbs. In the fine soil 1 11 33 In the clover-roots 0 0 66 -- -- -- Total quantity of nitrogen per acre 1 11 99 == == == “The organic matter in an acre of this soil, which can not be picked outby hand, it will be seen, contains an enormous quantity of nitrogen; andalthough, probably, the greater part of the roots and other remains fromthe clover-crop may not be decomposed so thoroughly as to yieldnitrogenous food to the succeeding wheat-crop, it can scarcely bedoubted that a considerable quantity of nitrogen will become availableby the time the wheat is sown, and that one of the chief reasons whyclover benefits the succeeding wheat-crop, is to be found in theabundant supply of available nitrogenous food furnished by the decayingclover-roots and leaves. CLOVER-SOIL NO. 2, FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL. (GOOD CLOVER. ) “A square yard of the soil from the bottom of the hill, where the cloverwas stronger than on the brow of the hill, produced 2 lbs. 8 oz. Offresh clover-roots; or 1 lb. 11 oz. 47 grains of partially dried roots;61 lbs. 9 oz. Of limestones, and 239. 96 lbs. Of nearly dry soil. “The partially dried roots contained: Moisture 5. 06 Organic matter* 31. 94 Mineral matter 63. 00 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 804 “An acre of this soil, six inches deep, produced 3 tons, 7 cwts. 65 lbs. Of clover-roots, containing 61 lbs. Of nitrogen; that is, there was verynearly the same quantity of roots and nitrogen in them, as thatfurnished in the soil from the brow of the hill. “The roots, moreover, yielded . 365 per cent of phosphoric acid; or, calculated per acre, 27 lbs. “In the partially dried soil, I found: Moisture 4. 70 Organic matter* 10. 87 Mineral matter† 84. 43 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen . 405 Equal to ammonia . 491 † Including phosphoric acid . 321 “According to these determinations, an acre of soil from the bottom ofthe hill, contains: Tons Cwts. Lbs. Nitrogen in the organic matter of the soil 2 2 0 Nitrogen in clover-roots of the soil 0 0 61 --- --- --- Total amount of nitrogen per acre 2 2 61 === === === “Compared with the amount of nitrogen in the soil from the brow of thehill, about 11 cwt. More nitrogen was obtained in the soil and rootsfrom the bottom of the hill, where the clover was more luxuriant. “The increased amount of nitrogen occurred in fine root-fibres and otherorganic matters of the soil, and not in the coarser bits of roots whichwere picked out by the hand. It may be assumed that the finer particlesof organic matter are more readily decomposed than the coarser roots;and as there was a larger amount of nitrogen in this than in thepreceding soil, it may be expected that the land at the bottom of thehill, after removal of the clover, was in a better agriculturalcondition for wheat, than that on the brow of the hill. ” CHAPTER XXVI. EXPERIMENTS ON CLOVER-SOILS FROM BURCOTT LODGE FARM, LEIGHTON BUZZARD. “The soils for the next experiments, were kindly supplied to me, in1866, by Robert Valentine, of Burcott Lodge, who also sent me some notesrespecting the growth and yield of clover-hay and seed on this soil. “Foreign seed, at the rate of 12 lbs. Per acre, was sown with a crop ofwheat, which yielded five quarters per acre the previous year. “The first crop of clover was cut down on the 25th of June, 1866, andcarried on June 30th. The weather was very warm, from the time ofcutting until the clover was carted, the thermometer standing at 80Fahr. Every day. The clover was turned in the swath, on the second dayafter it was cut; on the fourth day, it was turned over and put intosmall heaps of about 10 lbs. Each; and on the fifth day, these werecollected into larger cocks, and then stacked. “The best part of an 11-acre field, produced nearly three tons ofclover-hay, sun-dried, per acre; the whole field yielding on an average, 2½ tons per acre. This result was obtained by weighing the stack threemonths after the clover was carted. The second crop was cut on the 21stof August, and carried on the 27th, the weight being nearly 30 cwt. Ofhay per acre. Thus the two cuttings produced just about four tons ofclover-hay per acre. “The 11 acres were divided into two parts. About one-half was mown forhay a second time, and the other part left for seed. The produce of thesecond half of the 11-acre field, was cut on the 8th of October, andcarried on the 10th. It yielded in round numbers, 3 cwt. Of clover-seedper acre, the season being very unfavorable for clover-seed. The secondcrop of clover, mown for hay, was rather too ripe, and just beginning toshow seed. “A square foot of soil, 18 inches deep, was dug from the second portionof the land which produced the clover-hay and clover-seed. SOIL FROM PART OF 11-ACRE FIELD TWICE MOWN FOR HAY. “The upper six inches of soil, one foot square, contained all the mainroots of 18 strong plants; the next six inches, only small root fibres, and in the third section, a six-inch slice cut down at a depth of 12inches from the surface, no distinct fibres could be found. The soil wasalmost completely saturated with rain when it was dug up on the 13th ofSeptember, 1866: Lbs. The upper six inches of soil, one foot square, weighed 60 The second ” ” ” 61 The third ” ” ” 63 “These three portions of one foot of soil, 18 inches deep, were driednearly completely, and weighed again; when the first six inches weighed51¼ lbs. ; the second six inches, 51 lbs. 5 oz. ; and the third section, 54 lbs. 2 oz. “The first six inches contained 3 lbs. Of silicious stones, (flints), which were rejected in preparing a sample for analysis; in the tworemaining sections there were no large sized stones. The soils werepounded down, and passed through a wire sieve. “The three layers of soil, dried and reduced to powder, were mixedtogether, and a prepared average sample, when submitted to analysis, yielded the following results: Composition of Clover-Soil, 18 Inches Deep, From Part of 11-Acre Field, Twice Mown for Hay. {Organic matter 5. 86 {Oxides of iron 6. 83 {Alumina 7. 12 {Carbonate of lime 2. 13 Soluble in {Magnesia 2. 01 hydrochloric acid. {Potash . 67 {Soda . 08 {Chloride of sodium . 02 {Phosphoric acid . 18 {Sulphuric acid . 17 {Insoluble silicious matter, 74. 61. { Consisting of: {Alumina 4. 37 {Lime, (in a state of silicate) 4. 07 Insoluble in acid {Magnesia . 46 {Potash . 19 {Soda . 23 {Silica 65. 29 ----- 99. 68 ===== “This soil, it will be seen, contained, in appreciable quantities, notonly potash and phosphoric acid, but all the elements of fertility whichenter into the composition of good arable land. It may be brieflydescribed as a stiff clay soil, containing a sufficiency of lime, potash, and phosphoric acid, to meet all the requirements of theclover-crop. Originally, rather unproductive, it has been much, improvedby deep culture; by being smashed up into rough clods, early in autumn, and by being exposed in this state to the crumbling effects of the air, it now yields good corn and forage crops. “In separate portions of the three layers of soil, the proportions ofnitrogen and phosphoric acid contained in each layer of six inches, weredetermined and found to be as follows: Soil dried at 212 deg. Fahr. 1st six 2d six 3d six inches. Inches. Inches. Percentage of phosphoric acid . 249 . 134 . 172 Nitrogen 1. 62 . 092 . 064 Equal to ammonia . 198 . 112 . 078 “In the upper six inches, as will be seen, the percentage of bothphosphoric acid and nitrogen, was larger than in the two followinglayers, while the proportion of nitrogen in the six inches of surfacesoil, was much larger than in the next six inches; and in the thirdsection, containing no visible particles of root-fibres, only verylittle nitrogen occurred. “In their natural state, the three layers of soil contained: 1st six 2d six 3d six inches. Inches. Inches. Moisture 17. 16 18. 24 16. 62 Phosphoric acid . 198 . 109 . 143 Nitrogen . 134 . 075 . 053 Equal to ammonia . 162 . 091 . 064 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Weight of one foot square of soil 60 61 63 “Calculated per acre, the absolute weight of one acre of this land, sixinches deep, weighs: Lbs. 1st six inches 2, 613, 600 2d six inches 2, 657, 160 3d six inches 2, 746, 280 ========= “No great error, therefore, will be made, if we assume in the subsequentcalculations, that six inches of this soil weighs two and one-halfmillions of pounds per acre. “An acre of land, according to the preceding determinations, contains: 1st six 2d six 3d six inches, inches, inches, Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Phosphoric acid 4, 950 2, 725 3, 575 Nitrogen 3, 350 1, 875 1, 325 Equal to ammonia 4, 050 2, 275 1, 600 ===== ===== ===== “The proportion of phosphoric acid in six inches of surface soil, itwill be seen, amounted to about two-tenths per cent; a proportion of thewhole soil, so small that it may appear insufficient for the productionof a good corn-crop. However, when calculated to the acre, we find thatsix inches of surface soil in an acre of land, actually contain over twotons of phosphoric acid. An average crop of wheat, assumed to be 25bushels of grain, at 60 lbs. Per bushel, and 3, 000 lbs. Of straw, removes from the land on which it is grown, 20 lbs. Of phosphoric acid. The clover-soil analyzed by me, consequently contains an amount ofphosphoric acid in a depth of only six inches, which is equal to thatpresent in 247½ average crops of wheat; or supposing that, by goodcultivation and in favorable seasons, the average yield of wheat couldbe doubled, and 50 bushels of grain, at 60 lbs. A bushel, and 6, 000 lbs. Of straw could be raised, 124 of such heavy wheat-crops would contain nomore phosphoric acid than actually occurred in six inches of thisclover-soil per acre. “The mere presence of such an amount of phosphoric acid in a soil, however, by no means proves its sufficiency for the production of somany crops of wheat; for, in the first place, it can not be shown thatthe whole of the phosphoric acid found by analysis, occurs in the soilin a readily available combination; and, in the second place, it isquite certain that the root-fibres of the wheat-plant can not reach andpick up, so to speak, every particle of phosphoric acid, even supposingit to occur in the soil in a form most conducive to ‘ready assimilationby the plant. ’ “The calculation is not given in proof of a conclusion which would bemanifestly absurd, but simply as an illustration of the enormousquantity in an acre of soil six inches deep, of a constituent formingthe smaller proportions of the whole weight of an acre of soil of thatlimited depth. It shows the existence of a practically unlimited amountof the most important mineral constituents of plants, and clearly pointsout the propriety of rendering available to plants, the naturalresources of the soil in plant-food; to draw, in fact, up the mineralwealth of the soil, by thoroughly working the land, and not leaving itunutilized as so much dead capital. ” “Good, ” said the Deacon, “that is the right doctrine. ” “The roots, ” continues Dr. Vœlcker, “from one square foot of soil werecleaned as much as possible, dried completely at 212°, and in that stateweighed 240 grains. An acre consequently contained 1, 493½ lbs. Of driedclover-roots. “The clover-roots contained, dried at 212° Fahr. , Organic matter* 81. 33 Mineral matter, † (ash) 18. 67 ------ 100. 00 ====== * Yielding nitrogen 1. 635 Equal to ammonia 1. 985 † Including insoluble silicious matter, (clay and sand) 11. 67 “Accordingly the clover-roots in an acre of land furnished 24½ lbs. Ofnitrogen. We have thus: Lbs. Of nitrogen In the six inches of surface soil 3, 350 In large clover-roots 24½ In second six inches of soil 1, 875 --------- Total amount of nitrogen in one acre of soil 12 inches deep 5, 249½ Equal to ammonia 6, 374½ ========= Or in round numbers, two tons six cwt. Of nitrogen per acre; an enormousquantity, which must have a powerful influence in encouraging theluxuriant development of the succeeding wheat-crop, although only afraction of the total amount of nitrogen in the clover remains maybecome sufficiently decomposed in time to be available to the youngwheat-plants. CLOVER-SOIL FROM PART OF 11-ACRE FIELD OF BURCOTT LODGE FARM, LEIGHTONBUZZARD, ONCE MOWN FOR HAY, AND LEFT AFTERWARDS FOR SEED. “Produce 2½ tons of clover-hay, and 3 cwt. Of seed per acre. “This soil was obtained within a distance of five yards from the part ofthe field where the soil was dug up after the two cuttings of hay. Afterthe seed there was some difficulty in finding a square foot containingthe same number of large clover-roots, as that on the field twice mown;however, at last, in the beginning of November, a square foot containingexactly 18 strong roots, was found and dug up to a depth of 18 inches. The soil dug after the seed was much drier than that dug after the twocuttings of hay: The upper six inches deep, one foot square, weighed 56 lbs. The next ” ” ” 58 ” The third ” ” ” 60 ” ======= “After drying by exposure to hot air, the three layers of soil weighed: The upper six inches, one foot square 49¾ lbs. The next ” ” 50½ ” The third ” ” 51¼ ” =========== “Equal portions of the dried soil from each six-inch section were mixedtogether and reduced to a fine powder. An average sample thus prepared, on analysis, was found to have the following composition: Composition of Clover-Soil Once Mown for Hay, and Afterwards Left for Seed. Dried at 212° Fahr. { Organic matter 5. 34 { Oxides of iron 6. 07 { Alumina 4. 51 { Carbonate of lime 7. 51 Soluble in { Magnesia 1. 27 hydrochloric Acid { Potash . 52 { Soda . 16 { Chloride of sodium . 03 { Phosphoric acid . 15 { Sulphuric acid . 19 { Insoluble silicious matter, { 73. 84. Consisting of: { Alumina 4. 14 { Lime (in a state of silicate) 2. 69 Insoluble in acid { Magnesia . 68 { Potash . 24 { Soda . 21 { Silica 65. 88 ----- 99. 59 ===== “The soil, it will be seen, in general character, resembles thepreceding sample; it contains a good deal of potash and phosphoricacid, and may be presumed to be well suited to the growth of clover. Itcontains more carbonate of lime, and is somewhat lighter than the samplefrom the part of the field twice mown for hay, and may be termed heavycalcareous clay. “An acre of this land, 18 inches deep, weighed, when very nearly dry: Lbs. Surface, six inches 2, 407, 900 Next ” 2, 444, 200 Third ” 2, 480, 500 “Or in round numbers, every six inches of soil weighed per acre 2½millions of pounds, which agrees tolerably well with the actual weightper acre of the preceding soil. “The amount of phosphoric acid and nitrogen in each six-inch layer wasdetermined separately, as before, when the following results wereobtained: In Dried Soil. First six Second Third six inches. Six inches. Inches. Percentage of phosphoric acid . 159 . 166 . 140 Nitrogen . 189 . 134 . 089 Equal to ammonia . 229 . 162 . 108 “An acre, according to these determinations, contains in the threeseparate sections: First six Second Third six inches. Six inches. Inches. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Phosphoric acid 3, 975 4, 150 3, 500 Nitrogen 4, 725 3, 350 2, 225 Equal to ammonia 5, 725 4, 050 2, 700 “Here, again, as might naturally be expected, the proportion of nitrogenis largest in the surface, where all the decaying leaves dropped duringthe growth of the clover for seed are found, and wherein root-fibres aremore abundant than in the lower strata. The first six inches of soil, itwill be seen, contained in round numbers, 2½ tons of nitrogen per acre, that is, considerably more than was found in the same section of thesoil where the clover was mown twice for hay; showing plainly, thatduring the ripening of the clover seed, the surface is much enriched bythe nitrogenous matter in the dropping leaves of the clover-plant. “_Clover-roots_. --The roots from one square foot of this soil, freed asmuch as possible from adhering soil, were dried at 212°, and whenweighed and reduced to a fine powder, gave, on analysis, the followingresults: Organic matter* 64. 76 Mineral matter† 35. 24 ------- 100. 00 ======= * Containing nitrogen 1. 702 Equal to ammonia 2. 066 † Including clay and sand (insoluble silicious matter) 26. 04 “A square foot of this soil produced 582 grains of dried clover-roots, consequently an acre yielded 3, 622 lbs. Of roots, or more than twice theweight of roots obtained from the soil of the same field where theclover was twice mown for hay. “In round numbers, the 3, 622 lbs. Of clover-roots from the land mownonce, and afterwards left for seed, contained 51½ lbs. Of nitrogen. “The roots from the soil after clover-seed, it will be noticed, were notso clean as the preceding sample, nevertheless, they yielded morenitrogen. In 64. 76 of organic matter, we have here 1. 702 of nitrogen, whereas, in the case of the roots from the part of the field where theclover was twice mown for hay, we have in 81. 33 parts, that is, muchmore organic matter, and 1. 635, or rather less of nitrogen. It isevident, therefore, that the organic matter in the soil afterclover-seed, occurs in a more advanced stage of decomposition, thanfound in the clover-roots from the part of the field twice mown. In themanure, in which the decay of such and similar organic remains proceeds, much of the non-nitrogenous, or carbonaceous matters, of which theseremains chiefly, though not entirely, consist, is transformed intogaseous carbonic acid, and what remains behind, becomes richer innitrogen and mineral matters. A parallel case, showing the dissipationof carbonaceous matter, and the increase in the percentage of nitrogenand mineral matter in what is left behind, is presented to us in freshand rotten dung; in long or fresh dung, the percentage of organicmatter, consisting chiefly of very imperfectly decomposed straw, beinglarger, and that of nitrogen and mineral matter smaller, than inwell-rotted dung. “The roots from the field after clover-seed, it will be borne in mind, were dug up in November, whilst those obtained from the land twice mown, were dug up in September; the former, therefore, may be expected to bein a more advanced state of decay than the latter, and richer innitrogen. “In an acre of soil, after clover-seed, we have: Lbs. Nitrogen in first six inches of soil 4, 725 Nitrogen in roots 51½ Nitrogen in second six inches of soil 3, 350 ------- Total amount of nitrogen, per acre, in twelve inches of soil 8, 126½ ======= “Equal to ammonia, 9, 867 lbs. : or, in round numbers, 3 tons and 12½cwts. Of nitrogen per acre; equal to 4 tons 8 cwts. Of ammonia. “This is a very much larger amount of nitrogen than occurred in theother soil, and shows plainly that the total amount of nitrogenaccumulates especially in the surface-soil, when clover is grown forseed; thus explaining intelligibly, as it appears to me, why wheat, asstated by many practical men, succeeds better on land where clover isgrown for seed, than where it is mown for hay. “All the three layers of the soil, after clover-seed, are richer innitrogen than the same sections of the soil where the clover was twicemown, as will be seen by the following comparative statement of results: --------------+--------------------------+-------------------------- | I. | II. | Clover-Soil twice | Clover-Soil once mown | mown. | and then left for seed. +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- | | | | | | | Upper | Second | Third | Upper | Next | Lowest |6 inches|6 inches|6 inches|6 inches|6 inches|6 inches --------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Percentage of | | | | | | nitrogen in | . 168 | . 092 | . 064 | . 189 | . 134 | . 089 dried soil | | | | | | Equal to | | | | | | ammonia | . 198 | . 112 | . 078 | . 229 | . 162 | . 108 --------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- “This difference in the amount of accumulated nitrogen in clover-land, appears still more strikingly on comparing the total amounts of nitrogenper acre in the different sections of the two portions of the 11-acrefield. Percentage of Nitrogen Per Acre. First six Second Third six inches. Six inches. Inches. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. I. In soil, clover twice } mown* } 3, 350 1, 875 1, 325 II. In soil, clover once } mown and seeded } afterwards† } 4, 725 3, 350 2, 225 ===== ===== ===== Equal to ammonia: * I. Clover twice mown } 4, 050 2, 275 1, 600 † II. Clover seeded } 5, 725 4, 050 2, 700 Lbs. I. Nitrogen in roots of clover twice mown } 24½ II. Nitrogen in clover, once mown, and grown } for seed afterwards } 51½ I. Weight of dry roots per acre from Soil I } 1, 493½ II. Weight of dry roots per acre from Soil II } 3, 622 Total amount of nitrogen in 1 acre, 12 inches } deep of Soil I* } 5, 249¼ Total amount of nitrogen in 1 acre, 12 inches } deep of Soil II† } 8, 126¼ Excess of nitrogen in an acre of soil 12 } inches deep, calculated as ammonia in part } of field, mown once and then seeded } 3, 592½ --------- * Equal to ammonia } 6, 374½ † Equal to ammonia } 9, 867 “It will be seen that not only was the amount of large clover-rootsgreater in the part where clover was grown for seed, but that likewisethe different layers of soil were in every instance richer in nitrogenafter clover-seed, than after clover mown twice for hay. “Reasons are given in the beginning of this paper which it is hoped willhave convinced the reader, that the fertility of land is not so muchmeasured by the amount of ash constituents of plants which it contains, as by the amount of nitrogen, which, together with an excess of such ashconstituents, it contains in an available form. It has been shownlikewise, that the removal from the soil of a large amount of mineralmatter in a good clover-crop, in conformity with many direct fieldexperiments, is not likely in any degree to affect the wheat-crop, andthat the yield of wheat on soils under ordinary cultivation, accordingto the experience of many farmers, and the direct and numerousexperiments of Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert, rises or falls, othercircumstances being equal, with the supply of available nitrogenous foodwhich is given to the wheat. This being the case, we can not doubt thatthe benefits arising from the growth of clover to the succeeding wheat, are mainly due to the fact that an immense amount of nitrogenous foodaccumulates in the soil during the growth of clover. “This accumulation of nitrogenous plant-food, specially useful to cerealcrops, is, as shown in the preceding experiments, much greater whenclover is grown for seed, than when it is made into hay. This affords anintelligible explanation of a fact long observed by good practical men, although denied by others who decline to accept their experience asresting upon trustworthy evidence, because, as they say, land cannotbecome more fertile when a crop is grown upon it for seed, which iscarried off, than when that crop is cut down and the produce consumed onthe land. The chemical points brought forward in the course of thisinquiry, show plainly that mere speculation as to what can take place ina soil, and what not, do not much advance the true theory of certainagricultural practices. It is only by carefully investigating subjectslike the one under consideration, that positive proofs are given, showing the correctness of intelligent observers in the fields. Manyyears ago, I made a great many experiments relative to the chemistry offarm-yard manure, and then showed, amongst other particulars, thatmanure, spread at once on the land, need not there and then be plowedin, inasmuch as neither a broiling sun, nor a sweeping and drying windwill cause the slightest loss of ammonia; and that, therefore, theold-fashioned farmer who carts his manure on the land as soon as he can, and spreads it at once, but who plows it in at his convenience, acts inperfect accordance with correct chemical principles involved in themanagement of farm-yard manure. On the present occasion, my main objecthas been to show, not merely by reasoning on the subject, but by actualexperiments, that the larger the amounts of nitrogen, potash, soda, lime, phosphoric acid, etc. , which are removed from the land in aclover-crop, the better it is, nevertheless, made thereby for producingin the succeeding year an abundant crop of wheat, other circumstancesbeing favorable to its growth. “Indeed, no kind of manure can be compared in point of efficacy forwheat, to the manuring which the land gets in a really good crop ofclover. The farmer who wishes to derive the full benefit from hisclover-lay, should plow it up for wheat as soon as possible in theautumn, and leave it in a rough state as long as is admissible, in orderthat the air may find free access into the land, and the organic remainsleft in so much abundance in a good crop of clover be changed intoplant-food; more especially, in other words, in order that the crudenitrogenous organic matter in the clover-roots and decaying leaves, mayhave time to become transformed into ammoniacal compounds, and these, inthe course of time, into nitrates, which I am strongly inclined to thinkis the form in which nitrogen is assimilated, par excellence by cerealcrops, and in which, at all events, it is more efficacious than in anyother state of combination wherein it may be used as a fertilizer. “When the clover-lay is plowed up early, the decay of the clover issufficiently advanced by the time the young wheat-plant stands in needof readily available nitrogenous food, and this being uniformlydistributed through the whole of the cultivated soil, is ready tobenefit every single plant. This equal and abundant distribution offood, peculiarly valuable to cereals, is a great advantage, and speaksstrongly in favor of clover as a preparatory crop for wheat. “Nitrate of soda, an excellent spring top-dressing for wheat and cerealsin general, in some seasons fails to produce as good an effect as inothers. In very dry springs, the rainfall is not sufficient to wash itproperly into the soil and to distribute it equally, and in very wetseasons it is apt to be washed either into the drains or into a stratumof the soil not accessible to the roots of the young wheat. As, therefore, the character of the approaching season can not usually bepredicted, the application of nitrate of soda to wheat is alwaysattended with more or less uncertainty. “The case is different, when a good crop of clover-hay has been obtainedfrom the land on which wheat is intended to be grown afterwards. Anenormous quantity of nitrogenous organic matter, as we have seen, isleft in the land after the removal of the clover-crop; and these remainsgradually decay and furnish ammonia, which at first and during thecolder months of the year, is retained by the well known absorbingproperties which all good wheat-soils possess. In spring, when warmerweather sets in, and the wheat begins to make a push, these ammoniacompounds in the soil are by degrees oxidized into nitrates; and as thischange into food peculiarly favorable to young cereal plants, proceedsslowly but steadily, we have in the soil itself, after clover, a sourcefrom which nitrates are continuously produced; so that it does not muchaffect the final yield of wheat, whether heavy rains remove some or allof the nitrate present in the soil. The clover remains thus afford amore continuous source from which nitrates are produced, and greatercertainty for a good crop of wheat than when recourse is had tonitrogenous top-dressings in the spring. SUMMARY. “The following are some of the chief points of interest which I haveendeavored fully to develope in the preceding pages: “1. A good crop of clover removes from the soil more potash, phosphoricacid, lime, and other mineral matters, which enter into the compositionof the ashes of our cultivated crops, than any other crop usually grownin this country. “2. There is fully three times as much nitrogen in a crop of clover asin the average produce of the grain and straw of wheat per acre. “3. Notwithstanding the large amount of nitrogenous matter and ofash-constituents of plants, in the produce of an acre, clover is anexcellent preparatory crop for wheat. “4. During the growth of clover, a large amount of nitrogenous matteraccumulates in the soil. “5. This accumulation, which is greatest in the surface soil, is due todecaying leaves dropped during the growth of clover, and to an abundanceof roots, containing, when dry, from one and three-fourths to two percent of nitrogen. “6. The clover-roots are stronger and more numerous, and more leavesfall on the ground when clover is grown for seed, than when it is mownfor hay; in consequence, more nitrogen is left after clover-seed, thanafter hay, which accounts for wheat yielding a better crop afterclover-seed than after hay. “7. The development of roots being checked, when the produce, in a greencondition, is fed off by sheep, in all probability, leaves still lessnitrogenous matter in the soil than when clover is allowed to get riperand is mown for hay; thus, no doubt, accounting for the observation madeby practical men, that, notwithstanding the return of the produce in thesheep excrements, wheat is generally stronger, and yields better, afterclover mown for hay, than when the clover is fed off green by sheep. “8. The nitrogenous matters in the clover remains, on their gradualdecay, are finally transformed into nitrates, thus affording acontinuous source of food on which cereal crops specially delight togrow. “9. There is strong presumptive evidence that the nitrogen which existsin the air, in shape of ammonia and nitric acid, and descends, in thesecombinations, with the rain which falls on the ground, satisfies, underordinary circumstances, the requirements of the clover-crop. This cropcauses a large accumulation of nitrogenous matters, which are graduallychanged in the soil into nitrates. The atmosphere thus furnishesnitrogenous food to the succeeding wheat indirectly, and, so to say, gratis. “10. Clover not only provides abundance of nitrogenous food, butdelivers this food in a readily available form (as nitrates), moregradually and continuously, and, consequently, with more certainty of agood result, than such food can be applied to the land in the shape ofnitrogenous spring top-dressings. ” “Thank you Charley, ” said the Doctor, “_that is the most remarkablepaper I ever listened to_. I do not quite know what to think of it. Weshall have to examine it carefully. ” “The first three propositions in the Summary, ” said I, “areunquestionably true. Proposition No. 4, is equally true, but we must becareful what meaning we attach to the word ‘accumulate. ’ The idea is, that clover gathers up the nitrogen in the soil. It does not _increase_the absolute amount of nitrogen. It accumulates it--brings it together. “Proposition No. 5, will not be disputed; and I think we may accept No. 6, also, though we can not be sure that allowing clover to go to seed, had anything to do with the increased quantity of clover-roots. “Proposition No. 7, may or may not be true. We have no proof, only a‘probability;’ and the same may be said in regard to propositions Nos. 8, 9, and 10. ” The Deacon seemed uneasy. He did not like these remarks. He had got theimpression, while Charley was reading, that much more was proved thanDr. Vœlcker claims in his Summary. “I thought, ” said he, “that on the part of the field where the cloverwas allowed to go to seed, Dr. Vœlcker found a great increase in theamount of nitrogen. ” “That seems to be the general impression, ” said the Doctor, “but inpoint of fact, we have no proof that the growth of clover, either forhay or for seed, had anything to do with the quantity of nitrogen andphosphoric acid found in the soil. The _facts_ given by Dr. Vœlcker, areexceedingly interesting. Let us look at them: “A field of 11 acres was sown to winter-wheat, and seeded down in thespring, with 13 lbs. Per acre of clover. The wheat yielded 40 bushelsper acre. The next year, on the 25th of June, the clover was mown forhay. We are told that ‘the _best part_ of the field yielded three tons(6, 720 lbs. ) of clover-hay per acre; the whole field averaging 2½ tons(5, 600 lbs. ) per acre. ’ “We are not informed how much land there was of the ‘best part, ’ butassuming that it was half the field, the poorer part must have yieldedonly 4, 480 lbs. Of hay per acre, or only two-thirds as much as theother. This shows that there was considerable difference in the qualityor condition of the land. “After the field was mown for hay, it was divided into two parts: onepart was mown again for hay, August 21st, and yielded about 30 cwt. (3, 360 lbs. ) of hay per acre; the other half was allowed to grow six orseven weeks longer, and was then (October 8th), cut for seed. The yieldwas a little over 5½ bushels of seed per acre. Whether the cloverallowed to grow for seed, was on the richer or poorer half of the field, we are not informed. “Dr. Vœlcker then analyzed the soil. That from the part of the fieldmown twice for hay, contained per acre: First six Second six Third six Total, 18 inches. Inches. Inches. Inches deep. Phosphoric acid 4, 950 2, 725 3, 575 11, 250 Nitrogen 3, 350 1, 875 1, 325 6, 550 “The soil _from the part mown once for hay, and then for seed_, contained per acre: First six Second six Third six Total, 18 inches. Inches. Inches. Inches deep. Phosphoric acid 3, 975 4, 150 3, 500 11, 625 Nitrogen 4, 725 3, 350 2, 225 10, 300 “Dr. Vœlcker also ascertained the amount and composition of theclover-_roots_ growing in the soil on the two parts of the field. On the_part mown twice for hay_, the roots contained per acre 24½ lbs. Ofnitrogen. On the _part mown once for hay, and then for seed_, the rootscontained 51½ lbs. Of nitrogen per acre. ” “Now, ” said the Doctor, “these facts are very interesting, _but there isno sort of evidence tending to show that the clover has anything to dowith increasing or decreasing the quantity of nitrogen or phosphoricacid found in the soil_. ” “There was more clover-roots per acre, where the clover was allowed togo to seed. But that may be because the soil happened to be richer onthis part of the field. There was, in the first six inches of the soil, 3, 350 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre, on one-half of the field, and 4, 725lbs. On the other half; and it is not at all surprising that on thelatter half there should be a greater growth of clover and clover-roots. To suppose that during the six or seven weeks while the clover wasmaturing its seed, the clover-plants could accumulate 1, 375 lbs. Ofnitrogen, is absurd. ” “But Dr. Vœlcker, ” said the Deacon, “states, and states truly, that‘more leaves fall on the ground when clover is grown for seed, than whenit is mown for hay; and, consequently, more nitrogen is left afterclover-seed than after hay, which accounts for wheat yielding a bettercrop after clover-seed than after hay. ’” “This is all true, ” said the Doctor, “but we can not accept Dr. Vœlcker’s analyses as proving it. To account in this way for the 1, 375lbs. Of nitrogen, we should have to suppose that the clover-plants, ingoing to seed, shed _one hundred tons_ of dry clover-leaves per acre!The truth of the matter seems to be, that the part of the field on whichthe clover was allowed to go to seed, was naturally much richer than theother part, and consequently produced a greater growth of clover andclover-roots. ” We can not find anything in these experiments tending to show that wecan make land rich by growing clover and selling the crop. The analysesof the soil show that in the first eighteen inches of the surface-soil, there was 6, 550 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre, on one part of the field, and10, 300 lbs. On the other part. The clover did not create this nitrogen, or bring it from the atmosphere. The wheat with which the clover wasseeded down, yielded 40 bushels per acre. If the field had been sown towheat again, it probably would not have yielded over 25 bushels peracre--and that for want of available nitrogen. And yet the clover gotnitrogen enough for over four tons of clover-hay; or as much nitrogen asa crop of wheat of 125 bushels per acre, and 7½ tons of straw wouldremove from the land. Now what does this prove? There was, in 18 inches of the soil on thepoorest part of the field, 6, 550 lbs. Of nitrogen per acre. A crop ofwheat of 50 bushels per acre, and twice that weight of straw, wouldrequire about 92 lbs. Of nitrogen. But the wheat can not get this amountfrom the soil, while the clover can get _double the quantity_. And theonly explanation I can give, is, that the clover-roots can take upnitrogen from a weaker solution in the soil than wheat-roots can. “These experiments of Dr. Vœlcker, ” said I, “give me greatencouragement. Here is a soil, ‘originally rather unproductive, but muchimproved by deep culture; by being smashed up into rough clods early inautumn, and by being exposed in this state to the crumbling effects ofthe air. ’ It now produces 40 bushels of wheat per acre, and part of thefield yielded three tons of clover-hay, per acre, the first cutting, and5½ bushels of clover-seed afterwards--and that in a very unfavorableseason for clover-seed. ” You will find that the farmers in England do not expect to make theirland rich, by growing clover and selling the produce. After they havegot their land rich, by good cultivation, and the liberal use of animaland artificial manures, they may expect a good crop of wheat from theroots of the clover. But they take good care to feed out the cloveritself on the farm, in connection with turnips and oil-cake, and thusmake rich manure. And so it is in this country. Much as we hear about the value of cloverfor manure, even those who extol it the highest do not depend upon italone for bringing up and maintaining the fertility of their farms. Themen who raise the largest crops and make the most money by farming, donot sell clover-hay. They do not look to the roots of the clover formaking a poor soil rich. They are, to a man, good cultivators. They worktheir land thoroughly and kill the weeds. They keep good stock, and feedliberally, and make good manure. They use lime, ashes, and plaster, andare glad to draw manure from the cities and villages, and muck from theswamps, and not a few of them buy artificial manures. In the hands ofsuch farmers, clover is a grand renovating crop. It gathers up thefertility of the soil, and the roots alone of a large crop, oftenfurnish food enough for a good crop of corn, potatoes, or wheat. But ifyour land was not in good heart to start with, you would not get thelarge crop of clover; and if you depend on the clover-roots alone, thetime is not far distant when your large crops of clover will be thingsof the past. AMOUNT OF ROOTS LEFT IN THE SOIL BY DIFFERENT CROPS. “We have seen that Dr. Vœlcker made four separate determinations of theamount of clover-roots left in the soil to the depth of six inches. Itmay be well to tabulate the figures obtained: Clover-Roots, in Six Inches of Soil, Per Acre. ------+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------- | |Air-dry |Nitrogen |Phosphoric | |roots, |in roots, |acid in | |per acre. |per acre. |roots, | | | |per acre. ------+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------- |1st Year. | | | No. 1. | Good Clover from brow | 7705 | 100 | | of the hill | | | ” 2. | Bad ” ” ” | 3920 | 31 | | ” ” ” | | | | | | | |2d Year. | | | ” 3. | Good Clover from bottom | 7569 | 61 | 27 | of the field | | | ” 4. | Thin ” ” brow | 8064 | 66 | | ” ” hill | | | | | | | ” 5. |Heavy crop of first-year clover | | | | mown twice for hay | | 24½ | ” 6. |Heavy crop of first-year clover | | | | mown once for hay, | | 51½ | | and then for seed | | | ” 7. |German experiment, | | | | 10¼ inches deep | 8921 | 191½ | 74¾ ------+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------- I have not much confidence in experiments of this kind. It is so easy tomake a little mistake; and when you take only a square foot of land, aswas the case with Nos. 5 and 6, the mistake is multiplied by 43, 560. Still, I give the table for what it is worth. Nos. 1 and 2 are from a one-year-old crop of clover. The field was acalcareous clay soil. It was somewhat hilly; or, perhaps, what we here, in Western New York, should call “rolling land. ” The soil on the brow ofthe hill, “was very stony at a depth of four inches, so that it couldonly with difficulty be excavated to six inches, when the barelimestone-rock made its appearance. ” A square yard was selected on this shallow soil, where the clover wasgood; and the roots, air-dried, weighed at the rate of 7, 705 lbs. Peracre, and contained 100 lbs. Of nitrogen. A few yards distance, on thesame soil, where the clover was bad, the acre of roots contained only 31lbs. Of nitrogen per acre. So far, so good. We can well understand this result. Chemistry haslittle to do with it. There was a good stand of clover on the one plot, and a poor one on the other. And the conclusion to be drawn from it is, that it is well worth our while to try to secure a good catch of clover. “But, suppose, ” said the Doctor, “No. 2 had happened to have beenpastured by sheep, and No. 1 allowed to go to seed, what magic therewould have been in the above figures!” Nos. 3 and 4 are from the same field, the second year. No. 4 is from asquare yard of thin clover on the brow of the hill, and No. 3, from thericher, deeper land towards the bottom of the hill. There is very little difference between them. The roots of thin cloverfrom the brow of the hill, contain five lbs. More nitrogen per acre, than the roots on the deeper soil. If we can depend on the figures, we may conclude that on our poor stony“knolls, ” the clover has larger and longer roots than on the richerparts of the field. We know that roots will run long distances and greatdepths in search of food and water. Nos. 5 and 6 are from a heavy crop of one-year-old clover. No. 5 wasmown twice for hay, producing, in the two cuttings, over four tons ofhay per acre. No. 6 was in the same field, the only difference beingthat the clover, instead of being cut the second time for hay, wasallowed to stand a few weeks longer to ripen its seed. You will see thatthe latter has more roots than the former. There are 24½ lbs. Of nitrogen per acre in the one case, and 51½ lbs. Inthe other. How far this is due to difference in the condition of theland, or to the difficulties in the way of getting out all the rootsfrom the square yard, is a matter of conjecture. Truth to tell, I have very little confidence in any of these figures. Itwill be observed that I have put at the bottom of the table, the resultof an examination made in Germany. In this case, the nitrogen in theroots of an acre of clover, amounted to 191½ lbs. Per acre. If we candepend on the figures, we must conclude that there were nearly eighttimes as much clover-roots per acre in the German field, as in theremarkably heavy crop of clover in the English field No. 5. “Yes, ” said the Deacon, “but the one was 10¼ inches deep, and the otheronly six inches deep; and besides, the German experiment includes the‘stubble’ with the roots. ” The Deacon is right; and it will be well to give the complete table, aspublished in the _American Agriculturist_: Table Showing the Amount of Roots and Stubble Left Per Acre by Different Crops, and the Amount of Ingredients Which They Contain Per Acre. -------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------- |No. Of lbs. Of | | |stubble & roots| | No. Of lbs. |(dry) per acre |No. Of lbs. | of ash, free |to a depth of |of Nitrogen | from carbonic |10¼ inches. | per acre. |acid, per acre. -------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------- Lucern (4 years old) | 9, 678. 1 | 136. 4 | 1, 201. 6 Red-Clover (1 year old, ) | 8, 921. 6 | 191. 6 | 1, 919. 9 Esparsette (3 years old) | 5, 930. 9 | 123. 2 | 1, 023. 4 Rye | 5, 264. 6 | 65. 3 | 1, 747. 8 Swedish Clover | 5, 004. 3 | 102. 3 | 974. 6 Rape | 4, 477. | 56. 5 | 622. 3 Oats | 3, 331. 9 | 26. 6 | 1, 444. 7 Lupine | 3, 520. 9 | 62. 2 | 550. Wheat | 3, 476. | 23. 5 | 1, 089. 8 Peas | 3, 222. 5 | 55. 6 | 670. 7 Serradella | 3, 120. 1 | 64. 8 | 545. 6 Buckwheat | 2, 195. 6 | 47. 9 | 465. 5 Barley | 1, 991. 4 | 22. 8 | 391. 1 -------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------- Contents of the Ashes, in Pounds, Per Acre. ---------------+-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+---------- | Lime. |Magnesia. |Potash. | Soda. |Sulphuric|Phosphoric | | | | | Acid. | Acid. ---------------+-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+---------- Lucern | 197. 7 | 24. 2 | 36. 7 | 26. 4 | 18. 7 | 38. 5 Red-Clover | 262. 9 | 48. 4 | 58. 3 | 20. 0 | 26. 1 | 74. 8 Esparsette | 132. 8 | 28. 7 | 42. 6 | 13. 8 | 20. 6 | 29. 7 Rye | 73. 2 | 14. 3 | 31. 2 | 43. 3 | 11. 8 | 24. 4 Swedish Clover | 136. 1 | 17. 6 | 25. 9 | 5. 7 | 13. 2 | 24. 2 Rape | 163. 9 | 12. 9 | 34. 7 | 20. 9 | 30. 8 | 31. 9 Oats | 85. 5 | 11. 2 | 24. 8 | 18. | 8. 8 | 29. Lupine | 80. 5 | 11. 2 | 16. 5 | 3. 5 | 7. | 13. 8 Wheat | 76. 7 | 10. 1 | 28. 4 | 11. | 7. 4 | 11. 8 Peas | 71. 7 | 11. | 11. 2 | 7. | 9. 4 | 14. 3 Serradella | 79. 8 | 13. 4 | 8. 8 | 4. 8 | 9. | 18. 4 Buckwheat | 80. | 7. 2 | 8. 8 | 4. 2 | 6. 6 | 11. Barley | 42. 2 | 5. 5 | 9. 5 | 3. 5 | 5. 5 | 11. 2 ---------------+-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+---------- It may be presumed, that, while these figures are not _absolutely_, theyare _relatively_, correct. In other words, we may conclude, thatred-clover leaves more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in theroots and stubble per acre, than any other of the crops named. The gross amount of dry substance in the roots, and the gross amount ofash per acre, are considerably exaggerated, owing to the evidently largequantity of dirt attached to the roots and stubble. For instance, thegross amount of ash in Lucern is given as 1, 201. 6 lbs. Per acre; whilethe total amount of lime, magnesia, potash, soda, sulphuric andphosphoric acids, is only 342. 2 lbs. Per acre, leaving 859. 4 lbs. Assand, clay, iron, etc. Of the 1, 919. 9 lbs. Of ash in the acre ofclover-roots and stubble, there are 1, 429. 4 lbs. Of sand, clay, etc. Buteven after deducting this amount of impurities from a gross total of drymatter per acre, we still have 7, 492. 2 lbs. Of dry roots and stubble peracre, or nearly 3¼ tons of _dry_ roots per acre. This is a very largequantity. It is as much dry matter as is contained in 13 tons ofordinary farm-yard, or stable-manure. And these 3¼ tons of dryclover-roots contain 191½ lbs. Of nitrogen, which is as much as iscontained in 19 tons of ordinary stable-manure. The clover-roots alsocontain 74¾ lbs. Of phosphoric acid per acre, or as much as is containedin from 500 to 600 lbs. Of No. 1 rectified Peruvian guano. “But the phosphoric acid, ” said the Doctor, “is not soluble in theroots. ” True, but it was soluble when the roots gathered it up out ofthe soil. “These figures, ” said the Deacon, “have a very pleasant look. Those ofus who have nearly one-quarter of our land in clover every year, oughtto be making our farms very rich. ” “It would seem, at any rate, ” said I, “that those of us who have good, clean, well-drained, and well-worked land, that is now producing a goodgrowth of clover, may reasonably expect a fair crop of wheat, barley, oats, corn, or potatoes, when we break it up and plow under all theroots, which are equal to 13 or 19 tons of stable-manure per acre. Whether we can or can not depend on these figures, one thing is clearlyproven, both by the chemist and the farmer, that a good clover-sod, onwell-worked soil, is a good preparation for corn and potatoes. ” MANURES FOR WHEAT. Probably nine-tenths of all the wheat grown in Western New York, or the“Genesee country, ” from the time the land was first cleared until 1870, was raised without any manure being directly applied to the land forthis crop. Tillage and clover were what the farmers depended on. Therecertainly has been no systematic manuring. The manure made during thewinter, was drawn out in the spring, and plowed under for corn. Anymanure made during the summer, in the yards, was, by the best farmers, scraped up and spread on portions of the land sown, or to be sown, withwheat. Even so good a farmer and wheat-grower as John Johnston, rarelyused manure, (except lime, and latterly, a little guano), directly forwheat. Clover and summer-fallowing were for many years the dependence ofthe Western New York wheat-growers. “One of the oldest and most experienced millers of Western New York, ”remarked the Doctor, “once told me that ‘ever since our farmers began to_manure their land_, the wheat-crop had deteriorated, not only in theyield per acre, but in the quality and quantity of the flour obtainedfrom it. ’ It seemed a strange remark to make; but when he explained thatthe farmers had given up summer-fallowing and plowing in clover, and nowsow spring crops, to be followed by winter wheat with an occasionaldressing of poor manure, it is easy to see how it may be true. ” “Yes, ” said I, “it is not the _manure_ that hurts the wheat, but thegrowth of spring crops and weeds that rob the soil of far moreplant-food than the poor, strawy manure can supply. We do not now, really, furnish the wheat-crop as much manure or plant-food as weformerly did when little or no manure was used, and when we depended onsummer-fallowing and plowing in clover. ” We must either give up the practice of sowing a spring crop, beforewheat, or we must make more and richer manure, or we must plow in moreclover. The rotation, which many of us now adopt--corn, barley, wheat--is profitable, provided we can make our land rich enough toproduce 75 bushels of shelled corn, 50 bushels of barley, and 35 bushelsof wheat, per acre, in three years. This can be done, but we shall either require a number of acres of richlow land, or irrigated meadow, the produce of which will make manure forthe upland, or we shall have to purchase oil-cake, bran, malt-combs, orrefuse beans, to feed out with our straw and clover-hay, or we mustpurchase artificial manures. Unless this is done, we must summer-fallowmore, on the heavier clay soils, sow less oats and barley; or we must, on the lighter soils, raise and plow under more clover, or feed it outon the farm, being careful to save and apply the manure. “Better do both, ” said the Doctor. “How?” asked the Deacon. “You had better make all the manure you can, ” continued the Doctor, “andbuy artificial manures besides. ” “The Doctor is right, ” said I, “and in point of fact, our best farmersare doing this very thing. They are making more manure and buying moremanure than ever before; or, to state the matter correctly, they arebuying artificial manures; and these increase the crops, and the extraquantity of straw, corn, and clover, so obtained, enables them to makemore manure. They get cheated sometimes in their purchases; but, on thewhole, the movement is a good one, and will result in a higher andbetter system of farming. ” I am amused at the interest and enthusiasm manifested by some of ourfarmers who have used artificial manures for a year or two. They seem toregard me as a sad old fogy, because I am now depending almost entirelyon the manures made on the farm. Years ago, I was laughed at because Iused guano and superphosphate. It was only yesterday, that a youngfarmer, who is the local agent of this neighborhood, for a manuremanufacturer, remarked to me, “You have never used superphosphate. Wesowed it on our wheat last year, and could see to the very drill markhow far it went. I would like to take your order for a ton. I am sure itwould pay. ” “We are making manure cheaper than you can sell it to me, ” I replied, “and besides, I do not think superphosphate is a good manure forwheat. ” --“Oh, ” he exclaimed, “you would not say so if you had ever usedit. ” --“Why, my dear sir, ” said I, “I made tons of superphosphate, andused large quantities of guano before you were born; and if you willcome into the house, I will show you a silver goblet I got for a prizeessay on the use of superphosphate of lime, that I wrote more than aquarter of a century ago. I sent to New York for two tons of guano, andpublished the result of its use on this farm, before you were out ofyour cradle. And I had a ton or more of superphosphate made for me in1856, and some before that. I have also used on this farm, many tons ofsuperphosphate and other artificial manures from differentmanufacturers, and one year I used 15 tons of bone-dust. ” With ready tact, he turned the tables on me by saying: “Now I canunderstand why your land is improving. It is because you have usedsuperphosphate and bone-dust. Order a few tons. ” By employing agents of this kind, the manufacturers have succeeded inselling the farmers of Western New York thousands of tons ofsuperphosphate. Some farmers think it pays, and some that it does not. We are more likely to hear of the successes than of failures. Stillthere can be no doubt that superphosphate has, in many instances, proveda valuable and profitable manure for wheat in Western New York. From 200 to 300 lbs. Are used per acre, and the evidence seems to showthat it is far better to _drill in the manure with the seed_ than to sowit broadcast. My own opinion is, that these superphosphates are not the mosteconomical artificial manures that could be used for wheat. They containtoo little nitrogen. Peruvian guano containing nitrogen equal to 10 percent of ammonia, would be, I think, a much more effective and profitablemanure. But before we discuss this question, it will be necessary tostudy the results of actual experiments in the use of variousfertilizers for wheat. CHAPTER XXVII. LAWES AND GILBERT’S EXPERIMENTS ON WHEAT. I hardly know how to commence an account of the wonderful experimentsmade at Rothamsted, England, by John Bennett Lawes, Esq. , and Dr. JosephH. Gilbert. Mr. Lawes’ first systematic experiment on wheat, commencedin the autumn of 1843. A field of 14 acres of rather heavy clay soil, resting on chalk, was selected for the purpose. Nineteen plots wereaccurately measured and staked off. The plots ran the long way of thefield, and up a slight ascent. On each side of the field, alongside theplots, there was some land not included, the first year, in theexperiment proper. This land was either left without manure, or amixture of the manures used in the experiments was sown on it. I have heard it said that Mr. Lawes, at this time, was a believer inwhat was called “Liebig’s Mineral Manure Theory. ” Liebig had said that“The crops on a field, diminish or increase in exact proportion to thediminution or increase of the mineral substances conveyed to it inmanure. ” And enthusiastic gentlemen have been known to tell farmers whowere engaged in drawing out farm-yard manure to their land, that theywere wasting their strength; all they needed was the mineral elements ofthe manure. “And you might, ” they said, “burn your manure, and sow theashes, and thus save much time and labor. The ashes will do just as muchgood as the manure itself. ” Whether Mr. Lawes did, or did not entertain such an opinion, I do notknow. It looks as though the experiments the first year or two, weremade with the expectation that mineral manures, or the ashes of plants, were what the wheat needed. The following table gives the kind and quantities of manures used peracre, and the yield of wheat per acre, as carefully cleaned for market. Also the total weight of grain per acre, and the weight of straw andchaff per acre. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table 1. --Manures And Produce; 1st Season, 1843-4. Manures and Seed (Old Red Lammas) Sown Autumn 1843. Manures: FM Farmyard Manure. FMA Farmyard Manure Ashes. [1] SiP Silicate of Potass. [2] PhP Phosphate of Potass. [3] PhS Phosphate of Soda. [3] PhM Phosphate of Magnesia. [3] SPL Superphosphate of Lime. [3] SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. RC Rape Cake. ---+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | | P | Manures per Acre. | l +-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+ o | | | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | | | s | FM | FMA | SiP | PhP | PhS | PhM | SPL | SA | RC | ---+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+ |Tons. |Cwts. |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. | 1 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 700 | . . | 154 | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 4 | . . |32[1]| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 5 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 700 | . . | . . | 6 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 420 | 350 | . . | . . | 7 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 325 | . . | 350 | . . | . . | 8 | . . | . . | . . | 375 | . . | . . | 350 | . . | . . | 9 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 630 | 65 | . . | 10 | . . | . . | 220 | . . | . . | . . | 560 | . . | . . | 11 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 350 | . . | 308 | 12 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 162½ | 210 | 350 | . . | . . | 13 | . . | . . | . . | 187½ | . . | 210 | 350 | . . | . . | 14 | . . | . . | 275 | . . | . . | 210 | 350 | . . | . . | 15 | . . | . . | 110 | 150 | . . | 168 | 350 | . . | . . | 16 | . . | . . | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350 | 65 | . . | 17 | . . | . . | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350[4]| 65 | . . | 18 | . . | . . | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350 | 65 | 154 | 19 | . . | . . | 110 | . . | 81 | 105 | 350 | 81 | . . | 20 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21 |Mixture of the residue of most of the | . . | . . | . . | 22 | other manures. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | ---+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+ Produce: Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. [5] C Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP Total Produce. TP Total Produce (Corn and Straw). C100 Corn to 100 Straw. --------------------------------------+-----------------+-----+--- | Increase per | | Produce per Acre, etc. | Acre by Manure. | | P ---------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ l Dressed corn. | | | | | | | | | o ---------+-----+ | | | | | | | | t Qty. [5] |Wt/Bu| OC | TC | S&C | TP | C | S&C | TP |C100 | s ---------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |lbs. | | 19 3¾ |58. 5 | 61 |1228 |1436 |2664 | 305 | 316 | 621 |85. 5 | 0 16 3 |59. 0 | 52 |1040 |1203 |2243 | 117 | 83 | 200 |86. 4 | 1 20 1¾ |59. 3 | 64 |1276 |1476 |2752 | 353 | 356 | 709 |86. 4 | 2 15 0 |58. 5 | 46 | 923 |1120 |2043 | . . | . . | . . |82. 4 | 3 14 2¼ |58. 0 | 44 | 888 |1104 |1992 | -35 | -16 | -51 |80. 4 | 4 15 2¼ |58. 3 | 48 | 956 |1116 |2072 | 33 | -4 | 29 |85. 6 | 5 15 1 |60. 0 | 48 | 964 |1100 |2064 | 41 | -20 | 21 |87. 6 | 6 15 2 |60. 3 | 49 | 984 |1172 |2156 | 61 | 52 | 113 |84. 0 | 7 15 0¾ |61. 3 | 49 | 980 |1160 |2140 | 57 | 40 | 97 |84. 5 | 8 19 2¼ |62. 3 | 54 |1280 |1368 |2048 | 357 | 248 | 605 |93. 5 | 9 15 1¾ |62. 0 | 50 |1008 |1112 |2120 | 85 | -8 | 77 |90. 6 |10 17 0¾ |61. 8 | 56 |1116 |1200 |2316 | 193 | 80 | 273 |93. 0 |11 15 2 |61. 5 | 50 |1004 |1116 |2120 | 81 | -4 | 77 |90. 0 |12 16 1¼ |62. 5 | 54 |1072 |1204 |2276 | 149 | 84 | 233 |89. 0 |13 15 3 |61. 3 | 51 |1016 |1176 |2192 | 93 | 56 | 149 |86. 4 |14 16 3¼ |62. 0 | 58 |1096 |1240 |2336 | 173 | 120 | 293 |88. 4 |15 19 3¼ |62. 5 | 65 |1304 |1480 |2784 | 381 | 360 | 741 |88. 1 |16 18 3¾ |62. 3 | 62 |1240 |1422 |2662 | 317 | 302 | 619 |87. 2 |17 20 3¾ |62. 0 | 63 |1368 |1768 |3136 | 415 | 618 |1093 |77. 4 |18 24 1¼ |61. 8 | 79 |1580 |1772 |3352 | 657 | 652 |1309 |89. 2 |19 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |21 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |22 ---------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--- [Note 1: The farmyard dung was burnt slowly in a heap in the open air to an imperfect or coaly ash, and 32 cwts. Of ash represent 14 tons of dung. ] [Note 2: The silicate of potass was manufactured at a glass-house, by fusing equal parts of pearl-ash and sand. The product was a transparent glass, slightly deliquescent in the air, which was ground to a powder under edge-stones. ] [Note 3: The manures termed superphosphate of lime, phosphate of potass, phosphate of soda, and phosphate of magnesia, were made by acting upon bone-ash by means of sulphuric acid in the first instance, and in the case-of the alkali salts and the magnesian one neutralizing the compound thus obtained by means of cheap preparations of the respective bases. For the superphosphate of lime, the proportions were 5 parts bone-ash, 3 parts water, and 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. Gr. 1. 84; and for the phosphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, they were 4 parts bone-ash, water as needed, 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. Gr. 1. 84, and equivalent amounts, respectively, of pearl-ash, soda-ash, or a mixture of 1 part medicinal carbonate of magnesia, and 4 parts magnesian limestone. The mixtures, of course, all lost weight considerably by the evolution of water and carbonic acid. ] [Note 4: Made with unburnt bones. ] [Note 5: In this first season, neither the weight nor the measure of the offal corn was recorded separately; and in former papers, the bushels and pecks of total corn (including offal) have erroneously been given as dressed corn. To bring the records more in conformity with those relating to the other years, 5 per cent, by weight, has been deducted from the total corn previously stated as dressed corn, and is recorded as offal corn; this being about the probable proportion, judging from the character of the season, the bulk of the crop, and the weight per bushel of the dressed corn. Although not strictly correct, the statements of dressed corn, as amended in this somewhat arbitrary way, will approximate more nearly to the truth, and be more comparable with those relating to other seasons, than those hitherto recorded. ] These were the results of the harvest of 1844. The first year of thesesince celebrated experiments. If Mr. Lawes expected that the crops would be in proportion to theminerals supplied in the manure, he must have been greatly disappointed. The plot without manure of any kind, gave 15 bushels of wheat per acre;700 lbs. Of superphosphate of lime, made from burnt bones, produced only38 lbs. Or about half a bushel more grain per acre, and 4 lbs. _less_straw than was obtained without manure. 640 lbs. Of superphosphate, and65 lbs. Of commercial sulphate of ammonia (equal to about 14 lbs. Ofammonia), gave a little over 19½ bushels of dressed wheat per acre. Ascompared with the plot having 700 lbs. Of superphosphate per acre, this14 lbs. Of available ammonia per acre, or, say 11½ lbs. Nitrogen, gavean increase of 324 lbs. Of grain, and 252 lbs. Of straw, or a totalincrease of 576 lbs. Of grain and straw. On plot No. 19, 81 lbs. Of sulphate ammonia, with minerals, produces 24¼bushels per acre. This yield is clearly due to the ammonia. The rape-cake contains about 5 per cent of nitrogen, and is also rich inminerals and _carbonaceous matter_. It gives an increase, but not aslarge in proportion to the nitrogen furnished, as the sulphate ofammonia. And the same remarks apply to the 14 tons of farm-yard manure. We should have expected a greater increase from such a liberal dressingof barn-yard manure. I think the explanation is this: The manure had notbeen piled. It was probably taken out fresh from the yard (this, at anyrate, was the case when I was at Rothamsted), and plowed under late inthe season. And on this heavy land, manure will lie buried in the soilfor months, or, if undisturbed, for years, without decomposition. Inother words, while this 14 tons of barn-yard manure, contained at least150 lbs. Of nitrogen, and a large quantity of minerals and carbonaceousmatter, it did not produce a bushel per acre more than a manurecontaining less than 12 lbs. Of nitrogen. And on plot 19, a manurecontaining less than 15 lbs. Of available nitrogen, produced nearly 4bushels per acre more wheat than the barn-yard manure containing atleast _ten times_ as much nitrogen. There can be but one explanation of this fact. The nitrogen in themanure lay dormant in this heavy soil. Had it been a light sandy soil, it would have decomposed more rapidly and produced a better effect. As we have before stated, John Johnston finds, on his clay-land, a fargreater effect from manure spread on the surface, where it decomposesrapidly, than when the manure is plowed under. The Deacon was looking at the figures in the table, and not paying muchattention to our talk. “What could a man be thinking about, ” he said, “to burn 14 tons of good manure! It was a great waste, and I am glad theashes did no sort of good. ” After the wheat was harvested in 1844, the land was immediately plowed, harrowed, etc. ; and in a few weeks was plowed again and sown to wheat, the different plots being kept separate, as before. The following table shows the manures used this second year, and theyield per acre: Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on The Same Land. Table II. --Manures and Produce; 2nd Season, 1845. Manures and Seed (Old Red Lammas) Sown March 1845. Manures: FM Farmyard Manure. SiP Silicate of Potass. [1] PhP Phosphate of Potass. [2] SPL Superphosphate of Lime. [2] B-A Bone-ash. MAc Muriatic Acid. G Guano. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. CAm Carbonate of Ammonia. RC Rape Cake. T Tapioca. ---+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | P | Manures per Acre. | l +-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+ o | | | | | | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | | | | | | s | FM | SiP|PhP |SPL |B-A | MAc| G | SAm | MAm | CAm | RC | T |---+-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+ |Tons. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. | 1 | . . |112 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224 | . . | . . |560 | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . |112 |112 | . . |112 | . . | . . | . . | . . |5[4]{1 Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | {2 . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |252[3]| . . | . . | 6 | . . | . . | . . |112 | . . | . . | . . |112 | . . | . . |560 | . . | 7 | . . | . . | . . |112 | . . | . . | . . |112 | . . | . . | . . |560 | 8 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |112 | . . | . . |560 | . . | 9 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |168[5]|166[5]| . . | . . | . . |10 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |168[6]|168[6]| . . | . . | . . |11 | . . | . . | . . |280 | . . | . . | . . |224 | . . | . . |560 | . . |12 | . . | . . |280 | . . | . . | . . | . . |224 | . . | . . | . . | . . |13 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |336[7]| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |672[8]| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |15 | . . | . . | . . | . . |224 |224 | . . |224 | . . | . . | . . | . . |16 | . . | . . | . . |224 | . . | . . | . . | 56 | 56 | . . |560 | . . |17 | . . | . . | . . |224 | . . | . . | . . |112 |112 | . . |280 | . . |18 | . . | . . | . . |336 | . . | . . | . . |112 |112 | . . | . . | . . |19 | . . | . . | . . | . . |112 |112 | . . |112 | . . | . . |390 | . . |20 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |21}|Mixture of the residue of most of the| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |22}| other manures. . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |---+-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+ Produce: Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. [5] C Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP Total Produce. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+---------------+-----+----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, etc. |Acre by Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+---------------+ | | l Dressed corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | | | | TP | | | t Qty. [5] |Wt/Bu| OC | TC | S&C| TP | C | S&C | C&S| OCD |C100| s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+---- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs| lbs. |lbs. | | | 32 0 |56. 5 |159 |1967|3977|5944| 526| 1265|1791|10. 9 |49. 5| 0 26 1¼ |54. 8 |248 |1689|3699|5388| 248| 987|1235|17. 3 |45. 7| 1 32 0 |56. 8 |151 |1967|3915|5882| 526| 1203|1729| 8. 9 |50. 2| 2 23 0¾ |56. 5 |131 |1441|2712|4153| . . | . . | . . | 8. 7 |53. 1| 3 29 2½ |58. 0 |161 |1879|3663|5542| 438| 951|1389| 9. 4 |51. 3| 4 22 2¼ |57. 5 |134 |1431|2684|4115| -10| -28| -38|10. 1 |53. 3|1}5 26 3¾ |57. 3 |190 |1732|3599|5331| 291| 887|1178|14. 2 |48. 1|2} 28 2¾ |57. 8 |214 |1871|3644|5515| 430| 932|1362|14. 1 |57. 3| 6 26 2¾ |57. 0 |161 |1682|3243|4925| 241| 531| 772|11. 3 |51. 9| 7 27 0½ |56. 3 |164 |1716|3663|5379| 275| 951|1226|14. 0 |46. 9| 8 33 1½ |58. 3 |187 |2131|4058|6189| 690| 1346|2036|10. 2 |52. 5| 9 31 3¼ |56. 3 |191 |1980|4266|6216| 539| 1554|2093|12. 3 |46. 4| 10 30 3 |56. 0 |158 |1880|4101|5981| 439| 1392|1831|11. 3 |45. 8| 11 28 2¼ |55. 8 |264 |1842|4134|5976| 401| 1422|1823|17. 8 |44. 5| 12 25 0 |56. 3 |152 |1558|3355|4913| 117| 643| 760|12. 0 |46. 4| 13 27 1 |57. 5 |176 |1743|3696|5439| 302| 981|1286|16. 2 |47. 1| 14 32 3¾ |57. 3 |209 |2103|4044|6147| 662| 1332|1994|11. 8 |52. 0| 15 32 2¼ |56. 3 |182 |2028|4191|6219| 587| 1479|2066|11. 1 |48. 4| 16 32 0¾ |55. 8 |299 |2093|3826|5919| 652| 1114|1766|15. 2 |54. 7| 17 33 1¼ |56. 5 |180 |2948|3819|3867| 607| 1107|1714|11. 2 |53. 6| 18 34 3 |57. 0 |133 |2114|4215|6329| 673| 1503|2176| 9. 1 |50. 2| 19 24 2¾ |56. 0 |113 |1495|3104|4599| 54| 392| 446| 9. 7 |48. 2| 20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 22 --------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+---- [Note 1: The silicate of potass was manufactured at a glass-house, by fusing equal parts of pearl-ash and sand. The product was a transparent glass, slightly deliquescent in the air; it was ground to powder under edge-stones. ] [Note 2: The manures termed superphosphate of lime and phosphate of potass, were made by acting upon bone-ash by means of sulphuric acid, and in the case of the potass salt neutralizing the compound thus obtained, by means of pearl-ash. For the superphosphate of lime, the proportions were, 5 parts bone-ash, 3 parts water, and 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. Gr. 1. 84; and for the phosphate of potass, 4 parts bone ash, water as needed, 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. Gr. 1. 84; and an equivalent amount of pearl-ash. The mixtures, of course, lost weight considerably by the evolution of water and carbonic acid. ] [Note 3: The medicinal carbonate of ammonia; it was dissolved in water and top-dressed. ] [Note 4: Plot 5, was 2 lands wide (in after years, respectively, 5_a_ and 5_b_); 5. 1 consisting of 2 alternate one-fourth lengths across both lands, and 5. 2 of the 2 remaining one-fourth lengths. ] [Note 5: Top-dressed at once. ] [Note 6: Top-dressed at 4 intervals. ] [Note 7: Peruvian. ] [Note 8: Ichaboe. ] The season of 1845 was more favorable for wheat, than that of 1844, andthe crops on all the plots were better. On plot No. 3, which had nomanure last year, or this, the yield is 23 bushels per acre, against 15bushels last year. Last year, the 14 tons of barn-yard manure gave an _increase_ of only 5¼bushels per acre. This year it gives an increase of nearly 9 bushels peracre. “Do you mean, ” said the Deacon, “that this plot, No. 2, had 14 tons ofmanure in 1844, and 14 tons of manure again in 1845?” “Precisely that, Deacon, ” said I, “and this same plot has received thisamount of manure every year since, up to the present time--for thesesame experiments are still continued from year to year at Rothamsted. ” “It is poor farming, ” said the Deacon, “and I should think the landwould get too rich to grow wheat. ” “It is not so, ” said I, “and the fact is an interesting one, and teachesa most important lesson, of which, more hereafter. ” Plot 5, last year, received 700 lbs. Of superphosphate per acre. Thisyear, this plot was divided; one half was left without manure, and theother dressed with 252 lbs. Of pure carbonate of ammonia per acre. Thehalf without manure, (5a), did not produce quite as much grain and strawas the plot which had received no manure for two years in succession. But the wheat was of better quality, weighing 1 lb. More per bushel thanthe other. Still it is sufficiently evident that superphosphate of limedid no good so far as increasing the growth was concerned, either thefirst year it was applied, or the year following. The carbonate of ammonia was dissolved in water and sprinkled over thegrowing wheat at three different times during the spring. You see thismanure, which contains no _mineral_ matter at all, gives an increase ofnearly 4 bushels of grain per acre, and an increase of 887 lbs. Ofstraw. “Wait a moment, ” said the Deacon, “is not 887 lbs. Of straw to 4 bushelsof grain an unusually large proportion of straw to grain? I have heardyou say that 100 lbs. Of straw to each bushel of wheat is about theaverage. And according to this experiment, the carbonate of ammoniaproduced over 200 lbs. Of straw to a bushel of grain. How do you accountfor this. ” “It is a general rule, ” said I, “that the heavier the crop, the greateris the proportion of straw to grain. On the no-manure plot, we have, this year, 118 lbs. Of straw to a bushel of dressed grain. Taking thisas the standard, you will find that the _increase_ from manures isproportionally greater in straw than in grain. Thus in the increase ofbarn-yard manure, this year, we have about 133 lbs. Of straw to a bushelof grain. I do not believe there is any manure that will give us a largecrop of grain without a still larger crop of straw. There isconsiderable difference, in this respect, between different varieties ofwheat. Still, I like to see a good growth of straw. ” “It is curious, ” said the Doctor, “that 3 cwt. Of ammonia-salts alone onplots 9 and 10 should produce as much wheat as was obtained from plot 2, where 14 tons of barn-yard manure had been applied two years insuccession. I notice that on one plot, the ammonia-salts were applied atonce, in the spring, while on the other plot they were sown at fourdifferent times--and that the former gave the best results. ” The only conclusion to be drawn from this, is, that it is desirable toapply the manure _early_ in the spring--or better still, in the autumn. “You are a great advocate of Peruvian guano, ” said the Deacon, “and yet3 cwt. Of Peruvian guano on Plot 13, only produced an increase of twobushels and 643 lbs. Of straw per acre. The guano at $60 per ton, wouldcost $9. 00 per acre. This will not pay. ” This is an unusually small increase. The reason, probably, is to befound in the fact that the manure and seed were not sown until March, instead of in the autumn. The salts of ammonia are quite soluble and actquickly; while the Peruvian guano has to decompose in the soil, andconsequently needs to be applied earlier, especially on clay land. “I do not want you, ” said the Deacon, “to dodge the question why anapplication of 14 tons of farmyard-manure per acre, every year for overthirty years, does not make the land too rich for wheat. ” “Possibly, ” said I, “on light, sandy soil, such an annual dressing ofmanure _would_ in the course of a few years make the land too rich forwheat. But on a clayey soil, such is evidently not the case. And thefact is a very important one. When we apply manure, our object should beto make it as available as possible. Nature preserves or conserves thefood of plants. The object of agriculture is to use the food of plantsfor our own advantage. ” “Please be a little more definite, ” said the Deacon, “for I must confessI do not quite see the significance of your remarks. ” “What he means, ” said the Doctor, “is this: If you put a quantity ofsoluble and available manure on land, and do not sow any crop, themanure will not be wasted. The soil will retain it. It will change itfrom a soluble into a comparatively insoluble form. Had a crop been sownthe first year, the manure would do far more good than it will the nextyear, and yet it may be that none of the manure is lost. It is merelylocked up in the soil in such a form as will prevent it from running towaste. If it was not for this principle, our lands would have been longago exhausted of all their available plant-food. ” “I think I understand, ” said the Deacon; “but if what you say is true, it upsets many of our old notions. We have thought it desirable to plowunder manure, in order to prevent the ammonia from escaping. You claim, I believe, that there is little danger of any loss from spreading manureon the surface, and I suppose you would have us conclude that we make amistake in plowing it under, as the soil renders it insoluble. ” “It depends a good deal, ” said I, “on the character of the soil. A light, sandy soil will not preserve manure like a clay soil. But it isundoubtedly true that our aim in all cases should be to apply manure insuch a form and to such a crop as will give us the greatest _immediate_benefit. Plowing under fresh manure every year for wheat is evidentlynot the best way to get the greatest benefit from it. But this is notthe place to discuss this matter. Let us look at the result of Mr. Lawes’ experiments on wheat the third year:” Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table III. --Manures and Produce; 3rd Season, 1845-6. Manures and Seed (Old Red Lammas), Sown Autumn, 1845. Manures FM Farmyard Manure. A3W Ash from 3 loads (3, 888 lbs. ) Wheat-straw. LWM Liebig’s Wheat-manure. PG Peruvian Guano. SPL Superphosphate of Lime. SiP Silicate of Potass. [1] P-A Pearl-ash. S-A Soda-ash. MLS Magnesian Lime-stone. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid (Sp. Gr. 1-7. ) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. RC Rape-Cake. -----+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Manures per Acre. | P +-----+-----+---+---+-----------+---+---+---+---+------+---+---+ l | | | | | | | | | | | | | o | | | | | SPL | | | | | | | | t | | | | +-----------+ | | | | | | | s | FM | A3W |LWM|PG |SiP|P-A|S-A|MLS|B-A|SAc|MAc| SAm |MAm|RC | -----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------+---+---+ |Tons. |lbs. |lbs|lbs|bs. |lbs|lbs|lbs|lbs|lbs|lbs|lbs. |lbs|lbs| 0 | . . | . . | . . |336| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . |224| 224 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5a{1| . . }| |{. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | {2| . . }|Straw|{. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224[1]| . . | . . | 5b{1| . . }| Ash |{. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |448| {2| . . }| |{. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224[1]| . . |448| 6a | . . | . . |448| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 6b | . . | . . |448| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 112 |112| . . | 7a | . . | . . |448| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |448| 7b | . . | . . |448| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 112 |112|448| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . | . . | . . | . . |448| 8b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . | . . | 112 |112| . . | 9a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |448| 9b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 224 | . . |448| 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 224 | . . | . . | 10b |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224|224| . . | . . | . . |448| 11b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224|224| . . | 112 |112| . . | 12a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |180| . . |224|224| . . | . . | . . |448| 12b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |180| . . |224|224| . . | 112 |112| . . | 13a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200| . . | . . |224|224| . . | . . | . . |448| 13b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200| . . | . . |224|224| . . | 112 |112| . . | 14a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 84|224|224| . . | . . | . . |448| 14b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 84|224|224| . . | 112 |112| . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . |224| 224 | . . |448| 15b | . . | . . | . . | . . |224| . . | . . | . . |224| . . |224| 224 | . . |448| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | . . | . . |448| 16b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | 224 | . . |448| 17a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | 112 | 11|448| 17b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | 224 | . . | . . | 18a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | 112 | 11| . . | 18b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 67| 60| 84|224|224| . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |112| . . |112| 112 | . . |448| 20 }| | | | | | | | 21 }| Mixture of the residue of | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 22 }| most of the other manures. | | | | | | | -----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------+---+---+ Produce: Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP Total Produce (Corn and Straw). C Corn. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+------------------+-----+-----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, etc. | Acre by Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu| OC | TC |S&C | TP | C | S&C | TP | OCD |C100 | s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-----+-----+---- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs. | | | 28 1¾ |62. 3 |134 |1906|2561|4467| 699 |1048 | 1747 | 7. 3 |74. 4 | 0 22 0¾ |62. 6 |120 |1509|1953|3462| 302 | 440 | 742 | 8. 1 |77. 3 | 1 27 0¾ |63. 0 |113 |1826|2454|4280| 619 | 941 | 1560 | 6. 6 |74. 4 | 2 17 3¾ |63. 8 | 64 |1207|1513|2720| . . | . . | . . | 7. 4 |79. 7 | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 25 3¾ |63. 5 |130 |1777|2390|4167| 570 | 877 | 1447 | 7. 8 |74. 3 | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 19 0½ |63. 7 | 87 |1305|1541|2846| 98 | 28 | 126 | . . |84. 6 |1}5a 27 0 |63. 0 |126 |1827|2309|4136| 620 | 796 | 1416 | . . |79. 1 |2} 23 2½ |63. 4 |100 |1598|1721|3319| 391 | 208 | 599 | . . |92. 8 |1}5b 30 0¾ |63. 3 |165 |2076|2901|4977| 869 |1388 | 2257 | . . |71. 6 |2} 20 1½ |63. 7 |102 |1400|1676|3076| 193 | 163 | 356 | 7. 0 |83. 6 | 6a 29 0¾ |63. 5 |114 |1967|2571|4538| 760 |1058 | 1818 | 5. 3 |76. 5 | 6b 22 3¼ |63. 0 | 97 |1534|1968|3502| 327 | 405 | 732 | 6. 8 |77. 9 | 7a 31 3 |63. 4 |150 |2163|3007|5170| 956 |1494 | 2450 | 7. 5 |72. 6 | 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 22 3¾ |63. 5 |101 |1549|1963|3512| 342 | 450 | 792 | 7. 1 |78. 9 | 8a 29 0¾ |63. 6 |132 |1988|2575|4563| 781 |1062 | 1843 | 7. 2 |77. 2 | 8b 23 2¾ |63. 0 |122 |1614|2033|3647| 407 | 520 | 927 | 7. 9 |79. 4 | 9a 28 3½ |63. 3 |114 |1942|2603|4545| 735 |1090 | 1825 | 7. 0 |74. 6 | 9b 27 1½ |63. 6 |109 |1850|2244|4094 643 | 731 | 1374 | 6. 4 |82. 4 | 10a 17 2½ |63. 8 | 92 |1216|1455|2671| 9 | -58 | -49 | 7. 8 |83. 6 | 10b | | | | | | | | | | | 23 1¾ |63. 3 |145 |1628|2133|3761| 421 | 620 | 1041 | 9. 8 |76. 3 | 11a 30 0¼ |63. 2 |155 |2055|2715|4770| 848 |1202 | 2050 | 6. 1 |75. 7 | 11b 24 1½ |63. 0 |125 |1661|2163|3824| 454 | 650 | 1104 | 7. 9 |76. 8 | 12a 28 2¾ |63. 4 |136 |1955|2554|4509| 748 |1041 | 1789 | 7. 4 |76. 5 | 12b 24 0 |63. 5 |136 |1660|2327|3987| 453 | 814 | 1267 | 9. 1 |71. 3 | 13a 29 1¾ |63. 2 |138 |1998|2755|4753| 791 |1242 | 2033 | 7. 3 |72. 5 | 13b 23 2½ |63. 0 |117 |1605|2031|3636| 398 | 518 | 916 | 7. 7 |79. 0 | 14a 26 2½ |63. 4 |124 |1812|2534|4356| 605 |1021 | 1626 | 7. 4 |71. 5 | 14b | | | | | | | | | | | 31 1¾ |62. 5 |147 |2112|2936|5048| 905 |1423 | 2328 | 7. 5 |71. 9 | 15a 27 2¾ |63. 0 |117 |1861|2513|4374| 654 |1000 | 1654 | 5. 9 |74. 0 | 15b | | | | | | | | | | | 23 3 |62. 5 |108 |1592|2967|3659| 385 | 554 | 939 | 7. 0 |77. 0 | 16a 30 1 |62. 7 |122 |2019|2836|4855| 812 |1323 | 2135 | 6. 6 |71. 2 | 16b 33 2¾ |62. 8 |129 |2241|3278|5519|1034 |1765 | 2799 | 5. 8 |68. 3 | 17a 30 2 |63. 0 |113 |2034|2784|4818| 827 |1271 | 2098 | 5. 9 |73. 0 | 17b 31 0 |62. 8 |103 |2048|2838|4886| 841 |1325 | 2166 | 5. 1 |72. 2 | 18a 21 1 |62. 0 |157 |1474|1893|3367| 267 | 380 | 647 | 6. 6 |77. 1 | 18b | | | | | | | | | | | 28 3 |62. 0 |107 |1889|2425|4314| 682 | 912 | 1594 | 5. 8 |77. 9 | 19 | | | | | | | | | | |{20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |{21 | | | | | | | | | | |{22 --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-----+-----+---- [Note 1: Top-dressed in the Spring. ] This year, the seed and manures were sown in the autumn. And I want theDeacon to look at plot 0. 3 cwt. Of Peruvian guano here gives anincrease of 10½ bushels of wheat, and 1, 948 lbs. Of straw per acre. Thiswill pay _well_, even on the wheat alone. But in addition to this, wemay expect, in our ordinary rotation of crops, a far better crop ofclover where the guano was used. In regard to some of the results this year, Messrs. Lawes and Gilberthave the following concise and interesting remarks: “At this third experimental harvest, we have on the continuouslyunmanured plot, namely, No. 3, not quite 18 bushels of dressed corn, asthe normal produce of the season; and by its side we have on plot10_b_--comprising one-half of the plot 10 of the previous years, and sohighly manured by ammoniacal salts in 1845, but now unmanured--rathermore than 17½ bushels. The near approach, again, to identity of resultfrom the two unmanured plots, at once gives confidence in the accuracyof the experiments, and shows us how effectually the preceding crop had, in a practical point of view, reduced the plots, previously sodifferently circumstanced both as to manure and produce, to somethinglike an uniform standard as regards their grain-producing qualities. “Plot 2 has, as before, 14 tons of farm-yard manure, and the produce is27¼ bushels, or between 9 and 10 bushels more than without manure of anykind. “On plot 10_a_, which in the previous year gave by ammoniacal saltsalone, a produce equal to that of the farm-yard manure, we have again asimilar result: for two cwts. Of sulphate of ammonia has now given 1, 850lbs. Of total corn, instead of 1, 826 lbs. , which is the produce on plot2. The straw of the latter, is, however, slightly heavier than that bythe ammoniacal salt. “Again, plot 5_a_, which was in the previous season _unmanured_, wasnow subdivided: on one-half of it (namely, 5_a_1) we have the ashes ofwheat-straw alone, by which there is an increase of rather more than onebushel per acre of dressed corn; on the other half (or 5_a_2) we have, besides the straw-ashes, two cwts. Of sulphate of ammonia put on as atop-dressing: two cwts. Of sulphate of ammonia have, in this case, onlyincreased the produce beyond that of 5_a_1 by 7⅞ bushels of corn and768 lbs. Of straw, instead of by 9¾ bushels of corn and 789 lbs. Ofstraw, which was the increase obtained by the same amount of ammoniacalsalt on 10_a_, as compared with 10_b_. “It will be observed, however, that in the former case the ammoniacalsalts were top-dressed, but in the latter they were drilled at the timeof sowing the seed; and it will be remembered that in 1845 the resultwas better _as to corn_ on plot 9, where the salts were sown earlier, than on plot 10, where the top-dressing extended far into the spring. Wehave had several direct instances of this kind in our experience, and wewould give it as a suggestion, in most cases applicable, that manuresfor wheat, and especially ammoniacal ones, should be applied before orat the time the seed is sown; for, although the apparent luxuriance ofthe crop is greater, and the produce of straw really heavier, by springrather than autumn sowings of Peruvian guano and other ammoniacalmanures, yet we believe that that of the _corn_ will not be increased inan equivalent degree. Indeed, the success of the crop undoubtedlydepends very materially on the progress of the underground growth duringthe winter months; and this again, other things being equal, upon thequantity of available nitrogenous constituents within the soil, withouta liberal provision of which, the range of the fibrous feeders of theplant will not be such, as to take up the minerals which the soil iscompetent to supply, and in such quantity as will be required during theafter progress of the plant for its healthy and favorable growth. ” These remarks are very suggestive and deserve special attention. “The next result to be noticed, ” continue Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert, “isthat obtained on plot 6, now also divided into two equal portionsdesignated respectively 6_a_ and 6_b_. Plot No. 6 had for the crop of1844, superphosphate of lime and the phosphate of magnesia manure, andfor that of 1845, superphosphate of lime, rape-cake, and ammoniacalsalts. For this, the third season, it was devoted to the trial of thewheat-manure manufactured under the sanction of Professor Liebig, andpatented in this country. “Upon plots 6_a_, four cwts. Per acre of the patent wheat-manure wereused, which gave 20¼ bushels, or rather more than two bushels beyond theproduce of the unmanured plot; but as the manure contained, besides theminerals peculiar to it, some nitrogenous compounds, giving off a veryperceptible odor of ammonia, some, at least, of the increase would bedue to that substance. On plot 6_b_, however, the further addition ofone cwt. Each of sulphate and muriate of ammonia to this so-called‘Mineral Manure, ’ gives a produce of 29¼ bushels. In other words, theaddition of ammoniacal salt, to Liebig’s mineral manure has increasedthe produce by very nearly 9 bushels per acre beyond that of the mineralmanure alone, whilst the increase obtained over the unmanured plot, by14 tons of farm-yard manure, was only 9¼ bushels! The following table gives the results of the experiments the _fourth_year, 1846-7. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table IV. --Manures and Produce; 4th Season, 1846-7. Manures and Seed (Old Red Lammas), Sown End of October, 1846. Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. PG Peruvian Guano. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid (Sp. Gr. 1-7. ) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. R Rice. -----+--------------------------------------------------------+ | Manures per Acre. | P +-------+------+--------------------+------+------+------+ l | | | Superphosphate | | | | o | | | of Lime | | | | t | | +------+------+------+ | | | s | FM | PG | B-A | SAc | MAc | SAm | MAm | R | -----+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | Tons. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | 0 | . . | 500 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 350 | 50 | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 | Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | 5a | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 5b | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 6a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 6b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 7a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 7b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | 8a | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 8b | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 9a{1| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |2240 | {2| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 9b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 10b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | 11a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 11b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 12a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 12b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 13a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 13b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 14a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 14b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | 15a | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500 | 15b | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500 | | | | | | | | | | 16a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 16b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 17a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 17b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18a | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 18b | . . | . . | 100 | 100 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | 100 | . . | 100 | 300 | . . | 500 | 20 | Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21 }| Mixture of the residue of most of the | . . | . . | 22 }| other manures. | . . | . . | -----+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ Produce Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw. ) C Corn. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. -----------------------------------+-----------------+-----+-----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, &c. | Acre By Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | TP | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu| OC | TC | S&C |C&S | C | S&C | TP | OCD |C100 | s --------+-----+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | | | 30 2¾ |61. 1 | 156|2031|3277 |5308| 908 |1375 |2283 | 8. 2 |61. 9 | 0 32 1 |61. 2 | 147|2119|3735 |5854| 996 |1833 |2829 | 7. 2 |56. 7 | 1 29 3¾ |62. 3 | 117|1981|3628 |5609| 858 |1726 |2584 | 6. 2 |54. 6 | 2 16 3½ |61. 0 | 95|1123|1902 |3025| . . | . . | . . | 8. 9 |59. 0 | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 27 1¾ |61. 9 | 82|1780|2948 |4728| 657 |1046 |1703 | 4. 7 |60. 3 | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 29 0 |61. 8 | 130|1921|3412 |5333| 798 |1510 |2309 | 7. 1 |56. 3 | 5a 32 2 |61. 4 | 136|2132|3721 |5853|1009 |1819 |2827 | 6. 6 |57. 2 | 5b 24 3¼ |62. 1 | 122|1663|2786 |4449| 540 | 884 |1124 | 7. 8 |59. 6 | 6a 24 1¾ |61. 6 | 127|1632|2803 |4435| 509 | 901 |1410 | 8. 2 |58. 2 | 6b 27 3¼ |61. 7 | 118|1834|3151 |4985| 711 |1249 |1960 | 6. 8 |58. 2 | 7a 25 1¼ |61. 5 | 125|1682|2953 |4635| 559 |1051 |1610 | 7. 9 |56. 9 | 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 32 1¾ |62. 1 | 102|2115|3683 |5798| 992 |1781 |2773 | 5. 5 |57. 4 | 8a 30 3 |61. 7 | 123|2020|3720 |5740| 897 |1818 |2715 | 6. 5 |54. 3 | 8b 22 3 |62. 5 | . . |1477|2506 |3983| 228 | 604 | . . | . . |53. 9 |1}9a 26 2 |61. 0 | . . |1755|3052 |4807| 632 |1150 | . . | . . |57. 5 |2} 26 0 |61. 3 | 123|1717|2858 |4575| 594 | 956 |1550 | . . |60. 1 | 9b 25 3 |61. 5 | 118|1702|2891 |4593| 579 | 989 |1568 | 7. 3 |58. 8 | 10a 25 2¾ |61. 2 | 133|1705|2874 |4579| 582 | 972 |1554 | 8. 2 |59. 3 | 10b | | | | | | | | | | | 30 3½ |61. 6 | 142|2044|3517 |5561| 921 |1615 |2536 | 6. 3 |59. 5 | 11a 29 1¾ |61. 8 | 123|1941|3203 |5144| 818 |1301 |2119 | 6. 7 |60. 6 | 11b 29 2 |62. 0 | 124|1953|3452 |5405| 830 |1550 |2380 | 6. 6 |57. 1 | 12a 27 0½ |61. 8 | 121|1796|3124 |4920| 673 |1222 |1895 | 7. 1 |57. 4 | 12b 20 2½ |62. 5 | 108|1959|3306 |5265| 836 |1404 |2240 | 5. 5 |57. 3 | 13a 27 1¼ |62. 3 | 96|1801|3171 |4972| 678 |1269 |1947 | 5. 3 |56. 7 | 13b 28 0¾ |62. 8 | 175|1944|3362 |5306| 821 |1460 |2281 | 9. 7 |59. 5 | 14a 26 3¾ |62. 8 | 166|1856|3006 |4862| 733 |1104 |1837 | 9. 8 |61. 7 | 14b | | | | | | | | | | | 32 3 |63. 0 | 151|2214|3876 |6090|1091 |1974 |3065 | 7. 2 |57. 1 | 15a 32 0 |62. 6 | 137|2140|3617 |5757|1017 |1715 |2732 | 6. 6 |59. 1 | 15b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 1¼ |62. 3 | 132|1959|3417 |5376| 836 |1515 |2351 | 6. 9 |57. 3 | 16a 34 2¼ |62. 6 | 119|2283|4012 |6295|1160 |2110 |3270 | 5. 2 |56. 9 | 16b 33 3 |62. 3 | 119|2222|4027 |6249|1099 |2125 |3224 | 5. 6 |55. 1 | 17a 35 1¼ |62. 0 | 117|2314|4261 |6575|1191 |2359 |3550 | 6. 4 |54. 3 | 17b 32 0¾ |62. 7 | 142|2160|3852 |6012|1037 |1950 |2987 | 6. 9 |56. 0 | 18a 29 1½ |62. 9 | 181|2029|4164 |6193| 906 |2262 |3168 | 9. 7 |48. 7 | 18b | | | | | | | | | | | 32 3 |62. 8 | 140|2195|4202 |6397|1072 |2300 |3372 | 6. 7 |52. 2 | 19 20 0¾ |62. 5 | 70|1332|2074 |3406| 209 | 172 | 381 | 4. 9 |64. 2 | 20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |}21 | | | | | | | | | | |}22 --------+-----+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Here again, I want the Deacon to look at plot 0, where 500 lbs. Peruvianguano, sown in October, gives an _increase_ of nearly 14 bushels ofdressed wheat and 1, 375 lbs. Of straw per acre. On plot 2, where 14 tonsof barn-yard manure have now been applied four years in succession (56tons in all), there is a little more straw, but not quite so much grain, as from the 500 lbs. Of guano. “But will the guano, ” said the Deacon, “be as lasting as the manure?” “Not for wheat, ” said I. “But if you seed the wheat down with clover, aswould be the case in this section, we should get considerable benefit, probably, from the guano. If wheat was sown after the wheat, the guanoapplied the previous season would do little good on the second crop ofwheat. And yet it is a matter of fact that there would be a considerableproportion of the guano left in the soil. The wheat cannot take it up. But the clover can. And we all know that if we can grow good crops ofclover, plowing it under, or feeding it out on the land, or making itinto hay and saving the manure obtained from it, we shall thus beenabled to raise good crops of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, and corn, and in this sense guano is a ‘lasting’ manure. ” “Barnyard-manure, ” said the Doctor, “is altogether too ‘lasting. ’ Herewe have had 56 tons of manure on an acre of land in four years, and yetan acre dressed with 500 lbs. Of guano produces just as good a crop. Themanure contains far more plant-food, of all kinds, than the guano, butit is so ‘lasting’ that it does not do half as much good as itscomposition would lead us to expect. Its ‘lasting’ properties are adecided objection, rather than an advantage. If we could make it lesslasting--in other words, if we could make it act quicker, it wouldproduce a greater effect, and possess a greater value. In proportion toits constituents, the barn-yard manure is far cheaper than the guano, but it has a less beneficial effect, because these constituents are notmore completely decomposed and rendered available. ” “That, ” said I, “opens up a very important question. We have more realvalue in manure than most of us are as yet able to bring out and turn togood account. The sandy-land farmer has an advantage over the clay-landfarmer in this respect. The latter has a naturally richer soil, but itcosts him more to work it, and manure does not act so rapidly. Theclay-land farmer should use his best endeavors to decompose his manure. ” “Yes, ” said the Doctor, “and, like John Johnston, he will probably findit to his advantage to use it largely as a top-dressing on the surface. Exposing manure to the atmosphere, spread out on the land for severalmonths, and harrowing it occasionally, will do much to render itsconstituents available. But let us return to Mr. Lawes’ wonderfulexperiments. ” “On eight plots, ” said I, “300 lbs. Of ammonia-salts were used withoutany other manures, and the _average_ yield on these eight plots wasnearly 26 bushels per acre, or an average increase of 9 bushels peracre. The same amount of ammonia-salts, with the addition ofsuperphosphate of lime, gave an increase of 13 bushels per acre. 400lbs. Ammonia salts, with superphosphate of lime, gave an _increase_ ofnearly 16 bushels per acre, or three bushels per acre more than where 14tons of barn-yard manure had been used four years in succession. “I hope, after this, the Deacon will forgive me for dwelling on thevalue of available nitrogen or ammonia as a manure for wheat. ” “I see, ” said the Deacon, “that ground _rice_ was used this year formanure; and in 1845, _tapioca_ was also used as a manure. TheConnecticut Tobacco growers a few years since used _corn-meal_ formanure, and you thought it a great waste of good food. ” I think so still. But we will not discuss the matter now. Mr. Laweswanted to ascertain whether _carbonaceous_ matter was needed by thegrowing wheat-plants, or whether they could get all they needed from thesoil and the atmosphere. The enormous quantities of carbonaceous mattersupplied by the barn-yard manure, it is quite evident, are of littlevalue as a manure for wheat. And the rice seems to have done very littlemore good than we should expect from the 22 lbs. Of nitrogen which itcontained. The large quantity of carbonaceous matter evidently didlittle good. Available carbonaceous matter, such as starch, sugar, andoil, was intended as food for man and beast--not as food for wheat ortobacco. The following table gives the results of the experiments the _fifth_year, 1847-8. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table V. --Manures and Produce; 5th Season, 1847-8. Manures and Seed (Old Red Lammas), Sown Autumn, 1847. Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. P-A Pearl-ash. S-A Soda-ash. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. SPL Superphosphate of Lime. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid (Sp. Gr. 1. 7. ) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. RC Rape-Cake. ---+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manure per Acre, etc. | P +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------+-----+-----+ l | | | | | | Superphosphate | | | o | | | | | | of Lime. | | | t | | | | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | s | FM | P-A | S-A | SMg | SPL | B-A | SAc | MAc | SAm | MAm | RC | ---+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Tons|lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | . . | . . | . . | . . |2240 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 | Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 250 | 250 | . . | 5 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | 500 | 6 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 400 | 300 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 6 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 7 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 400 | 300 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 7 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 8 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 9 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 9 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 10 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 10 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | . . | 11 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 11 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 12 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 12 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 13 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 13 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 14 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 14 | . . | 300 | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | 15 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 16 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | 500 | 17 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 17 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | 18 | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 150 | 150 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500 | 20 | Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21}| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 22}| | | | | | | | | | | | ---+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Produce Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw. ) C Corn. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+-----------------+----+-----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, &c. | Acre By Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | TP | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu|OC | TC |S&C |C&S | C | S&C | TP |OCD |C100 | s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+---- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | | | 19 0¾ |53. 4 |138 |1259|2074|3333| 307 | 362 | 669|13. 4| 60. 7| 0 16 0¾ |59. 6 |160 |1124|1735|2859| 172 | 23 | 195|16. 3| 64. 7| 1 23 2¾ |58. 2 |210 |1705|3041|4746| 753 |1329 | 2082|13. 8| 56. 0| 2 14 3 |57. 3 |106 | 952|1712|2664| . . | . . | . . |12. 1| 55. 6| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 24 0½ |58. 5 |172 |1583|2713|4296| 631 |1001 | 1632|12. 0| 58. 3| 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 29 3½ |59. 2 |144 |1911|3266|5177| 959 |1554 | 2513| 7. 9| 58. 5| 5a 39 3½ |59. 1 |107 |1932|3533|5465| 980 |1821 | 2801| 5. 8| 57. 5| 5b 24 3¼ |58. 8 |214 |1672|2878|4550| 720 |1166 | 1886|14. 6| 58. 0| 6a 26 3 |56. 9 |216 |1737|2968|4705| 785 |1256 | 2041|14. 0| 58. 5| 6b 30 3¼ |59. 4 |106 |1936|3088|5024| 984 |1376 | 2360| 5. 7| 62. 6| 7a 29 3¼ |59. 6 |187 |1963|3413|5376|1011 |1701 | 2712|10. 3| 57. 5| 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 19 3 |56. 2 |154 |1263|2317|3580| 311 | 605 | 916|13. 6| 54. 5| 8a 19 0¾ |59. 4 |127 |1267|2148|3415| 315 | 436 | 751|11. 1| 58. 8| 8b 18 2½ |56. 7 |125 |1181|1945|3126| 229 | 233 | 462|11. 6| 60. 7| 9a 25 0¼ |53. 3 |208 |1669|2918|4587| 717 |1206 | 1923|13. 9| 57. 1| 9b 19 1 |58. 1 |215 |1334|2367|3701| 382 | 655 | 1037|19. 0| 56. 3| 10a 25 0¼ |57. 8 |155 |1604|2926|4530| 652 |1214 | 1866|10. 6| 54. 8| 10b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 1½ |59. 6 |233 |1984|3274|5258|1032 |1562 | 2594|13. 1| 60. 6| 11a 24 3 |57. 9 |207 |1641|2898|4539| 689 |1186 | 1875|14. 1| 56. 4| 11b 29 3 |59. 3 |174 |1938|3390|5328| 986 |1678 | 2664| 9. 3| 57. 2| 12a 26 0¾ |59. 2 |167 |1717|2880|4597| 765 |1168 | 1933|10. 7| 59. 6| 12b 29 1½ |57. 9 |253 |1955|3290|5245|1003 |1578 | 2581|14. 7| 59. 4| 13a 25 3¼ |58. 4 |224 |1730|3072|4802| 778 |1360 | 2138|14. 6| 56. 3| 13b 28 0¼ |58. 8 |184 |1834|3257|5091| 882 |1545 | 2427|11. 1| 56. 3| 14a 25 2½ |58. 5 |227 |1726|2897|4623| 774 |1185 | 1959|15. 1| 59. 5| 14b | | | | | | | | | | | 22 3½ |58. 1 |242 |1571|2937|4508| 619 |1225 | 1844|18. 1| 53. 4| 15a 24 2¾ |56. 9 |202 |1607|3016|4623| 655 |1304 | 1959|14. 1| 53. 2| 15b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 3¼ |60. 0 |184 |1973|3115|5088|1021 |1403 | 2424|10. 2| 63. 3| 16a 30 1¾ |58. 4 |171 |1948|3380|5328| 996 |1668 | 2664| 9. 4| 57. 6| 16b 27 2½ |59. 7 |285 |1933|3296|5229| 981 |1584 | 2565|17. 0| 58. 6| 17a 28 3½ |59. 7 |222 |1946|3324|5270| 994 |1612 | 2606|12. 6| 58. 5| 17b 26 3 |59. 2 |150 |1734|2935|4669| 782 |1223 | 2005| 9. 2| 59. 0| 18a 26 2¾ |59. 6 |215 |1804|3056|4860| 852 |1344 | 2196|13. 3| 58. 7| 18b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 1¾ |56. 2 |185 |1838|3295|5133| 886 |1583 | 2469|10. 4| 55. 7| 19 16 0½ |58. 3 |111 |1050|1721|2771| 98 | 9 | 107|11. 3| 61. 0| 20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |}21 | | | | | | | | | | |}22 --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+---- This season was considered unfavorable for wheat. The continuouslyunmanured plot produced 14¾ bushels, and the plot receiving 14 tons ofbarn yard manure, 25¾ bushels per acre nearly. 300 lbs. Of ammonia-salts alone on plot 10_a_, gave 19¼ bushels peracre, while the same quantity of ammonia, with superphosphate inaddition, gave, on plot 9_b_, 25 bushels per acre. The addition to the above manures of 300 lbs. Of potash, 200 lbs. Soda, and 100 lbs. Sulphate of magnesia, on plot 10_b_, gave precisely thesame yield per acre as the ammonia and the superphosphate alone. _Thepotash, soda, and magnesia, therefore, did no good. _ 400 lbs. Of ammonia-salts, with superphosphate, potash, etc. , gave, onplot 17_b_, nearly 29 bushels per acre, or 3½ bushels more than the plotwhich has now received 70 tons of barn-yard manure in five successiveyears. “I see that, on plot 0, ” said the Deacon, “one ton of superphosphate wasused per acre, and it gave only half a bushel per acre more than 350lbs. On 9_a_. ” “This proves, ” said I, “that an excessive dose of superphosphate will dono harm. I am not sure that 100 lbs. Of a good superphosphate _drilledin with the seed_, would not have done _as much good_ as a ton peracre. ” “You say, ” remarked the Deacon, “that the season was unfavorable forwheat. And yet the no-manure plot produced nearly 15 bushels of wheatper acre. ” “That is all true, ” said I, “and yet the season was undoubtedly anunfavorable one. This is shown not only in the less yield, but in theinferior quality of the grain. The ‘dressed corn’ on the no-manure plotthis year only weighed 57⅓ lbs. Per bushel, while last year it weighed61 lbs. Per bushel. ” “By the way, ” said the Doctor, “what do Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert meanby ‘dressed corn’?” “By ‘corn, ’” said I, “they mean wheat; and by ‘dressed corn’ they meanwheat that has been run through a fanning-mill until all the light andshrunken grain is blown or sieved out. In other words, ‘dressed corn’ iswheat carefully cleaned for market. The English farmers take more painsin cleaning their grain than we do. And this ‘dressed corn’ was as cleanas a good fanning-mill could make it. You will observe that there wasmore ‘offal corn’ this year than last. This also indicates anunfavorable season. ” “It would have been very interesting, ” said the Doctor, “if Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert had analyzed the wheat produced by the differentmanures, so that we might have known something in regard to the qualityof the flour as influenced by the use of different fertilizers. ” “They did that very thing, ” said I, “and not only that, but they madethe wheat grown on different plots, into flour, and ascertained theyield of flour from a given weight of wheat, and the amount of bran, middlings, etc. , etc. They obtained some very interesting and importantresults. I was there at the time. But this is not the place to discussthe question. I am often amused, however, at the remarks we often hearin regard to the inferior quality of our wheat as compared to what itwas when the country was new. Many seem to think that ‘there issomething lacking in the soil’--some say potash, and some phosphates, and some this, and some that. I believe nothing of the kind. Depend uponit, the variety of the wheat and the soil and season have much more todo with the quality or strength of the flour, than the chemicalcomposition of the manures applied to the land. ” “At any rate, ” said the Doctor, “we may be satisfied that anything thatwill produce a vigorous, healthy growth of wheat is favorable toquality. We may use manures in excess, and thus produce over-luxurianceand an unhealthy growth, and have poor, shrunken grain. In this case, itis not the use, but the abuse of the manure that does the mischief. Wemust not manure higher than the season will bear. As yet, this questionrarely troubles us. Hitherto, as a rule, our seasons are better than ourfarming. It may not always be so. We may find the liberal use of manureso profitable that we shall occasionally use it in excess. At present, however, the tendency is all the other way. We have more grain ofinferior quality from lack of fertility than from an excess ofplant-food. ” “That may be true, ” said I, “but we have more poor, inferior wheat fromlack of draining and good culture, than from lack of plant-food. Red-root, thistles, cockle, and chess, have done more to injure thereputation of ‘Genesee Flour, ’ than any other one thing, and I shouldlike to hear more said about thorough cultivation, and the destructionof weeds, and less about soil exhaustion. ” The following table shows the results of the experiments the _sixthyear_, 1848-9. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table VI. --Manures and Produce; 6th Season, 1848-9. Manures and Seed (Red Cluster), Sown Autumn, 1848. Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. P-A Pearl-ash. S-A Soda-ash. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid. (Sp. Gr. 1. 7) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. RC Rape-cake. ----+----------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Manures per Acre. | P +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+----+ l | | | | | Superphosphate | | | | o | | | | | of Lime. | | | | t | | | | +-----+-----+-----+ | | | s | FM | P-A | S-A | SMg | B-A | SAc | MAc | SAm | MAm | RC | ----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+ |Tons. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 600 | 450 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | 600 | 400 | 200 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 5a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 250 | 250 | . . | 5b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | 500| 6a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 6b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 7a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 7b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 8a |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 8b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |2000| 9a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |2000| 9b |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 10b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 11a | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 11b | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 12a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 12b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 13a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 13b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 14a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 14b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 15a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | 15b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500| | | | | | | | | | | | 16a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 16b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 17a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 17b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500| 20 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 21 }|Mixture of the residue of most of the other | . . | . . | 22 }| manures. | | | ----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+ Produce Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw. ) C Corn. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+-----------------+----+----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, &c. | Acre By Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | TP | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu| OC | TC |S&C |C&S | C | S&C | TP |OCD |C100| s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- Bu Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | | | . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 0 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 31 0 |63. 8 |107 |2068|3029|5097| 839|1415 | 2254|4. 7 |68. 3| 2 19 1 |61. 4 | 47 |1229|1614|2843| . . | . . | . . |3. 9 |76. 1| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 30 0 |63. 0 |110 |2063|2645|4708| 834|1031 | 1865|5. 6 |78. 0| 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 37 1¼ |63. 1 | 89 |2446|3589|6035| 1217|1975 | 3192|3. 7 |68. 1| 5a 39 3½ |63. 4 | 97 |2651|3824|6475| 1422|2210 | 3632|5. 0 |69. 3| 5b 36 1½ |63. 0 |117 |2410|3072|5482| 1181|1458 | 2639|5. 1 |78. 4| 6a 37 3¾ |63. 0 | 94 |2484|3516|6000| 1255|1902 | 3157|3. 9 |70. 6| 6b 38 2¼ |63. 1 |137 |2576|3584|6160| 1347|1970 | 3317|5. 6 |71. 9| 7a 37 3¾ |62. 9 |141 |2531|3396|5927| 1302|1782 | 3084|5. 9 |74. 5| 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 22 3 |61. 7 | 76 |1481|1815|3296| 252| 201 | 453|5. 3 |81. 6| 8a 31 2½ |63. 0 | 85 |2080|3166|5246| 851|1552 | 2403|4. 3 |65. 7| 8b 30 2¾ |62. 8 |111 |2035|2683|4718| 806|1069 | 1875|5. 8 |75. 8| 9a 22 1½ |62. 3 | 80 |1475|1810|3285| 246| 196 | 432|5. 7 |81. 5| 9b 32 2¼ |62. 3 |112 |2141|2851|4992| 912|1237 | 2149|5. 5 |75. 1| 10a 32 1¼ |63. 3 |110 |2157|2960|5117| 928|1346 | 2274|5. 3 |72. 9| 10b | | | | | | | | | | | 35 0½ |62. 6 |121 |2317|2892|5209| 1088|1278 | 2366|5. 6 |80. 1| 11a 32 1¼ |63. 0 |112 |2149|2942|5091| 920|1328 | 2248|5. 5 |73. 0| 11b 35 3¼ |64. 3 | 93 |2396|3371|5767| 1167|1757 | 2924|4. 1 |71. 1| 12a 34 1¼ |64. 3 | 71 |2277|3300|5577| 1048|1687 | 2735|3. 2 |69. 0| 12b 34 3¾ |64. 1 |101 |2340|3236|5576| 1111|1622 | 2733|4. 5 |72. 3| 13a 34 2¼ |64. 1 |129 |2346|3246|5592| 1117|1632 | 2749|5. 8 |72. 3| 13b 34 1½ |64. 3 | 56 |2266|3211|5477| 1037|1597 | 2634|2. 5 |70. 6| 14a 31 1¼ |64. 3 |112 |2123|3218|5341| 894|1604 | 2498|5. 5 |66. 0| 14b | | | | | | | | | | | 31 3¼ |64. 2 | 65 |2109|3038|5147| 880|1424 | 2304|3. 2 |69. 4| 15a 30 0¾ |64. 1 | 68 |2005|3262|5267| 776|1648 | 2424|3. 5 |61. 5| 15b | | | | | | | | | | | 33 1½ |64. 5 |101 |2254|3384|5638| 1025|1770 | 2795|4. 7 |66. 6| 16a 33 3¾ |64. 6 | 75 |2268|3559|5827| 1039|1945 | 2984|3. 4 |63. 7| 16b 34 1 |64. 3 |111 |2316|3891|6207| 1087|2277 | 3364|5. 1 |59. 4| 17a 33 1½ |64. 4 |112 |2259|3858|6117| 1030|2244 | 3274|5. 2 |58. 5| 17b 32 1¼ |64. 0 | 93 |2163|3592|5755| 934|1978 | 2912|4. 5 |60. 2| 18a 33 2¼ |64. 0 | 95 |2243|3779|6022| 1014|2165 | 3179|4. 4 |59. 3| 18b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 2¼ |63. 9 |102 |1994|3270|5264| 765|1656 | 2421|5. 4 |61. 0| 19 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |}21 | | | | | | | | | | |}22 --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- “This was my last year at Rothamsted, ” said I, “and I feel a peculiarinterest in looking over the results after such a lapse of time. Whenthis crop was growing, my father, a good practical farmer, but withlittle faith in chemical manures, paid me a visit. We went to theexperimental wheat-field. The first two plots, 0 and 1, had beendressed, the one with superphosphate, the other with potash, soda, andmagnesia. My father did not seem much impressed with this kind ofchemical manuring. Stepping to the next plot, where 14 tons of barn-yardmanure had been used, he remarked, “this is good, what have you here?” “Never mind, ” said I, “we have better crops farther on. ” The next plot, No. 3, was the one continuously unmanured. “I can beatthis myself, ” said he, and passed on to the next. “This is better, ” saidhe, “what have you here?” “Superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia. ” “Well, it is a good crop, and the straw is bright and stiff. ”--It turnedout 30 bushels per acre, 63 lbs. To the bushel. The next six plots had received very heavy dressings of ammonia-salts, with superphosphate, potash, soda, and magnesia. He examined them withthe greatest interest. “What have you here?” he asked, while he wasexamining 5_a_, which afterwards turned out 37¼ bushels peracre. --“Potash, soda, epsom-salts, superphosphate, and ammonia--but itis the ammonia that does the good. ” He passed to the next plot, and was very enthusiastic over it. “Whathave you here?” --“Rape-cake and ammonia, ” said I. --“It is a grandcrop, ” said he, and after examining it with great interest, he passed tothe next, 6_a_. --“What have you here?” --“Ammonia, ” said I; and at 6_b_he asked the same question, and I replied “ammonia. ” At 7_a_, the samequestion and the same answer. Standing between 7_b_ and 8_a_, he was ofcourse struck with the difference in the crop; 8_a_ was left this yearwithout any manure, and though it had received a liberal supply ofmineral manures the year before, and minerals and ammonia-salts, andrape-cake, the year previous, it only produced this year, 3½ bushelsmore than the plot continuously unmanured. The contrast between thewheat on this plot and the next one might well interest a practicalfarmer. There was over 15 bushels per acre more wheat on the one plotthan on the other, and 1, 581 lbs. More straw. Passing to the next plot, he exclaimed “this is better, but not sogood as some that we have passed. ” --“It has had a heavy dressing ofrape-cake, ” said I, “equal to about 100 lbs. Of ammonia per acre, andthe next plot was manured this year in the same way. The only differencebeing that one had superphosphate and potash, soda, and magnesia, theyear before, while the other had superphosphate alone. ” It turned out, as you see from the table, that the potash, etc. , only gave half abushel more wheat per acre the year it was used, and this year, with2, 000 lbs. Of rape-cake on each plot, there is only a bushel per acre infavor of the potash, soda, and magnesia. The next plot, 9_b_, was also unmanured and was passed by my fatherwithout comment. “Ah, ” said he, on coming to the two next plots, 10_a_and 10_b_, “this is better, what have you here?” --“_Nothing butammonia_, ” said I, “and I wish you would tell me which is the best ofthe two? Last year 10_b_ had a heavy dressing of minerals andsuperphosphate with ammonia, and 10_a_ the same quantity of ammoniaalone, without superphosphate or other mineral manures. And this yearboth plots have had a dressing of 400 lbs. Each of ammonia-salts. Now, which is the best--the plot that had superphosphate and minerals lastyear, or the one without?” --“Well, ” said he, “I can’t see anydifference. Both are good crops. ” You will see from the table, that the plot which had the superphosphate, potash, etc. , the year before, gives a peck _less_ wheat this year thanthe other plot which had none. Practically, the yield is the same. Thereis an increase of 13 bushels of wheat per acre--and this increase _isclearly due to the ammonia-salts alone_. The next plot was also a splendid crop. “What have you here?” “Superphosphate and ammonia. ” This plot (11_a_), turned out 35 bushels per acre. The next plot, withphosphates and ammonia, was nearly as good. The next plot, with potash, phosphates, and ammonia, equally good, but no better than 11_a_. Therewas little or no benefit from the potash, except a little more _straw_. The next plot was good and I did not wait for the question, but simplysaid, “ammonia, ” and the next “ammonia, ” and the next “ammonia. ”--Standing still and looking at the wheat, my father asked, “Joe, wherecan I get this ammonia?” He had previously been a little skeptical as tothe value of chemistry, and had not a high opinion of “book farmers, ”but that wheat-crop compelled him to admit “that perhaps, after all, there might be some good in it. ” At any rate, he wanted to know wherehe could get ammonia. And, now, as then, every good farmer asks the samequestion: “Where can I get ammonia?” Before we attempt to answer thequestion, let us look at the next year’s experiments. --The followingis the results of the experiments the _seventh_ year, 1849-50. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table VII. --Manures and Produce; 7th Season, 1849-50. After the Harvest of 1849 the Field Was Tile-Drained in Every Alternate Furrow, 2 to 3 Feet Deep. Manures and Seed (Red Cluster), Sown Autumn, 1849. Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. P-A Pearl-ash. S-A Soda-ash. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid. (Sp. Gr. 1. 7) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. RC Rape-cake. ----+----------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Manures per Acre. | P +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+----+ l | | | | | Superphosphate | | | | o | | | | | of Lime. | | | | t | | | | +-----+-----+-----+ | | | s | FM | P-A | S-A | SMg | B-A | SAc | MAc | SAm | MAm | RC | ----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+ |Tons. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 600 | 450 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | 600 | 400 | 200 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 5a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 250 | 250 | . . | 5b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 250 | 250 | . . | 6a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 6b | . . | *00 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 7a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | 500| 7b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | 500| | | | | | | | | | | | 8a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 8b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 9a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 9b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 10b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 11a | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 11b | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 12a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 12b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 13a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 13b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 14a | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 14b | . . | 300 | . . | . . | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 15a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | . . | 15b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500| | | | | | | | | | | | 16a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 16b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 17a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 17b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18a | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | 18b | . . | 300 | 200 | 100 | 200 | 150 | . . | 200 | 200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 | . . | 200 | 300 | . . | 500| 20 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21} | | | | | | | | | | | 22} |Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. | . . | ----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+ Produce Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw. ) C Corn. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+-----------------+----+----+---- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, &c. | Acre By Manure. | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | TP | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu| OC | TC |S&C |C&S | C | S&C | TP |OCD |C100| s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | | | 19 1½ |60. 8 | 42 |1220|2037|3257| 218| 318 | 536|3. 5 |59. 9| 0 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 28 2 |61. 9 | 98 |1861|3245|5106| 859|1526 | 2385|5. 4 |57. 3| 2 15 3¼ |60. 6 | 44 |1002|1719|2721| . . | . . | . . |4. 5 |58. 2| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 27 3 |61. 2 | 87 |1785|3312|5097| 783|1593 | 2376|5. 1 |53. 9| 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 29 3½ |60. 4 |171 |1974|4504|6478| 972|2785 | 3757|9. 5 |43. 8| 5a 30 3 |60. 4 |160 |2018|4379|6397| 1016|2660 | 3676|8. 6 |46. 1| 5b 30 0½ |61. 1 |119 |1960|3927|5887| 958|2208 | 3166|6. 3 |49. 9| 6a 29 3½ |61. 3 |148 |1980|3959|5939| 978|2240 | 3218|8. 0 |50. 0| 6b 32 1 |61. 0 |167 |2134|4485|6619| 1132|2766 | 3898|8. 4 |47. 9| 7a 32 0¼ |61. 2 |150 |2112|4280|6392| 1110|2561 | 3671|7. 6 |49. 4| 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 28 3 |61. 1 |101 |1856|3407|5263| 854|1688 | 2542|5. 5 |54. 5| 8a 30 1 |61. 0 |103 |1948|3591|5539| 946|1872 | 2818|5. 6 |54. 2| 8b 30 1½ |60. 4 |118 |1951|3550|5501| 949|1831 | 2780|6. 3 |55. 0| 9a 27 2¾ |60. 8 | 80 |1762|3165|4927| 760|1446 | 2206|4. 7 |55. 7| 9b 26 3¾ |60. 2 |100 |1721|3089|4810| 719|1370 | 2089|6. 1 |55. 7| 10a 17 3¾ |61. 1 | 76 |1171|1949|3120| 169| 230 | 399|6. 8 |60. 1| 10b | | | | | | | | | | | 30 3¼ |61. 0 |121 |2001|3806|5807| 999|2087 | 3086|6. 4 |52. 6| 11a 29 1½ |61. 1 |145 |1940|3741|5681| 938|2022 | 2960|8. 0 |51. 9| 11b 29 3¾ |61. 5 | 94 |1935|3921|5856| 933|2202 | 3135|5. 1 |49. 4| 12a 30 3¾ |61. 4 |115 |2013|3905|5918| 1011|2186 | 3197|5. 9 |51. 5| 12b 31 3¾ |60. 2 |105 |2027|4026|6053| 1025|2307 | 3332|5. 4 |50. 3| 13a 30 1½ |61. 0 |111 |1964|4008|5972| 962|2289 | 3251|6. 0 |49. 0| 13b 31 1¾ |61. 1 |102 |2023|4052|6075| 1021|2333 | 3354|5. 3 |49. 9| 14a 31 1½ |61. 5 | 65 |1995|4015|6010| 993|2296 | 3289|3. 2 |49. 7| 14b | | | | | | | | | | | 26 0¼ |61. 5 | 90 |1693|3321|5014| 691|1602 | 2293|5. 7 |51. 0| 15a 30 3½ |61. 0 | 59 |1942|3926|5868| 940|2207 | 3147|3. 0 |49. 5| 15b | | | | | | | | | | | 33 2½ |60. 3 |108 |2134|5103|7237| 1132|3384 | 4516|5. 3 |41. 8| 16a 33 3 |60. 4 |122 |2159|4615|6774| 1157|2896 | 4053|6. 0 |46. 8| 16b 31 1 |61. 2 | 73 |1985|4126|6111| 983|2407 | 3390|3. 8 |48. 1| 17a 29 2½ |61. 5 |139 |1961|4034|5995| 959|2315 | 3274|7. 7 |48. 6| 17b 29 3¼ |61. 2 |110 |1934|3927|5861| 932|2208 | 3140|6. 1 |49. 3| 18a 28 2½ |60. 9 |103 |1845|3844|5689| 843|2125 | 2968|5. 7 |48. 0| 18b | | | | | | | | | | | 29 0 |60. 8 | 88 |1850|3527|5377| 848|1808 | 2656|4. 9 |52. 4| 19 14 0 |59. 1 | 40 | 868|1639|2507| -134| -80 | -214|4. 5 |53. 0| 20 . . . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |}21 | | | | | | | | | | |}22 --------+---- +----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- The summer of 1850 was unusually cool and unfavorable for wheat. It willbe seen that on all the plots the yield of grain is considerably lowerthan last year, with a greater growth of straw. You will notice that 10_b_, which last year gave, with ammonia-saltsalone, 32¼ bushels, this year, with superphosphate, potash, soda, andsulphate of magnesia, gives less than 18 bushels, while the adjoiningplot, dressed with ammonia, gives nearly 27 bushels. In other words, theammonia alone gives 9 bushels per acre more than this large dressing ofsuperphosphate, potash, etc. On the three plots, 8_a_, 8_b_ and 9_a_, a dressing of ammonia-saltsalone gives in _each case_, a larger yield, both of grain and straw, than the 14 tons of barn-yard manure on plot 2. And recollect that thisplot has now received 98 tons of manure in seven years. “That, ” said the Doctor, “is certainly a very remarkable fact. ” “It is so, ” said the Deacon. “But what of it?” asked the Squire, “even the Professor, here, does notadvise the use of ammonia-salts for wheat. ” “That is so, ” said I, “but perhaps I am mistaken. Such facts as thosejust given, though I have been acquainted with them for many years, sometimes incline me to doubt the soundness of my conclusions. Still, onthe whole, I think I am right. ” “We all know, ” said the Deacon, “that you have great respect for yourown opinions. ” “Never mind all that, ” said the Doctor, “but tell us just what you thinkon this subject. ” “In brief, ” said I, “my opinion is this. We need ammonia for wheat. Butthough ammonia-salts and nitrate of soda can often be used with decidedprofit, yet I feel sure that we can get ammonia or nitrogen at a lesscost per lb. By buying bran, malt-roots, cotton-seed cake, and otherfoods, and using them for the double purpose of feeding stock and makingmanure. ” “I admit that such is the case, ” said the Doctor, “but here is a plot ofland that has now had 14 tons of manure every year for seven years, andyet there is a plot along side, dressed with ammonia-salts furnishingless than half the ammonia contained in the 14 tons of manure, thatproduces a better yield of wheat. ” “That, ” said I, “is simply because the nitrogen in the manure is not inan available condition. And the practical question is, how to make thenitrogen in our manure more immediately available. It is one of the mostimportant questions which agricultural science is called upon to answer. Until we get more light, I feel sure in saying that one of the bestmethods is, to feed our animals on richer and more easily digestedfood. ” The following table gives the results of the _eighth_ season of 1850-51. Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table VIII. --Manures and Produce; 8th Season, 1850-51. Manures and Seed (Red Cluster), Sown Autumn, 1850. Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. WSC Cut Wheat-straw and Chaff. CS Common Salt. SP Sulphate of Potass. S-A Soda-ash. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid. (Sp. Gr. 1. 7) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. RC Rape-cake. ----+---------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Manures per Acre. | P +-----+----+------+----+----+----+---------------+----+----+----+ l | | | | | | | Superphosphate| | | | o | | | | | | | of Lime. | | | | t | | | | | | +----+----+-----+ | | | s | FM |WSC | CS | SP |S-A |SMg |B-A |SAc | MAc |SAm |MAm | RC | ----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+ |Tons. |lbs. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |600 |450 | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | . . | . . |600 |400 |200 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 | . . | 200 |400 | . . | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5a | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |300 |300 | . . | 5b | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |300 |300 | . . | 6a | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 6b | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 7a | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 |1000| 7b | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 |1000| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8a | . . |5000| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 8b | . . | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . |100 |100 | . . | 9a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | 9b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | 10b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 11b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 12a | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 12b | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 13a | . . | . . | . . |300 | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 13b | . . | . . | . . |300 | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 14a | . . | . . | . . |200 | . . |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 14b | . . | . . | . . |200 | . . |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15a | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 |100 |200 | . . | 200 |400 | . . | . . | 15b | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 |100 |200 | . . | 200 |400 | . . |500 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16a | . . | . . |336[1]|200 |100 |100 |200 |150 | . . |300 |300 | . . | 16b | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 |100 |200 |150 | . . |300 |300 | . . | 17a | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 17b | . . | . . | . . |200 |100 |100 |200 |150 | . . |200 |200 | . . | 18a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | 18b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |200 | . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 | . . | 200 |300 | . . |500 | 20} | {| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21} |Unmanured{| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 22} | {| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | ----+----------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+ [Note 1: Top-dressed in March, 1851. ] Produce Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel. OC Offal Corn. TC Total Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). C Corn. S&C Straw and Chaff. TP Total Produce. OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed. C100 Corn to 100 Straw. ----------------------------------+-------------------+----+----+--- | Increase per | | | Produce per Acre, etc. | Acre By Manure | | | P --------------+----+----+----+----+------+-----+------+ | | l Dressed Corn. | | | | | | | | | | o --------+-----+ | | | TP | | | | | | t Qty. |Wt/Bu| OC | TC | S&C|C&S | C | S&C | TP |OCD |C100| s --------+-----+----+----+----+----+------+-----+------+----+----+--- Bu. Pks. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | | | 18 3½ |61. 9 |125 |1296|1862|3158| 213 | 235| 448 |10. 7|69. 6| 0 18 1¼ |61. 7 |124 |1251|1845|3096| 168 | 218| 386 |11. 0|67. 8| 1 29 2½ |63. 6 |166 |2049|3094|5143| 966 | 1467| 2433 | 8. 8|66. 2| 2 15 3½ |61. 1 |114 |1083|1627|2710| . . | . . | . . |11. 8|66. 6| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | 28 0½ |62. 6 |159 |1919|2949|4868| 836 | 1322| 2158 | 9. 0|65. 1| 4 | | | | | | | | | | | 36 0 |63. 3 |194 |2473|4131|6604| 1390 | 2504| 3894 | 8. 6|59. 9| 5a 37 3¾ |63. 3 |213 |2611|4294|6905| 1528 | 2667| 4195 | 8. 9|60. 8| 5b 33 1¾ |63. 3 |154 |2271|3624|5895| 1188 | 1997| 3185 | 7. 2|62. 6| 6a 31 0¼ |62. 3 |189 |2119|3507|5626| 1036 | 1880| 2916 | 9. 8|60. 4| 6b 36 3½ |63. 0 |201 |2524|4587|7111| 1441 | 2960| 4401 | 8. 7|55. 0| 7a 37 1½ |63. 0 |178 |2532|4302|6834| 1449 | 2675| 4124 | 7. 6|58. 8| 7b | | | | | | | | | | | 26 0¾ |62. 8 |141 |1785|2769|4554| 702 | 1142| 1844 | 8. 6|64. 5| 8a 27 2¼ |62. 6 |137 |1863|2830|4693| 780 | 1203| 1983 | 7. 9|65. 8| 8b 31 1½ |62. 4 |182 |2142|3252|5394| 1059 | 1625| 2684 | 9. 3|65. 9| 9a 29 0¾ |62. 0 |170 |1970|2942|4912| 887 | 1315| 2202 | 9. 5|67. 0| 9b 28 3½ |61. 9 |179 |1966|3070|5036| 883 | 1443| 2326 |10. 0|64. 0|10a 28 2½ |62. 5 |149 |1937|3048|4985| 854 | 1421| 2275 | 8. 3|63. 5|10b | | | | | | | | | | | 32 2¾ |62. 3 |181 |2216|3386|5602| 1133 | 1759| 2892 | 8. 9|65. 4|11a 31 2¾ |62. 5 |181 |2163|3302|5465| 1080 | 1675| 2755 | 9. 1|65. 5|11b 32 3 |63. 1 |165 |2234|3600|5834| 1151 | 1973| 3124 | 8. 0|62. 0|12a 32 2¼ |62. 5 |166 |2203|3581|5784| 1120 | 1954| 3074 | 8. 2|61. 5|12b 30 2¾ |62. 6 |180 |2102|3544|5646| 1019 | 1917| 2936 | 9. 4|59. 3|13a 30 3¼ |62. 3 |160 |2083|3440|5523| 1000 | 1813| 2813 | 8. 3|60. 5|13b 31 0¼ |62. 9 |168 |2120|3605|5725| 1037 | 1978| 3015 | 8. 6|58. 8|14a 31 0½ |62. 8 |165 |2121|3537|5658| 1038 | 1910| 2948 | 8. 4|59. 9|14b | | | | | | | | | | 27 0½ |62. 7 |138 |1839|3041|4880| 756 | 1414| 2170 | 8. 1|60. 5|15a 30 2½ |62. 9 |148 |2077|3432|5509| 994 | 1805| 2799 | 7. 6|60. 5|15b | | | | | | | | | | | 36 3¼ |63. 5 |161 |2499|4234|6733| 1416 | 2607| 4023 | 6. 9|59. 0|16a 36 2¾ |63. 4 |176 |2501|4332|6833| 1418 | 2705| 4123 | 7. 6|57. 7|16b 31 3½ |63. 3 |131 |2149|3597|5746| 1066 | 1970| 3036 | 6. 5|59. 7|17a 30 2¼ |63. 1 |152 |2079|3406|5485| 996 | 1779| 2775 | 7. 9|61. 0|17b 30 3¼ |63. 0 |139 |2083|3390|5473| 1000 | 1763| 2763 | 7. 2|64. 1|18a 31 0¾ |62. 4 |143 |2090|3586|5676| 1007 | 1959| 2966 | 7. 3|58. 3|18b | | | | | | | | | | | 30 1 |62. 4 |144 |2031|3348|5379| 948 | 1721| 2669 | 7. 7|60. 7|19 14 1 |60. 8 | 89 | 956|1609|2565| -127 | -18| -145 |10. 2|59. 4|20 | | | | | | | | | | |21} 17 3¼ |61. 9 |127 |1232|1763|2995| 149 | 136| 285 |11. 5|69. 9|22} --------+-----+----+----+----+----+------+-----+------+----+----+--- The plot continuously unmanured, gives about 16 bushels of wheat peracre. The plot with barn-yard manure, nearly 30 bushels per acre. 400 lbs. Of ammonia-salts _alone_, on plot 9_a_, 31¼ bushels; on 9_b_, 29 bushels; on 10_a_ and 10_b_, nearly 29 bushels each. This isremarkable uniformity. 400 lbs. Ammonia-salts and a large quantity of mineral manures inaddition, on _twelve_ different plots, average not quite 32 bushels peracre. “The superphosphate and minerals, ” said the Deacon, “do not seem to domuch good, that is a fact. ” You will notice that 336 lbs. Of common salt was sown on plot 16_a_. Itdoes not seem to have done the slightest good. Where the salt was used, there is 2 lbs. Less grain and 98 lbs. Less straw than on the adjoiningplot 16_b_, where no salt was used, but otherwise manured alike. Itwould seem, however, that the quality of the grain was slightly improvedby the salt. The salt was sown in March as a top-dressing. “It would have been better, ” said the Deacon. “to have sown it in autumnwith the other manures. ” “The Deacon is right, ” said I, “but it so happens that the next year andthe year after, the salt _was_ applied at the same time as the othermanures. It gave an increase of 94 lbs. Of grain and 61 lbs. Of straw in1851, but the following year the same quantity of salt used on the sameplot did more harm than good. ” Before we leave the results of this year, it should be observed that on8_a_, 5, 000 lbs. Of cut straw and chaff were used per acre. I do notrecollect seeing anything in regard to it. And yet the result was veryremarkable--so much so indeed, that it is a matter of regret that theexperiment was not repeated. This 5, 000 lbs. Of straw and chaff gave an increase of more than 10bushels per acre over the continuously unmanured plot. “Good, ” said the Deacon, “I have always told you that youunder-estimated the value of straw, especially in regard to its_mechanical_ action. ” I did not reply to this remark of the good Deacon. I have never doubtedthe good effects of anything that lightens up a clay soil and renders itwarmer and more porous. I suppose the great benefit derived from thisapplication of straw must be attributed to its ameliorating action onthe soil. The 5, 000 lbs. Of straw and chaff produced a crop withinnearly 3 bushels per acre of the plot manured every year with 14 tons ofbarn-yard manure. “I am surprised, ” said the Doctor, “that salt did no good. I have seenmany instances in which it has had a wonderful effect on wheat. ” “Yes, ” said I, “and our experienced friend, John Johnston, is verydecidedly of the opinion that its use is highly profitable. He sows abarrel of salt per acre broadcast on the land at the time he sows hiswheat, and I have myself seen it produce a decided improvement in thecrop. ” We have now given the results of the first _eight_ years of theexperiments. From this time forward, the _same manures_ were used yearafter year on the same plot. The results are given in the accompanying tables for the followingtwelve years--harvests for 1852-53-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-62 and 1863. Such another set of experiments are not to be found in the world, andthey deserve and will receive the careful study of every intelligentAmerican farmer. “I am with you there, ” said the Deacon. “You seem to think that I do notappreciate the labors of scientific men. I do. Such experiments as thesewe are examining command the respect of every intelligent farmer. I maynot fully understand them, but I can see clearly enough that they are ofgreat value. ” Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year, on the Same Land. Table IX. --Manures per Acre per Annum (with the exceptions explained in the Notes on p. 203), for 12 Years in succession--namely, for the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Seasons: that is, for the crops of Harvests 1852- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- 60- 61- 62 and 1863. * Manures FM Farm-yard Manure. CS Common Salt. SP Sulphate of Potass. [1] SS Sulphate of Soda. [1] SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. [1] B-A Bone-ash. SAc Sulphuric Acid. (Sp. Gr. 1. 7) MAc Muriatic Acid. SAm Sulphate of Ammonia. MAm Muriate of Ammonia. NS Nitrate of Soda. RC Rape-cake. --------+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manures per Acre per Annum for 12 Years, 1851-2 to | | 1862-3 inclusive, except in the cases explained in the | | Notes on p. 203. | P +-----+-----+----+----+----+----+---------------+----+----+----+ l | | | | | | | Superphosphate| | | | o | | | | | | | of Lime. | | | | t | | | | | | +----+----+-----+ | | | s | FM | CS | SP | SS |SMg |B-A |SAc |MAc | SAm |MAm | NS | RC |--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+ |Tons. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | 0 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |600 |450 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1 | . . | . . |600 |400 |200 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 2 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 3 |Unmanured | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 4 |Unmanured | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 5a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 5b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 6a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 100 |100 | . . | . . | 6b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 100 |100 | . . | . . | 7a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 7b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 8a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 300 |300 | . . | . . | 8b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 300 |300 | . . | . . |[2] 9a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | . . | . . |550 | . . |[3] 9b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |550 | . . | 10a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 10b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 11a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 11b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 12a | . . | . . | . . |550 | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 12b | . . | . . | . . |550 | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 13a | . . | . . |300 | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 13b | . . | . . |300 | . . | . . |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 14a | . . | . . | . . | . . |420 |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 14b | . . | . . | . . | . . |420 |200 |150 | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | 15a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 | . . |200 | 400 | . . | . . | . . | 15b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 | . . |200 | 300 | . . | . . |500 | 16a | . . |336[4]|300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 400 |400 | . . | . . | 16b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | 400 |400 | . . | . . |[5]{17a | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . | {17b | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 |200 | . . | . . |[5]{18a | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | {18b | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 |200 |150 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 19 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . |200 | . . |200 | 300 | . . | . . |500 | 20 |Unmanured | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 21 | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 | . . | . . | . . | . . |100 | . . | . . | 22 | . . | . . |300 |200 |100 | . . | . . | . . | 100 | . . | . . | . . |--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+ * For the particulars of the produce of each separate season, see Tables X. -XXI. Inclusive. [Note 1: For the _16th and succeeding seasons_--the sulphate of potass was reduced from 600 to 400 lbs. Per acre per annum on Plot 1, and from 300 to 200 lbs. On all the other Plots where it was used; the sulphate of soda from 400 to 200 lbs. On Plot 1, to 100 lbs. On all the Plots on which 200 lbs. Had previously been applied, and from 550 to 336½ lbs. (two-thirds the amount) on Plots 12_a_ and 12_b_; and the sulphate of magnesia from 420 to 280 lbs. (two-thirds the amount) on Plots 14_a_ and 14_b_. ] [Note 2: _Plot 9a_--the sulphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, and the superphosphate of lime, were applied in the 12th and succeeding seasons, but not in the 9th, 10th, and 11th; and the amount of nitrate of soda was for the 9th season only 475 lbs. Per acre, and for the 10th and 11th seasons only 275 lbs. ] [Note 3: _Plot 9b_--in the 9th season only 475 lbs. Of nitrate of soda were applied. ] [Note 4: _Common salt_--not applied after the 10th season. ] [Note 5: _Plots 17a and 17b, and 18a and 18b_--the manures on these plots alternate: that is, Plots 17 were manured with ammonia-salts in the 9th season; with the sulphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, and superphosphate of lime, in the 10th; ammonia-salts again in the 11th; the sulphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, and superphosphate of lime, again in the 12th, and so on. Plots 18, on the other hand, had the sulphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, and superphosphate of lime, in the 9th season; ammonia-salts in the 10th, and so on, alternately. ] Table X. --Produce of the 9th Season, 1851-2. Seed (Red Cluster) sown November 7, 1851; Crop cut August 24, 1852. Table XI. --Produce of the 10th Season, 1853. Seed (Red Rostock) sown March 16; Crop cut September 10, and carted September 20, 1853. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 15 0¾ | 55. 8 | 919| 2625|| 0 | 9 0¾ | 49. 1 | 599| 2406 1 | 13 1 | 56. 9 | 825| 2322|| 1 | 6 1¾ | 46. 1 | 404| 2036 2 | 27 2¼ | 58. 2 | 1716| 5173|| 2 | 19 0½ | 51. 1 | 1120| 4492 3 | 13 3¼ | 56. 6 | 860| 2457|| 3 | 5 3¼ | 45. 1 | 359| 1772 4 | 13 1¼ | 57. 3 | 870| 2441|| 4 | 7 1 | 46. 1 | 446| 2116 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 16 3 | 57. 5 | 1038| 2941|| 5a | 10 0 | 48. 9 | 587| 2538 5b | 17 0¼ | 57. 3 | 1065| 3097|| 5b | 10 1 | 48. 9 | 611| 2741 6a | 20 3 | 57. 6 | 1288| 3869|| 6a | 16 3¼ | 51. 8 | 978| 3755 6b | 20 3½ | 57. 5 | 1300| 3904|| 6b | 19 1 | 51. 8 | 1072| 3870 7a | 26 2½ | 56. 0 | 1615| 5465|| 7a | 23 2½ | 52. 2 | 1369| 5110 7b | 26 3¾ | 55. 8 | 1613| 5415|| 7b | 23 2¼ | 51. 1 | 1357| 5091 8a | 27 3½ | 55. 9 | 1699| 5505|| 8a | 22 1¼ | 51. 1 | 1346| 5312 8b | 27 0½ | 55. 9 | 1651| 5423|| 8b | 24 2¼ | 51. 1 | 1425| 5352 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 25 2 | 55. 6 | 1591| 5305|| 9a | 11 1 | 47. 7 | 691| 3090 9b | 24 1¾ | 55. 3 | 1509| 4883|| 9b | 10 1¾ | 46. 1 | 649| 2902 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 21 3½ | 55. 9 | 1320| 4107|| 10a | 9 3¾ | 48. 9 | 642| 2691 10b | 22 0¼ | 57. 3 | 1343| 4162|| 10b | 15 2 | 49. 8 | 896| 3578 11a | 24 0¾ | 55. 6 | 1472| 4553|| 11a | 17 2 | 50. 1 | 1015| 3539 11b | 22 1½ | 55. 9 | 1387| 4299|| 11b | 18 2¾ | 51. 1 | 1073| 3780 12a | 24 1¾ | 57. 4 | 1503| 4760|| 12a | 22 0 | 52. 0 | 1283| 4948 12b | 24 1¼ | 57. 3 | 1492| 4721|| 12b | 23 3¼ | 51. 1 | 1375| 5079 13a | 24 0 | 57. 5 | 1480| 4702|| 13a | 22 1¼ | 52. 1 | 1341| 5045 13b | 23 3¾ | 57. 1 | 1476| 4765|| 13b | 23 2½ | 51. 1 | 1396| 5308 14a | 24 1¾ | 56. 9 | 1507| 5054|| 14a | 21 2 | 51. 2 | 1322| 4793 14b | 25 0¼ | 56. 7 | 1530| 5137|| 14b | 23 0¾ | 52. 6 | 1347| 5108 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 23 1¼ | 57. 4 | 1451| 4663|| 15a | 19 0 | 51. 1 | 1143| 4504 15b | 25 0½ | 56. 8 | 1520| 4941|| 15b | 23 2½ | 51. 1 | 1351| 5107 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 28 3½ | 55. 0 | 1794| 6471|| 16a | 24 1½ | 52. 5 | 1496| 6400 16b | 28 0 | 54. 5 | 1700| 6316|| 16b | 25 3¼ | 52. 5 | 1537| 6556 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 25 2 | 56. 5 | 1577| 5311|| 17a | 8 1¾ | 49. 8 | 520| 2516 17b | 24 1½ | 56. 9 | 1520| 4986|| 17b | 8 3¾ | 48. 9 | 539| 2551 18a | 13 3 | 57. 0 | 869| 2556|| 18a | 17 3¼ | 52. 9 | 1111| 4496 18b | 14 3¾ | 56. 7 | 921| 2685|| 18b | 20 3 | 52. 1 | 1256| 5052 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 24 3¾ | 56. 1 | 1582| 4979|| 19 | 19 1¼ | 52. 6 | 1160| 4373 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 14 0¾ | 56. 6 | 875| 2452|| 20 | 5 3¼ | 47. 8 | 425| 2084 21 | 19 1¾ | 56. 9 | 1177| 3285|| 21 | 12 3¾ | 50. 4 | 753| 2934 22 | 19 2¼ | 55. 9 | 1176| 3355|| 22 | 10 1 | 49. 4 | 592| 2452 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- Table XII. --Produce of the 11th Season, 1853-4. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 12, 1853; Crop cut August 21, and carted August 31, 1854. Table XIII. --Produce of the 12th Season, 1854-5. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 9, 1854; Crop cut August 26, and carted September 2, 1855. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 26 1¾ | 61. 0 | 1672| 3786|| 0 | 17 0 | 60. 7 | 1096| 2822 1 | 24 1½ | 60. 2 | 1529| 4060|| 1 | 18 2 | 60. 5 | 1179| 3069 2 | 41 0½ | 62. 5 | 2675| 7125|| 2 | 34 2½ | 62. 0 | 2237| 6082 3 | 21 0¼ | 60. 6 | 1359| 3496|| 3 | 17 0 | 59. 2 | 1072| 2859 4 | 23 3½ | 61. 1 | 1521| 3859|| 4 | 18 2½ | 59. 5 | 1168| 3000 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 24 1½ | 61. 0 | 1578| 4098|| 5a | 18 2 | 59. 9 | 1157| 2976 5b | 24 0 | 61. 6 | 1532| 4035|| 5b | 18 0½ | 60. 1 | 1143| 2943 6a | 33 2¾ | 61. 8 | 2186| 6031|| 6a | 27 3 | 60. 3 | 1753| 4590 6b | 34 2¼ | 61. 8 | 2239| 6294|| 6b | 28 1 | 60. 9 | 1811| 4848 7a | 45 2¼ | 61. 9 | 2950| 8553|| 7a | 32 2¾ | 59. 4 | 2084| 5995 7b | 45 1½ | 61. 8 | 2944| 8440|| 7b | 33 1¼ | 59. 5 | 2138| 6296 8a | 47 1¾ | 61. 4 | 3065| 9200|| 8a | 29 3 | 58. 8 | 1909| 5747 8b | 49 2½ | 61. 8 | 3208| 9325|| 8b | 33 0¾ | 58. 7 | 2153| 6495 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 38 3 | 60. 7 | 2456| 6598|| 9a | 29 2½ | 58. 3 | 1932| 5878 9b | 38 3½ | 60. 7 | 2480| 6723|| 9b | 25 1½ | 57. 3 | 1605| 4817 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 34 1½ | 60. 5 | 2211| 5808|| 10a | 19 3¾ | 57. 1 | 1285| 3797 10b | 39 0¾ | 61. 6 | 2535| 7003|| 10b | 28 0½ | 58. 9 | 1805| 5073 11a | 44 2 | 61. 1 | 2859| 8006|| 11a | 18 3 | 55. 3 | 1210| 3694 11b | 43 0½ | 61. 2 | 2756| 7776|| 11b | 24 2½ | 56. 3 | 1580| 4733 12a | 45 3¼ | 62. 2 | 2966| 8469|| 12a | 30 0¼ | 59. 5 | 1940| 5478 12b | 45 1½ | 62. 2 | 2939| 8412|| 12b | 33 2 | 60. 2 | 2172| 6182 13a | 45 0½ | 62. 2 | 2913| 8311|| 13a | 29 0 | 59. 9 | 1924| 5427 13b | 43 3½ | 62. 2 | 2858| 8403|| 13b | 32 2 | 60. 4 | 2110| 5980 14a | 45 1¼ | 62. 2 | 2946| 8498|| 14a | 29 3 | 60. 0 | 1954| 5531 14b | 44 0½ | 62. 2 | 2863| 8281|| 14b | 33 1¾ | 60. 0 | 2158| 5161 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 43 1¼ | 62. 1 | 2801| 7699|| 15a | 31 3¼ | 60. 0 | 2030| 5855 15b | 43 1 | 62. 4 | 2810| 8083|| 15b | 33 3 | 60. 6 | 2193| 6415 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 49 2¼ | 61. 7 | 3230| 9932|| 16a | 33 1¼ | 58. 2 | 2100| 6634 16b | 50 0¾ | 61. 7 | 3293| 9928|| 16 | 32 2 | 58. 2 | 2115| 7106 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 45 3 | 62. 1 | 2948| 8218|| 17a | 18 3¾ | 60. 8 | 1227| 3203 17b | 42 2¼ | 62. 2 | 2732| 7629|| 17b | 17 0½ | 60. 3 | 1110| 2914 18a | 24 0 | 61. 2 | 1526| 3944|| 18a | 32 3¾ | 60. 9 | 2127| 6144 18b | 23 2¾ | 61. 0 | 1511| 3888|| 18b | 33 1¾ | 60. 8 | 2170| 6385 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 41 0¾ | 61. 7 | 2666| 7343|| 19 | 30 0½ | 58. 7 | 1967| 5818 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 22 3 | 60. 8 | 1445| 3662|| 20 | 17 2½ | 61. 1 | 1155| 2986 21 | 32 0½ | 61. 2 | 2030| 5470|| 21 | 24 1¾ | 60. 8 | 1533| 3952 22 | 31 3 | 61. 0 | 1994| 5334|| 22 | 24 2½ | 60. 1 | 1553| 4010 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- Table XIV. --Produce of the 13th Season, 1855-6. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 13, 1855; Crop cut August 26, and carted September 3, 1856. Table XV. --Produce of the 14th Season, 1856-7. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 6, 1856; Crop cut August 13, and carted August 22, 1857. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 18 1½ | 56. 8 | 1179| 3148|| 0 | 18 2¼ | 59. 0 | 1181| 2726 1 | 17 0¾ | 56. 3 | 1102| 3035|| 1 | 17 2½ | 59. 0 | 1118| 2650 2 | 36 1¼ | 58. 6 | 2277| 6594|| 2 | 41 0¾ | 60. 4 | 2587| 5910 3 | 14 2 | 54. 3 | 892| 2450|| 3 | 19 3¾ | 58. 3 | 1236| 2813 4 | 16 1½ | 55. 5 | 1026| 2757|| 4 | 22 1¾ | 58. 8 | 1386| 2958 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 18 3¼ | 56. 5 | 1167| 3179|| 5a | 22 3¾ | 59. 0 | 1409| 3026 5b | 20 1¼ | 56. 2 | 1247| 3369|| 5b | 24 2¼ | 58. 8 | 1512| 3247 6a | 27 1¼ | 58. 2 | 1717| 4767|| 6a | 35 1½ | 59. 9 | 2211| 4968 6b | 28 0½ | 58. 5 | 1755| 4848|| 6b | 35 1¼ | 59. 8 | 2193| 4950 7a | 37 1 | 58. 0 | 2312| 6872|| 7a | 43 1¼ | 60. 5 | 2782| 6462 7b | 36 2¼ | 57. 6 | 2244| 6642|| 7b | 46 1½ | 60. 3 | 2902| 6793 8a | 40 0½ | 56. 8 | 2507| 7689|| 8a | 47 3 | 60. 8 | 3058| 7355 8b | 37 3¾ | 57. 1 | 2400| 7489|| 8b | 48 3¼ | 60. 6 | 3129| 7579 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 32 1½ | 57. 2 | 2019| 5894|| 9a | 43 3 | 60. 1 | 2767| 6634 9b | 26 0 | 56. 3 | 1679| 4831|| 9b | 36 0¾ | 58. 0 | 2220| 5203 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 24 0¾ | 55. 6 | 1505| 4323|| 10a | 29 0½ | 58. 0 | 1816| 4208 10b | 27 2¾ | 57. 2 | 1727| 4895|| 10b | 34 2 | 58. 6 | 2185| 5060 11a | 31 3½ | 57. 3 | 2001| 5518|| 11a | 39 0 | 58. 5 | 2432| 5375 11b | 30 2½ | 57. 5 | 1946| 5389|| 11b | 39 0¾ | 58. 0 | 2397| 5317 12a | 33 3½ | 58. 7 | 2102| 5949|| 12a | 43 3½ | 60. 4 | 2747| 6394 12b | 32 3½ | 58. 8 | 2079| 5804|| 12b | 43 2 | 60. 4 | 2729| 6312 13a | 32 1¾ | 58. 6 | 2036| 5779|| 13a | 42 3 | 60. 6 | 2714| 6421 13b | 30 3¼ | 58. 9 | 2008| 5659|| 13b | 43 2 | 60. 5 | 2739| 6386 14a | 35 0¼ | 58. 6 | 2195| 6397|| 14a | 43 3 | 60. 5 | 2781| 6439 14b | 34 0¾ | 59. 0 | 2162| 6279|| 14b | 42 3½ | 60. 3 | 2699| 6351 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 30 0½ | 59. 1 | 1923| 5444|| 15a | 42 1¼ | 60. 4 | 2681| 6368 15b | 32 0 | 59. 4 | 2045| 5797|| 15b | 44 1¾ | 60. 0 | 2765| 6543 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 38 0½ | 58. 5 | 2426| 7955|| 16a | 48 3¼ | 60. 5 | 3131| 7814 16b | 37 3 | 58. 7 | 2450| 7917|| 16b | 50 0 | 60. 5 | 3194| 7897 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 31 2½ | 59. 0 | 1983| 5541|| 17a | 26 2¾ | 59. 1 | 1642| 3700 17b | 30 1½ | 59. 1 | 1935| 5400|| 17b | 25 3¾ | 58. 8 | 1583| 3523 18a | 17 3½ | 57. 8 | 1140| 3152|| 18a | 41 0¼ | 59. 7 | 2566| 6009 18b | 18 0 | 57. 7 | 1131| 3069|| 18b | 40 0¼ | 59. 8 | 2519| 5884 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 32 1 | 58. 9 | 2059| 5621|| 19 | 41 2½ | 59. 5 | 2600| 5793 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 17 0¾ | 57. 7 | 1075| 2963|| 20 | 19 2¾ | 58. 4 | 1213| 2777 21 | 22 1½ | 58. 0 | 1398| 3927|| 21 | 24 0 | 60. 6 | 1538| 3353 22 | 21 1¾ | 57. 8 | 1351| 3849|| 22 | 23 0½ | 60. 6 | 1491| 3298 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- Table XVI. --Produce of the 15th Season, 1857-8. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 3 and 11, 1857; Crop cut August 9, and carted August 20, 1858. Table XVII. --Produce of the 16th Season, 1858-9. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 4, 1858; Crop cut August 4, and carted August 20, 1859. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 20 3 | 61. 2 | 1332| 3234|| 0 | 21 2¼ | 54. 0 | 1254| 3564 1 | 16 1¼ | 60. 7 | 1055| 2685|| 1 | 19 3 | 55. 0 | 1189| 3489 2 | 38 3¼ | 62. 6 | 2512| 6349|| 2 | 36 0¾ | 56. 5 | 2263| 7073 3 | 18 0 | 60. 4 | 1141| 2811|| 3 | 18 1¼ | 52. 5 | 1051| 3226 4 | 19 0½ | 61. 1 | 1206| 2879|| 4 | 19 0¾ | 55. 0 | 1188| 3418 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 18 2¾ | 61. 5 | 1187| 2719|| 5a | 20 2¼ | 56. 0 | 1277| 3600 5b | 19 1 | 61. 4 | 1227| 2870|| 5b | 20 2½ | 56. 0 | 1273| 3666 6a | 28 2¼ | 62. 1 | 1818| 4395|| 6a | 29 2½ | 56. 5 | 1808| 5555 6b | 29 0½ | 62. 1 | 1850| 4563|| 6b | 30 0½ | 56. 5 | 1855| 5708 7a | 38 2¼ | 61. 9 | 2450| 6415|| 7a | 34 2¾ | 55. 9 | 2097| 6774 7b | 39 2¼ | 62. 3 | 2530| 6622|| 7b | 34 2½ | 55. 9 | 2089| 6892 8a | 41 3¾ | 61. 8 | 2680| 7347|| 8a | 34 3¼ | 54. 0 | 2068| 7421 8b | 41 3¼ | 61. 7 | 2675| 7342|| 8b | 34 0¾ | 53. 4 | 2007| 7604 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 37 2¼ | 60. 8 | 2384| 6701|| 9a | 30 0 | 54. 5 | 1806| 7076 9b | 23 2 | 58. 8 | 1470| 4158|| 9b | 24 2¼ | 50. 5 | 1412| 5002 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 22 3½ | 59. 6 | 1439| 3569|| 10a | 18 3¾ | 51. 5 | 1207| 3937 10b | 27 3 | 61. 4 | 1775| 4390|| 10b | 25 2 | 52. 5 | 1500| 4920 11a | 30 3½ | 60. 5 | 1977| 4774|| 11a | 26 3½ | 51. 4 | 1628| 5155 11b | 33 0¼ | 60. 4 | 2099| 5117|| 11b | 27 3¼ | 51. 3 | 1698| 5275 12a | 37 3¾ | 62. 1 | 2437| 6100|| 12a | 34 2½ | 54. 5 | 2060| 6610 12b | 37 0¾ | 62. 1 | 2387| 6060|| 12b | 34 3½ | 54. 8 | 2115| 6858 13a | 37 0¾ | 62. 1 | 2384| 6077|| 13a | 34 0¾ | 55. 0 | 2037| 6774 13b | 37 0¾ | 62. 7 | 2397| 6074|| 13b | 34 3½ | 55. 0 | 2087| 6894 14a | 37 3¼ | 62. 1 | 2413| 6150|| 14a | 34 1¾ | 54. 5 | 2054| 6817 14b | 38 1¼ | 62. 0 | 2436| 6146|| 14b | 34 2¼ | 54. 5 | 2074| 6774 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 35 1½ | 62. 6 | 2285| 5800|| 15a | 34 0¾ | 55. 0 | 2053| 6826 15b | 37 2 | 62. 8 | 2436| 6134|| 15a | 35 0¼ | 55. 0 | 2095| 7088 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 41 3 | 62. 1 | 2702| 7499|| 16a | 34 3¾ | 52. 6 | 2026| 7953 16b | 42 0½ | 62. 1 | 2717| 7530|| 16b | 34 1¾ | 52. 6 | 2005| 7798 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 33 1¼ | 62. 5 | 2150| 5353|| 17a | 21 1¼ | 55. 0 | 1247| 3730 17b | 33 3¼ | 62. 5 | 2181| 5455|| 17b | 19 3 | 54. 5 | 1168| 3541 18a | 22 3¾ | 62. 3 | 1472| 3480|| 18a | 32 3¼ | 55. 5 | 1973| 6506 18b | 20 2¾ | 62. 4 | 1338| 3305|| 18b | 32 2 | 56. 0 | 1980| 6630 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 33 1¼ | 62. 5 | 2177| 5362|| 19 | 30 2 | 55. 5 | 1903| 5926 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 17 0 | 60. 3 | 1089| 2819|| 20 | 17 3¼ | 52. 5 | 1039| 3256 21 | 24 1¾ | 61. 5 | 1574| 3947|| 21 | 26 1½ | 54. 0 | 1538| 4723 22 | 22 0 | 61. 5 | 1412| 3592|| 22 | 24 0¾ | 55. 0 | 1460| 4440 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- Table XVIII. --Produce of the 17th Season, 1859-60. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 17, 1859; Crop cut September 17 and 19, and carted October 5, 1858. Table XIX. --Produce of the 18th Season, 1860-1. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 5, 1860; Crop cut August 20, and carted August 27, 1861. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 14 1¼ | 53. 5 | 826| 2271|| 0 | 15 1½ | 57. 6 | 1001| 2769 1 | 12 1¾ | 52. 8 | 717| 2097|| 1 | 12 3¾ | 57. 6 | 828| 2215 2 | 32 1¼ | 55. 5 | 1864| 5304|| 2 | 34 3½ | 60. 5 | 2202| 5303 3 | 12 3½ | 52. 6 | 738| 2197|| 3 | 11 1¼ | 57. 4 | 736| 1990 4 | 14 2 | 53. 0 | 832| 2352|| 4 | 11 3½ | 58. 0 | 863| 2193 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 15 2¾ | 54. 0 | 903| 2483|| 5a | 15 1¾ | 59. 1 | 1047| 2540 5b | 16 0½ | 53. 1 | 935| 2595|| 5b | 15 1½ | 59. 0 | 1082| 2692 6a | 21 0½ | 53. 7 | 1210| 3393|| 6a | 27 1¼ | 59. 5 | 1755| 4328 6b | 22 3¼ | 54. 2 | 1326| 3719|| 6b | 27 3¼ | 59. 4 | 1818| 4501 7a | 27 3½ | 54. 3 | 1612| 4615|| 7a | 35 2¼ | 59. 0 | 2263| 5764 7b | 27 2¼ | 54. 3 | 1597| 4734|| 7b | 34 1¼ | 59. 0 | 2183| 5738 8a | 30 3 | 52. 8 | 1759| 5639|| 8a | 36 0 | 58. 3 | 2290| 6203 8b | 31 2¾ | 52. 3 | 1787| 5600|| 8b | 34 0¼ | 58. 5 | 2190| 5985 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 32 2½ | 51. 5 | 1858| 6635|| 9a | 33 3 | 56. 8 | 2162| 6607 9b | 19 2¼ | 48. 5 | 1155| 4285|| 9b | 13 3 | 53. 9 | 909| 3079 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 15 0½ | 49. 5 | 905| 3118|| 10a | 12 3½ | 55. 0 | 854| 2784 10b | 18 2½ | 51. 0 | 1060| 3420|| 10b | 15 3¾ | 55. 5 | 1033| 3196 11a | 22 1½ | 51. 0 | 1270| 3773|| 11a | 23 1¾ | 55. 3 | 1455| 4032 11b | 22 1½ | 51. 2 | 1307| 4000|| 11b | 25 0¾ | 55. 8 | 1578| 4223 12a | 28 0½ | 53. 4 | 1648| 4878|| 12a | 32 1¼ | 58. 1 | 2009| 5201 12b | 26 2¼ | 53. 5 | 1577| 4664|| 12b | 33 1¾ | 58. 7 | 2144| 5481 13a | 26 0¾ | 54. 3 | 1575| 4568|| 13a | 33 1¼ | 59. 9 | 2168| 5486 13b | 27 0½ | 53. 8 | 1600| 4637|| 13b | 35 0 | 60. 0 | 2304| 5794 14a | 27 1½ | 53. 7 | 1583| 4636|| 14a | 33 0¼ | 59. 1 | 2125| 5502 14b | 27 0¼ | 53. 2 | 1563| 4666|| 14b | 33 3¾ | 59. 3 | 2173| 5476 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 25 1½ | 53. 8 | 1510| 4387|| 15a | 34 1¾ | 60. 0 | 2188| 5506 15b | 28 0 | 54. 0 | 1614| 4704|| 15b | 34 3 | 60. 2 | 2249| 5727 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 32 2 | 52. 0 | 1856| 5973|| 16a | 36 1¾ | 58. 0 | 2338| 6761 16b | 32 3 | 51. 7 | 1889| 6096|| 16b | 37 2 | 58. 6 | 2432| 6775 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 24 0¼ | 54. 1 | 1409| 4109|| 17a | 19 1 | 59. 3 | 1229| 2982 17b | 26 1½ | 54. 3 | 1548| 4518|| 17b | 18 0¾ | 59. 1 | 1166| 2829 18a | 15 1¼ | 54. 5 | 929| 2649|| 18a | 32 1½ | 59. 6 | 2650| 5144 18b | 16 1¼ | 54. 6 | 963| 2706|| 18b | 33 1½ | 59. 5 | 2122| 5446 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 24 0½ | 53. 0 | 1435| 4178|| 19 | 32 2 | 58. 8 | 2107| 5345 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 12 0¼ | 51. 5 | 722| 2155|| 20 | 13 0½ | 57. 9 | 872| 2340 21 | 15 2 | 52. 5 | 893| 2639|| 21 | 16 1¾ | 58. 2 | 1109| 2749 22 | 13 3¼ | 53. 8 | 847| 2414|| 22 | 19 2¾ | 58. 5 | 1306| 3263 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- Table XX. --Produce of the 19th Season, 1861-2. Seed (Red Rostock) sown October 25, 1861; Crop cut August 29, and carted September 12, 1862. Table XXI. --Produce of the 20th Season, 1862-3. Seed (Red Rostock) sown November 17, 1862; Crop cut August 10, and carted August 18, 1863. Qty. Quantity. Wt/Bu. Weight per Bushel. TC Total Corn. TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw). -----+----------------------------||-----+---------------------------- | Produce per Acre, || | Produce per Acre, | etc. (For the Manures || | etc. (For the Manures P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) || P | see pp. 202 and 203. ) l +----------------+-----+-----|| l +----------------+-----+----- o | Dressed Corn. | | || o | Dressed Corn. | | t +---------+------+ | TP || t +---------+------+ | TP s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S || s | Qty. |Wt/Bu. | TC | C&S -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | Bu. Pks. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 0 | 19 3½ | 58. 5 | 1228| 3258|| 0 | 22 0½ | 62. 6 | 1429| 3254 1 | 16 2¾ | 58. 0 | 1024| 2772|| 1 | 20 3 | 62. 8 | 1334| 3079 2 | 38 1½ | 61. 0 | 2447| 6642|| 2 | 44 0 | 63. 1 | 2886| 7165 3 | 16 0 | 57. 8 | 996| 2709|| 3 | 17 1 | 62. 7 | 1127| 2727 4 | 16 2½ | 58. 5 | 1049| 2711|| 4 | 20 1 | 62. 3 | 1303| 2957 | | | | || | | | | 5a | 17 3¾ | 59. 0 | 1119| 2959|| 5a | 19 2½ | 63. 0 | 1283| 2970 5b | 17 2½ | 59. 0 | 1101| 2961|| 5b | 19 3 | 63. 0 | 1296| 3064 6a | 27 2 | 59. 5 | 1715| 4554|| 6a | 39 1½ | 62. 3 | 2522| 6236 6b | 28 3¼ | 59. 8 | 1797| 4897|| 6b | 39 3 | 62. 3 | 2534| 6250 7a | 35 2¼ | 59. 3 | 2200| 6106|| 7a | 53 1¼ | 62. 6 | 3477| 9330 7b | 36 0¾ | 59. 5 | 2265| 6178|| 7b | 54 0 | 62. 5 | 3507| 9385 8a | 39 3 | 59. 2 | 2477| 7200|| 8a | 56 2¼ | 62. 3 | 3668|10383 8b | 39 0½ | 59. 0 | 2452| 7087|| 8b | 54 3¼ | 62. 3 | 3559|10048 | | | | || | | | | 9a | 43 1¾ | 59. 5 | 2688| 8738|| 9a | 55 2¼ | 62. 1 | 3576| 9888 9b | 25 3½ | 56. 3 | 1641| 4897|| 9b | 41 1¾ | 62. 5 | 2723| 6920 | | | | || | | | | 10a | 23 0¼ | 56. 5 | 1457| 4050|| 10a | 39 0½ | 62. 6 | 2587| 6068 10b | 24 3¼ | 57. 5 | 1600| 4443|| 10b | 43 2¼ | 62. 8 | 2858| 6914 11a | 26 2¾ | 58. 0 | 1706| 4548|| 11a | 45 0 | 62. 5 | 2979| 7212 11b | 27 0¼ | 58. 0 | 1734| 4607|| 11b | 46 2 | 62. 1 | 3060| 7519 12a | 34 1¼ | 58. 0 | 2096| 5745|| 12a | 54 2¾ | 62. 1 | 3533| 8976 12b | 33 0¾ | 58. 0 | 2025| 5634|| 12b | 53 1 | 62. 2 | 3454| 8819 13a | 31 3¾ | 58. 0 | 1953| 5542|| 13a | 53 1 | 62. 6 | 3453| 9192 13b | 32 2¾ | 58. 0 | 2019| 5691|| 13b | 53 1¼ | 62. 5 | 3439| 9238 14a | 30 1¾ | 58. 0 | 1886| 5283|| 14a | 54 1¾ | 62. 5 | 3527| 8986 14b | 32 0¼ | 58. 1 | 2008| 5558|| 14b | 53 1¾ | 62. 5 | 3450| 8749 | | | | || | | | | 15a | 30 1¾ | 58. 3 | 1872| 5268|| 15a | 48 1¼ | 62. 5 | 3114| 8276 15b | 32 2¾ | 58. 3 | 2029| 5787|| 15b | 48 0 | 62. 9 | 3127| 8240 | | | | || | | | | 16a | 36 1¼ | 58. 0 | 2225| 6752|| 16a | 56 2¾ | 62. 4 | 3710|10717 16b | 36 0½ | 57. 5 | 2233| 6730|| 16b | 55 0¼ | 62. 3 | 3607|10332 | | | | || | | | | 17a | 27 3½ | 58. 1 | 1747| 4827|| 17a | 21 0½ | 62. 8 | 1370| 3288 17b | 27 2¼ | 58. 1 | 1685| 4762|| 17b | 21 1½ | 62. 8 | 1389| 3292 18a | 18 1½ | 58. 5 | 1168| 3161|| 18a | 46 1½ | 62. 6 | 3006| 7889 18b | 18 2¾ | 58. 5 | 1195| 3335|| 18b | 46 0¾ | 62. 8 | 3009| 7737 | | | | || | | | | 19 | 23 1½ | 57. 2 | 1479| 4132|| 19 | 46 2¾ | 62. 9 | 3054| 7577 | | | | || | | | | 20 | 12 1½ | 57. 3 | 818| 2335|| 20 | 17 2¾ | 62. 5 | 1137| 2609 21 | 20 1½ | 58. 1 | 1273| 3465|| 21 | 27 2½ | 62. 5 | 1796| 4279 22 | 20 0¼ | 58. 0 | 1250| 3430|| 22 | 29 3 | 62. 4 | 1907| 4599 -----+---------+------+-----+-----||-----+---------+------+-----+----- The _ninth_ season (1851-2), was unusually cold in June and wet inAugust. It will be seen that the wheat, both in quantity and quality, isthe poorest since the commencement of the experiments. The unmanuredplot gave less than 14 bushels of dressed grain per acre; the plot withbarn-yard manure, less than 28 bushels, and the best yield in the wholeseries was not quite 29 bushels per acre, and only weighed 55 lbs. Perbushel. On the same plot, the year before, with precisely the samemanure, the yield was nearly 37 bushels per acre, and the weight perbushel, 63½ lbs. So much for a favorable and an unfavorable season. The _tenth_ season (1852-3), was still more unfavorable. The autumn of1852 was so wet that it was impossible to work the land and sow thewheat until the 16th of March 1853. You will see that the produce on the unmanured plot was less than 6bushels per acre. With barn-yard manure, 19 bushels, and with a heavydressing of ammonia-salts and minerals, not quite 26 bushels per acre. With a heavy dressing of superphosphate, not quite 9¼ bushels per acre, and with a full dressing of mixed mineral manures and superphosphate, 10bushels per acre. The weight per bushel on the unmanured plot was 45 lbs. ; with mixedmineral manures, 48½ lbs. ; with ammonia-salts alone, 48½ lbs. ; withbarn-yard manure, 51 lbs. ; and with ammonia-salts and mixed mineralmanures, 52¼ lbs. Farmers are greatly dependent on the season, but the good farmer, whokeeps up the fertility of his land stands a better chance of makingmoney (or of losing less), than the farmer who depends on the unaidedproducts of the soil. The one gets 6 bushels per acre, and 1, 413 lbs. Ofstraw of very inferior quality; the other gets 20 to 26 bushels peracre, and 5, 000 lbs. Of straw. And you must recollect that in anunfavorable season we are pretty certain to get high prices. The _eleventh_ season (1853-4, ) gives us much more attractive-lookingfigures! We have over 21 bushels per acre on the plot which has growneleven crops of wheat in eleven years without any manure. With barn-yard manure, over 41 bushels per acre. With ammonia-saltsalone (17_a_), 45¾ bushels. With ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, (16_b_), over 50 bushels per acre, and 6, 635 lbs. Of straw. A totalproduce of nearly 5½ tons per acre. The _twelfth_ season (1854-5), gives us 17 bushels of wheat per acre onthe continuously unmanured plot. Over 34½ bushels on the plot manuredwith barn-yard manure. And I think, for the first time since thecommencement of the experiments, this plot produces the largest yield ofany plot in the field. And well it may, for it has now had, in twelveyears, 168 tons of barn-yard manure per acre! Several of the plots with ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, are nearlyup to it in grain, and ahead of it in straw. The _thirteenth_ season (1855-6), gives 14½ bushels on the unmanuredplot; over 36¼ bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure; andover 40 bushels on 8_a_, dressed with 600 lbs. Ammonia-salts and mixedmineral manures. It will be noticed that 800 lbs. Ammonia-salts does notgive quite as large a yield this year as 600 lbs. I suppose 40 bushelsper acre was all that the _season_ was capable of producing, and anextra quantity of ammonia did no good. 400 lbs. Of ammonia-salts, on7_a_, produced 37¼ bushels per acre, and 800 lbs. On 16_b_, only 37¾bushels. That extra half bushel of wheat was produced at considerablecost. The _fourteenth_ season (1856-7), gives 20 bushels per acre on theunmanured plot, and 41 bushels on the plot with barn-yard manure. Mixedmineral manures alone on 5_a_ gives nearly 23 bushels per acre. Mixedmineral manures and 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, on 6_a_, give 35¼ bushels. In other words the ammonia gives us over 12 extra bushels of wheat, and1, 140 lbs. Of straw. Mineral manures and 400 lbs. Ammonia-salts, on7_b_, give 46¼ bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 600 lbs. Ammonia-salts, on 8_b_, give nearly 49 bushels per acre. Mineral manuresand 800 lbs. Of ammonia-salts, on 16_b_, give 50 bushels per acre, and4, 703 lbs. Of straw. “This exceedingly heavy manuring, ” said the Deacon, “does not pay. Forinstance, “200 lbs. Ammonia-salts give an increase of 12¼ bushels per acre. 400 ” ” ” ” 23¼ ” ” 600 ” ” ” ” 26 ” ” 800 ” ” ” ” 27 ” ” The Deacon is right, and Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert call especialattention to this point. The 200 lbs. Of ammonia-salts contain about 50lbs. Of ammonia, and the 400 lbs. , 100 lbs. Of ammonia. And as I havesaid, 100 lbs. Of ammonia per acre is an unusually heavy dressing. It isas much ammonia as is contained in 1, 000 lbs. Of average Peruvian guano. We will recur to this subject. The _fifteenth_ season (1857-8, ) gives a yield of 18 bushels of wheatper acre on the continuously unmanured plot, and nearly 39 bushels onthe plot continuously manured with 14 tons of barnyard manure. Mixedmineral manures on 5_a_ and 5_b_, give a mean yield of less than 19bushels per acre. Mixed mineral manures and 100 lbs. Ammonia-salts, on plots 21 and 22, give 23¼ bushels per acre. In other words: 25 lbs. Ammonia, gives an _increase_ of 4¼ bush. (100 lbs. Ammonia-salts) 50 ” ”, ” ” ” ” 10 ” (200 ” ” ” ) 100 ” ”, ” ” ” ” 20 ” (400 ” ” ” ) 150 ” ”, ” ” ” ” 23 ” (600 ” ” ” ) 200 ” ”, ” ” ” ” 23 ” (800 ” ” ” ) “It takes, ” said the Deacon, “about 5 lbs. Of ammonia to produce abushel of wheat. And according to this, 500 lbs. Of Peruvian guano, guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, would give an increase of10 bushels of wheat. ” “This is a very interesting matter, ” said I, “but we will not discuss itat present. Let us continue the examination of the subject. I do notpropose to make many remarks on the tables. You must study them foryourself. I have spent hours and days and weeks making and ponderingover these tables. The more you study them the more interesting andinstructive they become. ” The _sixteenth_ season (1858-9), gives us a little over 18¼ bushels onthe unmanured plot. On the plot manured with 14 tons farmyard manure, 36¼ bushels; and this is the highest yield this season in thewheat-field. Mixed mineral manures alone, (mean of plot 5_a_ and 5_b_), give 20½ bushels. 25 lbs. Ammonia (100 lbs. Ammonia-salts), and mixed minerals, give 25¼bushels, or an _increase_ over minerals alone of 4¾ bushels. 50 lbs. Ammonia, an increase of 9¼ bushels. 100 ” ” ” ” ” 14 ” 150 ” ” ” ” ” 14 ” 200 ” ” ” ” ” 14¼ ” The season was an unfavorable one for excessive manuring. It was too wetand the crops of wheat when highly manured were much laid. The qualityof the grain was inferior, as will be seen from the light weight perbushel. The _seventeenth_ season (1859-60, ) gives less than 13 bushels per acreon the unmanured plot; and 32¼ bushels on the plot manured with 14 tonsfarm-yard manure. This season (1860), was a miserable year for wheat inEngland. It was both cold and wet. Mixed mineral manures, on plots 5_a_and 5_b_, gave nearly 16 bushels per acre. 25 lbs. Ammonia, in additionto the above, gave less than 15 bushels. In other words it gave no_increase_ at all. 50 lbs. Ammonia, gave an _increase_ of 6 bushels. 100 ” ” ” ” ” ” 11¾ ” 150 ” ” ” ” ” ” 15¼ ” 200 ” ” ” ” ” ” 16¾ ” It was a poor year for the wheat-grower, and that, whether he manuredexcessively, liberally, moderately, or not at all. “I do not quite see that, ” said the Deacon, “the farm-yard manure gavean _increase_ of nearly 20 bushels per acre. And the quality of thegrain must have been much better, as it weighed 3½ lbs. Per bushel morethan the plot unmanured. If the wheat doubled in price, as it ought todo in such a poor year, I do not see but that the good farmer who had inprevious years made his land rich, would come out ahead. ” “Good for the Deacon, ” said I. “‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’” Ifthe Deacon continues to study these experiments much longer, we shallhave him advocating chemical manures and high farming! The _eighteenth_ season (1860-1, ) gave less than 11½ bushels per acre onthe unmanured plot; and nearly 35 bushels on the manured plot. The mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 15½ bushels. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. Ammonia 18¼ ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 27¾ ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 35 ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 35 ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 37 ” The _nineteenth_ season (1861-2, ) gave 16 bushels per acre on theunmanured plot, and over 38¼ bushels on the plot manured with farm-yardmanure. Mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 18 bushels per acre. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. Ammonia 20¼ ” ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 28¼ ” ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 36 ” ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 39½ ” ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 36¼ ” ” The _twentieth_ season (1862-3), gave 17¼ bushels on the unmanured plot, and 44 bushels per acre on the manured plot. Mixed mineral manures alone gave 19¾ bushels per acre. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. Ammonia 28¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 39¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 53¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 55¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 56 ” ” When we consider that this is the twentieth wheat-crop in succession onthe same land, these figures are certainly remarkable. “They are so, ” said the Deacon, “and what to me is the most surprisingthing about the whole matter is, that the plot which has had no manureof any kind for 25 years, and has grown 20 wheat-crops in 20 successiveyears, should still produce a crop of wheat of 17¼ bushels per acre. Many of our farmers do not average 10 bushels per acre. Mr. Lawes musteither have very good land, or else the climate of England is betteradapted for wheat-growing than Western New York. ” “I do not think, ” said I, “that Mr. Lawes’ land is any better than yoursor mine; and I do not think the climate of England is any more favorablefor growing wheat without manure than our climate. If there is anydifference it is in our favor. ” “Why, then, ” asked the Doctor, “do we not grow as much wheat per acre asMr. Lawes gets from his continuously unmanured plot?” This is a question not difficult to answer. 1st. _We grow too many weeds. _ Mr. Lawes plowed the land twice everyyear; and the crop was hoed once or twice in the spring to kill theweeds. 2d. We do not half work our heavy land. We do not plow it enough--do notcultivate, harrow, and roll enough. I have put wheat in on my own farm, and have seen others do the same thing, when the drill on the clay-spotscould not deposit the seed an inch deep. There is “plant-food” enough inthese “clay-spots” to give 17 bushels of wheat per acre--or perhaps 40bushels--but we shall not get ten bushels. The wheat will not come upuntil late in the autumn--the plants will be weak and thin on theground; and if they escape the winter they will not get a fair hold ofthe ground until April or May. You know the result. The straw is full ofsap, and is almost sure to rust; the grain shrinks up, and we harvestthe crop, not because it is worth the labor, but because we cannot cutthe wheat with a machine on the better parts of the field withoutcutting these poor spots also. An acre or two of poor spots pull downthe average yield of the field below the average of Mr. Lawes’well-worked but unmanured land. 3d. Much of our wheat is seriously injured by stagnant water _in thesoil_, and standing water on the surface. I think we may safely say thatone-third the wheat-crop of this county (Monroe Co. , N. Y. ), is lost forwant of better tillage and better draining--and yet we think we have asgood wheat-land and are as good farmers as can be found in this countryor any other! Unless we drain land, where drainage is needed, and unless we work landthoroughly that needs working, and unless we kill the weeds or checktheir excessive growth, it is poor economy to sow expensive manures onour wheat-crops. But I do not think there is much danger of our falling into this error. The farmers who try artificial manures are the men who usually take thegreatest pains to make the best and most manure from the animals kept onthe farm. They know what manures cost and what they are worth. As arule, too, such men are good farmers, and endeavor to work their landthoroughly and keep it clean. When this is the case, there can be littledoubt that we can often use artificial manures to great advantage. “You say, ” said the Deacon, who had been looking over the tables while Iwas talking, “that mixed mineral manures and 50 lbs. Of ammonia give 39¾bushels per acre. Now these mixed mineral manures contain potash, soda, magnesia, and superphosphate. And I see where superphosphate was usedwithout any potash, soda, and magnesia, but with the same amount ofammonia, the yield is nearly 46 bushels per acre. This does not say muchin favor of potash, soda, and magnesia, as manures, for wheat. Again, I see, on plot 10_b_, 50 lbs. Of ammonia, _alone_, gives over 43½bushels per acre. On plot 11_b_, 50 lbs. Ammonia _and_ superphosphate, give 46½ bushels. Like your father, I am inclined to ask, ‘_Where can Iget this ammonia?_’” CHAPTER XXVIII. LIME AS A MANURE. These careful, systematic, and long-continued experiments of Lawes andGilbert seem to prove that if you have a piece of land well prepared forwheat, which will produce, without manure, say 15 bushels per acre, there is no way of making that land produce 30 bushels of wheat peracre, without directly or indirectly furnishing the soil with a liberalsupply of available nitrogen or ammonia. “What do you mean by directly or indirectly?” asked the Deacon. “What I had in my mind, ” said I, “was the fact that I have seen a gooddressing of lime double the yield of wheat. In such a case I suppose thelime decomposes the organic matter in the soil, or in some other waysets free the nitrogen or ammonia already in the soil; or the lime formscompounds in the soil which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. Be thisas it may, the facts brought out by Mr. Lawes’ experiments warrant us inconcluding that the increased growth of wheat was connected in some waywith an increased supply of available nitrogen or ammonia. ” My father used great quantities of lime as manure. He drew it a distanceof 13 miles, and usually applied it on land intended for wheat, spreading it broad-cast, after the land had received its last plowing, and harrowing it in, a few days or weeks before sowing the wheat. He rarely applied less than 100 bushels of stone-lime to theacre--generally 150 bushels. He used to say that a small dose of limedid little or no good. He wanted to use enough to change the generalcharacter of the land--to make the light land firmer and the heavy landlighter. While I was with Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert at Rothamsted, I went home ona visit. My father had a four-horse team drawing lime every day, andputting it in large heaps in the field to slake, before spreading it onthe land for wheat. “I do not believe it pays you to draw so much lime, ” said I, with theconfidence which a young man who has learned a little of agriculturalchemistry, is apt to feel in his newly acquired knowledge. “Perhaps not, ” said my father, “but we have got to do something for theland, or the crops will be poor, and poor crops do not pay these times. What would you use instead of lime?” --“Lime is not a manure, strictlyspeaking, ” said I; “a bushel to the acre would furnish all the lime thecrops require, even if there was not an abundant supply already in thesoil. If you mix lime with guano, it sets free the ammonia; and when youmix lime with the soil it probably decomposes some compounds containingammonia or the elements of ammonia, and thus furnishes a supply ofammonia for the plants. I think it would be cheaper to buy ammonia inthe shape of Peruvian guano. ” After dinner, my father asked me to take a walk over the farm. We cameto a field of barley. Standing at one end of the field, about themiddle, he asked me if I could see any difference in the crop. “Oh, yes, ” I replied, “the barley on the right-hand is far better than on theleft hand. The straw is stiffer and brighter, and the heads larger andheavier. I should think the right half of the field will be ten bushelsper acre better than the other. ” “So I think, ” he said, “and now can you tell me why?” --“Probably youmanured one half the field for turnips, and not the other half. ” --“No. ”--“You may have drawn off the turnips from half the field, and fed themoff by sheep on the other half. ” --“No, both sides were treatedprecisely alike. ” --I gave it up --“Well, ” said he, “this half thefield on the right-hand was limed, thirty years ago, and that is theonly reason I know for the difference. And now you need not tell me thatlime does not pay. ” I can well understand how this might happen. The system of rotationadopted was, 1st clover, 2d wheat, 3d turnips, 4th barley, seeded withclover. Now, you put on, say 150 bushels of lime for wheat. After the wheat theland is manured and sown with turnips. The turnips are eaten off on theland by sheep; and it is reasonable to suppose that on the half of thefield dressed with lime there would be a much heavier crop of turnips. These turnips being eaten off by the sheep would furnish more manure forthis half than the other half. Then again, when the land was in grass orclover, the limed half would afford more and sweeter grass and cloverthan the other half, and the sheep would remain on it longer. They wouldeat it close into the ground, going only on to the other half when theycould not get enough to eat on the limed half. More of their droppingswould be left on the limed half of the field. The lime, too, wouldcontinue to act for several years; but even after all direct benefitfrom the lime had ceased, it is easy to understand why the crops mightbe better for a long period of time. “Do you think lime would do any good, ” asked the Deacon, “on ourlimestone land?”--I certainly do. So far as I have seen, it does just asmuch good here in Western New York, as it did on my father’s farm. I should use it very freely if we could get it cheap enough--but we arecharged from 25 to 30 cts. A bushel for it, and I do not think at theserates it will pay to use it. Even gold may be bought too dear. “You should burn your own lime, ” said the Deacon, “you have plenty oflimestone on the farm, and could use up your down wood. ”--I believe itwould pay me to do so, but one man cannot do everything. I think iffarmers would use more lime for manure we should get it cheaper. Thedemand would increase with competition, and we should soon get it at itsreal value. At 10 to 15 cents a bushel, I feel sure that we could uselime as a manure with very great benefit. “I was much interested some years ago, ” said the Doctor, “in the resultsof Prof. Way’s investigations in regard to the absorptive powers ofsoils. ” His experiments, since repeated and confirmed by other chemists, formeda new epoch in agricultural chemistry. They afforded some newsuggestions in regard to how lime may benefit land. Prof. Way found that ordinary soils possessed the power of separating, from solution in water, the different earthy and alkaline substancespresented to them in manure; thus, when solutions of salts of ammonia, of potash, magnesia, etc. , were made to filter slowly through a bed ofdry soil, five or six inches deep, arranged in a flower-pot, or othersuitable vessel, it was observed that the liquid which ran through, nolonger contained any of the ammonia or other salt employed. The soilhad, in some form or other, retained the alkaline substance, while thewater in which it was previously dissolved passed through. Further, this power of the soil was found not to extend to the wholesalt of ammonia or potash, but only to the alkali itself. If, forinstance, sulphate of ammonia were the compound used in the experiments, the ammonia would be removed from solution, but the filtered liquidwould contain sulphuric acid in abundance--not in the free or uncombinedform, but united to lime; instead of sulphate of ammonia we should findsulphate of lime in the solution; and this result was obtained, whateverthe acid of the salt experimented upon might be. It was found, moreover, that the process of filtration was by no meansnecessary; by the mere mixing of an alkaline solution with a properquantity of soil, as by shaking them together in a bottle, and allowingthe soil to subside, the same result was obtained. The action, therefore, was in no way referable to any physical law brought intooperation by the process of filtration. It was also found that the combination between the soil and the alkalinesubstance was rapid, if not instantaneous, partaking of the nature ofthe ordinary union between an acid and an alkali. In the course of these experiments, several different soils wereoperated upon, and it was found that all soils capable of profitablecultivation possessed this property in a greater or less degree. Pure sand, it was found, did not possess this property. The organicmatter of the soil, it was proved, had nothing to do with it. Theaddition of carbonate of lime to a soil did not increase its absorptivepower, and indeed it was found that a soil in which carbonate of limedid not exist, possessed in a high degree the power of removing ammoniaor potash from solution. To what, then, is the power of soils to arrest ammonia, potash, magnesia, phosphoric acid, etc. , owing? The above experiments lead tothe conclusion that it is due to the _clay_ which they contain. In thelanguage of Prof. Way, however, “It still remained to be considered, whether the whole clay took anyactive part in these changes, or whether there existed in clay somechemical compound in small quantity to which the action was due. Thisquestion was to be decided by the extent to which clay was able to unitewith ammonia, or other alkaline bases; and it soon became evident thatthe idea of the clay as a whole, being the cause of the absorptiveproperty, was inconsistent with all the ascertained laws of chemicalcombination. ” After a series of experiments, Prof. Way came to the conclusion thatthere is in clays a peculiar class of double silicates to which theabsorptive properties of soil are due. He found that the double silicateof alumina and lime, or soda, whether found naturally in soils orproduced artificially, would be decomposed when a salt of ammonia, orpotash, etc. , was mixed with it, the ammonia, or potash, taking theplace of the lime or soda. Prof. Way’s discovery, then, is not that soils have “absorptiveproperties”--that has been long known--but that they absorb ammonia, potash, phosphoric acid, etc. , by virtue of the double silicate ofalumina and soda, or lime, etc. , which they contain. Soils are also found to have the power of absorbing ammonia, or rather_carbonate_ of ammonia, from the air. “It has long been known, ” says Prof. Way, “that soils acquire fertilityby exposure to the influence of the atmosphere--hence one of the uses offallows. * * I find that clay is so greedy of ammonia, that if air, charged with carbonate of ammonia, so as to be highly pungent, is passedthrough a tube filled with small fragments of dry clay, _every particleof the gas is arrested_. ” This power of the soil to absorb ammonia, is also due to the doublesilicates. But there is this remarkable difference, that while eitherthe lime, soda, or potash silicate is capable of removing the ammoniafrom _solution_, the _lime_ silicate alone _has the power of absorbingit from the air_. This is an important fact. Lime may act beneficially on many or mostsoils by converting the soda silicate into a lime silicate, or, in otherwords, converting a salt that will not absorb carbonate of ammonia fromthe air, into a salt that has this important property. There is no manure that has been so extensively used, and with suchgeneral success as lime, and yet, “who among us, ” remarks Prof. Way, “can say that he perfectly understands the mode in which lime acts?” Weare told that lime sweetens the soil, by neutralizing any acid characterthat it may possess; that it assists the decomposition of inert organicmatters, and therefore increases the supply of vegetable food to plants:that it decomposes the remains of ancient rocks containing potash, soda, magnesia, etc. , occurring in most soils, and that at the same time itliberates silica from these rocks; and lastly, that lime is one of thesubstances found uniformly and in considerable quantity in the ashes ofplants, that therefore its application may be beneficial simply asfurnishing a material indispensable to the substance of a plant. These explanations are no doubt good as far as they go, but experiencefurnishes many facts which cannot be explained by any one, or all, ofthese suppositions. Lime, we all know, does much good on soils aboundingin organic matter, and so it frequently does on soils almost destituteof it. It may liberate potash, soda, silica, etc. , from clay soils, butthe application of potash, soda, and silica has little beneficial effecton the soil, and therefore we cannot account for the action of lime onthe supposition that it renders the potash, soda, etc. , of the soilavailable to plants. Furthermore, lime effects great good on soilsabounding in salts of lime, and therefore it cannot be that it operatesas a source of lime for the structure of the plant. None of the existing theories, therefore, satisfactorily account for theaction of lime. Prof. Way’s views are most consistent with the facts ofpractical experience; but they are confessedly hypothetical; and hismore recent investigations do not confirm the idea that lime actsbeneficially by converting the soda silicate into the lime silicate. Thus, six soils were treated with lime water until they had absorbedfrom one and a half to two per cent of their weight of lime. This, supposing the soil to be six inches deep, would be at the rate of about300 bushels of lime per acre. The amount of ammonia in the soil wasdetermined before liming, after liming, and then after being exposed tothe fumes of carbonate ammonia until it had absorbed as much as itwould. The following table exhibits the results: ----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ |No. 1. |No. 2. |No. 3. |No. 4. |No. 5. |No. 6. ----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ Ammonia in 1, 000 grains | | | | | | of natural soil | 0. 293| 0. 181| 0. 085| 0. 109| 0. 127| 0. 083 Ammonia in 1, 000 grains | | | | | | of soil after liming | 0. 169| 0. 102| 0. 040| 0. 050| . .. | 0. 051 Ammonia in 1, 000 grains of | | | | | | soil after liming and | | | | | | exposure to the vapor | | | | | | of ammonia | 2. 226| 2. 066| 3. 297| 1. 076| 3. 265| 1. 827 Ammonia in 1, 000 grains | | | | | | of soil after exposure to | | | | | | ammonia without liming. | 1. 906| 2. 557| 3. 286| 1. 097| 2. 615| 2. 028 ----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ No. 1. Surface soil of London clay. No. 2. Same soil from 1½ to 2 feet below the surface. No. 3. Same soil 3½ feet below the surface. No. 4. Loam of tertiary drift 4 feet below the surface. No. 5. Gault clay--surface soil. No. 6. Gault clay 4 feet below the surface. It is evident that lime neither assisted nor interfered with theabsorption of ammonia, and hence the beneficial effect of liming on suchsoils must be accounted for on some other supposition. This negativeresult, however, does not disprove the truth of Prof. Way’s hypothesis, for it may be that the silicate salt in the natural soils was that oflime and not that of soda. Indeed, the extent to which the natural soilsabsorbed ammonia--equal, in No. 3, to about 7, 000 lbs. Of ammonia peracre, equivalent to the quantity contained in 700 tons of barn-yardmanure--shows this to have been the case. _The lime liberated one-half the ammonia contained in the soil. _ “This result, ” says Prof. Way, “is so nearly the same in all cases, thatwe are justified in believing it to be due to some special cause, andprobably it arises from the existence of some compound silicatescontaining ammonia, of which lime under the circumstances can replaceone-half--forming, for instance, a double silicate of alumina, with halflime and half ammonia--such compounds are not unusual or new to thechemist. ” This loss of ammonia from a heavy dressing of lime is very great. A soilfive inches deep, weighs, in round numbers, 500 tons, or 1, 000, 000 lbs. The soil, No. 1, contained . 0293 per cent of ammonia, or in an acre, five inches deep, 293 lbs. After liming, it contained . 0169 per cent, orin an acre, five inches deep, 169 lbs. The loss by liming is 124 lbs. Ofammonia per acre. This is equal to the quantity contained in 1200 lbs. Of good Peruvian guano, or 12½ tons of barn-yard manure. In commenting on this great loss of ammonia from liming, Prof. Wayobserves: “Is it not possible, that for the profitable agricultural use, theammonia of the soil is too tightly locked up in it? Can we suppose thatthe very powers of the soil to unite with and preserve the elements ofmanure are, however excellent a provision of nature, yet in some degreeopposed to the growth of the abnormal crops which it is the business ofthe farmer to cultivate? There is no absolute reason why such should notbe the case. A provision of nature must relate to natural circumstances;for instance, compounds of ammonia may be found in the soil, capable ofgiving out to the agencies of water and air quite enough of ammonia forthe growth of ordinary plants and the preservation of their species;but this supply may be totally inadequate to the necessities of man. * * * Now it is not impossible that the laws which preserve thesupply of vegetable nutrition in the soil, are too stringent for therequirements of an unusual and excessive vegetation, such as thecultivator must promote. “In the case of ammonia locked up in the soil, lime may be the remedy atthe command of the farmer--his means of rendering immediately availablestores of wealth, which can otherwise only slowly be brought into use. “In this view, lime would well deserve the somewhat vague name that hasbeen given it, namely, that of a ‘stimulant’; for its application wouldbe in some sort an application of ammonia, while its excessiveapplication, by driving off ammonia, would lead to all the disastrouseffects which are so justly attributed to it. “I do not wish to push this assumption too far, ” says Prof. Way, inconclusion, “but if there be any truth in it, it points out theimportance of employing lime in small quantities at short intervals, rather than in large doses once in many years. ” “The Squire, last year, ” said the Deacon, “drew several hundred bushelsof refuse lime from the kiln, and mixed it with his manure. It made apowerful smell, and not an agreeable one, to the passers by. He put themixture on a twenty-acre field of wheat, and he said he was going tobeat you. ” “Yes, ” said I, “so I understood--but he did not do it. If he had appliedthe lime and the manure separately, he would have stood a better chance;still, there are two sides to the question. I should not think of mixinglime with good, rich farm-yard manure; but with long, coarse, strawymanure, there would be less injury, and possibly some advantage. ” “The Squire, ” said the Deacon, “got one advantage. He had not muchtrouble in drawing the manure about the land. There was not much of itleft. ” Lime does not always decompose organic matter. In certain conditions, itwill _preserve_ vegetable substances. We do not want to mix lime withmanure in order to preserve it; and if our object is to increasefermentation, we must be careful to mix sufficient soil with the manureto keep it moist enough to retain the liberated ammonia. Many farmers who use lime for the first time on wheat, are apt to feel alittle discouraged in the spring. I have frequently seen limed wheat inthe spring look worse than where no lime was used. But wait a little, and you will see a change for the better, and at harvest, the lime willgenerally give a good account of itself. There is one thing about lime which, if generally true, is an importantmatter to our wheat-growers. Lime is believed to hasten the maturity ofthe crop. “It is true of nearly all our cultivated crops, ” says the lateProfessor Johnston, “but especially of those of wheat, that their fullgrowth is attained more speedily when the land is limed, and that theyare ready for the harvest from ten to fourteen days earlier. This is thecase even with buckwheat, which becomes sooner ripe, though it yields nolarger a return when lime is applied to the land on which it is grown. ” In districts where the midge affects the wheat, it is exceedinglyimportant to get a variety of wheat that ripens early; and if lime willfavor early maturity, without checking the growth, it will be of greatvalue. A correspondent in Delaware writes: “I have used lime as a manure invarious ways. For low land, the best way is, to sow it broadcast whilethe vegetation is in a green state, at the rate of 40 or 50 bushels tothe acre; but if I can not use it before the frost kills the vegetation, I wait until the land is plowed in the spring, when I spread it on theplowed ground in about the same quantity as before. Last year, I triedit both ways, and the result was, my crop was increased at leastfourfold in each instance, but that used on the vegetation was best. Thesoil is a low, black sand. ” A farmer writes from New Jersey, that he has used over 6, 000 bushels oflime on his farm, and also considerable guano and phosphates, butconsiders that the lime has paid the best. His farm has more thandoubled in real value, and he attributes this principally to the use oflime. “We lime, ” he says, “whenever it is convenient, but prefer to put it onat least one year before plowing the land. We spread from 25 to 40bushels of lime on the sod in the fall; plant with corn the followingsummer; next spring, sow with oats and clover; and the next summer, plowunder the clover, and sow with wheat and timothy. We have a variety ofsoils, from a sandy loam to a stiff clay, and are certain that lime willpay on all or any of them. Some of the best farmers in our Countycommenced liming when the lime cost 25 cts. A bushel, and their farmsare ahead yet, more in value, I judge, than the lime cost. The man whofirst commences using lime, will get so far ahead, while his neighborsare looking on, that they will never catch up. ” Another correspondent in Hunterdon Co. , N. J. , writes: “Experience hastaught me that the best and most profitable mode of applying lime is ongrass land. If the grass seed is sown in the fall with the wheat or rye, which is the common practice with us in New Jersey, as soon as theharvest comes off the next year, we apply the lime with the least delay, and while fresh slacked and in a dry and mealy state. It can be spreadmore evenly on the ground, and is in a state to be more readily taken upby the fine roots of the plants, than if allowed to get wet and clammy. It is found most beneficial to keep it as near the surface of the groundas practicable, as the specific gravity or weight of this mineral manureis so great, that we soon find it too deep in the ground for the fibrousroots of plants to derive the greatest possible benefit from its use. With this method of application are connected several advantages. Thelime can be hauled in the fall, after the busy season is over, and whenspread on the sod in this way, comes in more immediate contact with thegrass and grass-roots than when the land is first plowed. In fields thathave been limed in part in this manner, and then plowed, and limeapplied to the remainder at the time of planting with corn, I alwaysobserve a great difference in the corn-crop; and in plowing up thestubble the next season, the part limed on the sod is much mellower thanthat limed after the sod was broken, presenting a rich vegetable mouldnot observed in the other part of the field. ” A farmer in Chester Co. , Pa. , also prefers to apply lime to newly-seededgrass or clover. He puts on 100 bushels of slaked lime per acre, eitherin the fall or in the spring, as most convenient. He limes one fieldevery year, and as the farm is laid off into eleven fields, all the landreceives a dressing of lime once in eleven years. In some sections of the country, where lime has been used for manyyears, it is possible that part of the money might better be used in thepurchase of guano, phosphates, fish-manure, etc. ; while in this section, where we seldom use lime, we might find it greatly to our interest togive our land an occasional dressing of lime. The value of quick-lime as a manure is not merely in supplying an actualconstituent of the plant. If it was, a few pounds per acre would besufficient. Its value consists in changing the chemical and physicalcharacter of the soil--in developing the latent mineral plant-food, andin decomposing and rendering available organic matter, and in formingcompounds which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. It may be that wecan purchase this ammonia and other plant-food cheaper than we can getit by using lime. It depends a good deal on the nature and compositionof the soil. At present, this question can not be definitely settled, except by actual trial on the farm. In England, where lime was formerlyused in large quantities, the tendency for some time has been towards amore liberal and direct use of ammonia and phosphates in manures, ratherthan to develop them out of the soil by the use of lime. A judiciouscombination of the two systems will probably be found the mostprofitable. Making composts with old sods, lime, and barn-yard manure, is atime-honored practice in Europe. I have seen excellent results from theapplication of such a compost on meadow-land. The usual plan is, toselect an old hedge-row or headland, which has lain waste for manyyears. Plow it up, and cart the soil, sods, etc. , into a long, narrowheap. Mix lime with it, and let it lie six months or a year. Then turnit, and as soon as it is fine and mellow, draw it on to the land. I haveassisted at making many a heap of this kind, but do not recollect theproportion of lime used; in fact, I question if we had any definiterule. If we wanted to use lime on the land, we put more in the heap; ifnot, less. The manure was usually put in when the heap was turned. Dr. Vœlcker analyzed the dry earth used in the closets at the prison inWakefield, England. He found that: Phosphoric Nitrogen. Acid. 10 tons of dry earth before using contained 63 lbs. 36 lbs. 10 tons of dry earth after being used once contained 74 ” 50 ” 10 tons of dry earth after being used twice contained 84 ” 88 ” 10 tons of dry earth after being used thrice contained 102 ” 102 ” After looking at the above figures, the Deacon remarked: “You say 10tons of dry earth before being used in the closet contained 62 lbs. Ofnitrogen. How much nitrogen does 10 tons of barn-yard manure contain?” “That depends a good deal on what food the animals eat. Ten tons ofaverage fresh manure would contain about 80 lbs. Of nitrogen. ” “Great are the mysteries of chemistry!” exclaimed the Deacon. “Ten tonsof dry earth contain almost as much nitrogen as 10 tons of barn-yardmanure, and yet you think that nitrogen is the most valuable thing inmanure. What shall we be told next?” “You will be told, Deacon, that the nitrogen in the soil is in such aform that the plants can take up only a small portion of it. But if youwill plow such land in the fall, and expose it to the disintegratingeffects of the frost, and plow it again in the spring, and let the sunand air act upon it, more or less of the organic matter in the soil willbe decomposed, and the nitrogen rendered soluble. And then if you sowthis land to wheat after a good summer-fallow, you will stand a chanceof having a great crop. ” This dry earth which Dr. Vœlcker analyzed appeared, he says, “to beordinary garden soil, containing a considerable portion of clay. ” Afterit had been passed once through the closet, one ton of it was spread onan acre of grass-land, which produced 2 tons 8 cwt. Of hay. In a secondexperiment, one ton, once passed through the closet, produced 2 tons 7cwt. Of hay per acre. We are not told how much hay the land producedwithout any dressing at all. Still we may infer that this top-dressingdid considerable good. Of one thing, however, there can be no doubt. This one ton of earth manure contained only 1¼ lb. More nitrogen and 1½lb. More phosphoric acid than a ton of the dry earth itself. Why thendid it prove so valuable as a top-dressing for grass? I will not saythat it was due solely to the decomposition of the nitrogenous matterand other plant-food in the earth, caused by the working over andsifting and exposure to the air, and to the action of the night-soil. Still it would seem that, so far as the beneficial effect was due to thesupply of plant-food, we must attribute it to the earth itself ratherthan to the small amount of night-soil which it contained. It is a very common thing in England, as I have said before, for farmersto make a compost of the sods and earth from an old hedge-row, ditch, orfence, and mix with it some lime or barn-yard manure. Then, afterturning it once or twice, and allowing it to remain in the heap for afew months, to spread it on meadow-land. I have seen great benefitapparently derived from such a top-dressing. The young grass in thespring assumed a rich, dark green color. I have observed the same effectwhere coal-ashes were spread on grass-land; and I have thought that theapparent benefit was due largely to the material acting as a kind ofmulch, rather than to its supplying plant-food to the grass. I doubt very much whether we can afford to make such a compost of earthwith lime, ashes, or manure in this country. But I feel sure that thoseof us having rich clay land containing, in an inert form, as muchnitrogen and phosphoric acid as Dr. Vœlcker found in the soil to be usedin the earth-closet at Wakefield, can well afford to stir it freely, andexpose it to the disintegrating and decomposing action of theatmosphere. An acre of dry soil six inches deep weighs about 1, 000 tons; andconsequently an acre of such soil as we are talking about would contain6, 200 lbs. Of nitrogen, and 3, 600 lbs. Of phosphoric acid. In otherwords, it contains to the depth of only six inches as much nitrogen aswould be furnished by 775 tons of common barn-yard manure, and as muchphosphoric acid as 900 tons of manure. With such facts as these beforeus, am I to blame for urging farmers to cultivate their land morethoroughly? I do not know that my land or the Deacon’s is as rich asthis English soil; but, at any rate, I see no reason why such should notbe the case. CHAPTER XXIX. MANURES FOR BARLEY. Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert have published the results of experiments withdifferent manures on barley grown annually on the same land for twentyyears in succession. The experiments commenced in 1852. The soil is of the same general character as that in the field on thesame farm where wheat was grown annually for so many years, and of whichwe have given such a full account. It is what we should call acalcareous clay loam. On my farm, we have what the men used to call“clay spots. ” These spots vary in size from two acres down to the tenthof an acre. They rarely produced even a fair crop of corn or potatoes, and the barley was seldom worth harvesting. Since I have drained theland and taken special pains to bestow extra care in plowing and workingthese hard and intractable portions of the fields, the “clay spots” havedisappeared, and are now nothing more than good, rather stiff, clayloam, admirably adapted for wheat, barley, and oats, and capable ofproducing good crops of corn, potatoes, and mangel-wurzels. The land on which Mr. Lawes’ wheat and barley experiments were made isnot dissimilar in general character from these “clay spots. ” If the landwas only half-worked, we should call it clay; but being thoroughlycultivated, it is a good clay loam. Mr. Lawes describes it as “asomewhat heavy loam, with a subsoil of raw, yellowish red clay, butresting in its turn upon chalk, which provides good natural drainage. ” The part of the field devoted to the experiments was divided into 24plots, about the fifth of an acre each. Two plots were left without manure of any kind. One plot was manured every year with 14 tons per acre of farm-yardmanure, and the other plots “with manures, ” to quote Dr. Gilbert“which respectively supplied certain constituents of farm-yard manure, separately or in combination. ” In England, the best barley soils are usually lighter than the bestwheat soils. This is probably due to the fact that barley usuallyfollows a crop of turnips--more or less of which are eaten off on theland by sheep. The trampling of the sheep compresses the soil, and makeseven a light, sandy one firmer in texture. In this country, our best wheat land is also our best barley land, _provided_ it is in good heart, and is very thoroughly worked. It is nouse sowing barley on heavy land half worked. It will do better on lightsoils; but if the clayey soils are made fine and mellow, they producewith us the best barley. In chemical composition, barley is quite similar to wheat. Mr. Lawes andDr. Gilbert give the composition of a wheat-crop of 30 bushels per acre, 1, 800 lbs. Of grain, and 3, 000 lbs. Of straw; and of a crop of barley, 40 bushels per acre, 2, 080 lbs. Grain, and 2, 500 lbs. Of straw, asfollows: ----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------ | In Grain. | In Straw. | In Total Produce. +-------+--------+-------+--------+----------+------- | Wheat | Barley | Wheat | Barley | Wheat | Barley | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Nitrogen | 32. | 33. | 13. | 12. | 45. | 45. Phosphoric acid | 16. | 17. | 7. | 5. | 23. | 22. Potash | 9. 5 | 11. 5 | 20. 5 | 18. 5 | 30. | 30. Lime | 1. | 1. 5 | 9. | 10. 5 | 10. | 12. Magnesia | 3. 5 | 4. | 3. | 2. 5 | 6. 5 | 6. 5 Silica | 0. 5 | 12. | 99. 5 | 63. | 100. | 75. ----------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+----------+------- A few years ago, when the midge destroyed our wheat, many farmers inWestern New York raised “winter barley, ” instead of “winter wheat, ” andI have seen remarkably heavy crops of this winter barley. It is not nowgrown with us. The maltsters would not pay as much for it as for springbarley, and as the midge troubles us less, our farmers are raisingwinter wheat again. Where, as with us, we raise winter wheat and spring barley, thedifference between the two crops, taking the above estimate of yield andproportion of grain to straw, would be: 1st. Almost identical composition in regard to nitrogen, phosphoricacid, potash, lime, and magnesia; but as it has more straw, thewheat-crop removes a larger amount of silica than barley. 2d. The greatest difference is in the length of time the two crops arein the ground. We sow our winter wheat the last of August, or the firstand second week in September. Before winter sets in, the wheat-plantoften throws out a bunch of roots a foot in length. During the winter, though the thermometer goes down frequently to zero, and sometimes 10°to 15° below zero, yet if the land is well covered with snow, it is notimprobable that the roots continue to absorb more or less food from theground, and store it up for future use. In the spring, the wheatcommences to grow before we can get the barley into the ground, thoughnot to any considerable extent. I have several times sown barley as soonas the surface-soil was thawed out five or six inches deep, but with abed of solid frozen earth beneath. 3d. Two-rowed barley does not ripen as early as winter wheat, but ourordinary six-rowed barley is ready to harvest the same time as ourwinter wheat. 4th. We sow our barley usually in May, and harvest it in July. Thebarley, therefore, has to take up its food rapidly. If we expect a goodgrowth, we must provide a good supply of food, and have it in the propercondition for the roots to reach it and absorb it; in other words, theland must be not only rich, but it must be so well worked that the rootscan spread out easily and rapidly in search of food and water. In thiscountry, you will find ten good wheat-growers to one good barley grower. “That is so, ” said the Deacon; “but tell us about Mr. Lawes’experiments. I have more confidence in them than in your speculations. And first of all what kind of land was the barley grown on?” “It is, ” said I, “rather heavy land--as heavy as what the men call‘clay-spots, ’ on my farm. ” “And on those clay-spots, ” said the Deacon, “you either get very goodbarley, or a crop not worth harvesting. ” “You have hit it exactly, Deacon, ” said I. “The best barley I have thisyear (1878) is on these clay-spots. And the reason is, that we gave theman extra plowing last fall with a three-horse plow. That extra plowinghas probably given me an extra 30 bushels of barley per acre. The barleyon some of the lighter portions of the field will not yield over 25bushels per acre. On the clay-spots, it looks now (June 13) as thoughthere would be over 50 bushels per acre. It is all headed out handsomelyon the clay-spots, and has a strong, dark, luxuriant appearance, whileon the sand, the crop is later and has a yellow, sickly look. ” “You ought, ” said the Doctor, “to have top-dressed these poor, sandyparts of the field with a little superphosphate and nitrate of soda. ” “It would have paid wonderfully well, ” said I, “or, perhaps, morecorrectly speaking, the loss would have been considerably less. We haverecently been advised by a distinguished writer, to apply manure to ourbest land, and let the poor land take care of itself. But where the poorland is in the same field with the good, we are obliged to plow, harrow, cultivate, sow, and harvest the poor spots, and the question is, whetherwe shall make them capable of producing a good crop by the applicationof manure, or be at all the labor and expense of putting in andharvesting a crop of chicken-feed and weeds. Artificial manures give usa grand chance to make our crops more uniform. ” “You are certainly right there, ” said the Doctor, “but let us examinethe Rothamsted experiments on barley. ” You will find the results in the following tables. The manures used, are in many respects the same as were adopted in the wheat experimentsalready given. The mineral or ash constituents were supplied as follows: _Potash_--as sulphate of potash. _Soda_--as sulphate of soda. _Magnesia_--as sulphate of magnesia. _Lime_--as sulphate, phosphate, and superphosphate. _Phosphoric acid_--as bone-ash, mixed with sufficient sulphuric acid to convert most of the insoluble earthy phosphate of lime into sulphate and soluble superphosphate of lime. _Sulphuric acid_--in the phosphatic mixture just mentioned; in sulphates of potash, soda, and magnesia; in sulphate of ammonia, etc. _Chlorine_--in muriate of ammonia. _Silica_--as artificial silicate of soda. Other constituents were supplied as under: _Nitrogen_--as sulphate and muriate of ammonia; as nitrate of soda; in farm-yard manure; in rape-cake. _Non-nitrogenous organic matter, yielding by decomposition, carbonic acid, and other products_--in yard manure, in rape-cake. The artificial manure or mixture for each plot was ground up, orotherwise mixed, with a sufficient quantity of soil and turf-ashes tomake it up to a convenient measure for equal distribution over the land. The mixtures so prepared were, with proper precautions, sown broadcastby hand; as it has been found that the application of an exact amount ofmanure, to a limited area of land, can be best accomplished in that way. The same manures were used on the same plot each year. Any exceptions tothis rule are mentioned in foot-notes. Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England. Table I. --Showing, _taken together with the foot-notes, _ the description and quantities of the manures applied per acre on each plot, in each year of the twenty, 1852-1871 inclusive. [N. B. This table has reference to all the succeeding Tables]. ---------+------------------------------------------------------ |Manures per Acre, per Annum (unless otherwise Plots | stated in the foot-notes). ---------+------------------------------------------------------ 1 O. |Unmanured continuously 2 O. |3½ cwts. Superphosphate of Lime* 3 O. |200 lbs. †Sulphate of Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate | Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia 4 O. |200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass. 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, | 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate 1 A. |200 lbs. Ammonia-salts§ 2 A. |200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate 3 A. |200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia 4 A. |200 lbs. Ammonia salts 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, | 3½ cwts. Superphosphate {1 AA. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda {2 AA. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate ‖{3 AA. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, { | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia {4 AA. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, | 3½ cwts. Superphosphate {1 AAS. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda {2 AAS. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda, { | 3½ cwts. Superphosphate {3 AAS. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda, { | 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, { | 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia {4 AAS. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda, | 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda | 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate {1 C. |1000 lbs. Rape-cake {2 C. |1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate **{3 C. |1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, { | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, {4 C. |1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, | 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, | 3½ cwts. Superphosphate {1 N. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda ††{2 N. |275 lbs. Nitrate Soda (550 lbs. Nitrate for 5 years, | 1853, 4, 5, 6, and 7) M. |100 lbs. ‡‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, | 3½ cwts. Superphosphate (commencing 1855; 1852, 3, | and 4, unmanured 5 O. |200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate | (200 lbs. Ammonia-salts also, for the first year, | 1852, only) 5 A. |200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate, | 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts 6 {1 |Unmanured continuously {2 |Ashes (burnt-soil and turf) 7 |14 Tons Farmyard-Manure ---------+------------------------------------------------------ [*: “3½ cwts. Superphosphate of Lime”--in all cases, made from 200 lbs. Bone ash, 150 lbs. Sulphuric acid sp. Gr. 1. 7 (and water). ] [†: Sulphate Potass--300 lbs. Per annum for the first 6 years, 1852-7. ] [‡: Sulphate Soda--200 lbs. Per annum for the first 6 years, 1852-7. ] [§: The “Ammonia-salts”--in all cases equal parts of Sulphate and Muriate of Ammonia of Commerce. ] [‖: Plots “AA” and “AAS”--first 6 years, 1852-7, instead of Nitrate of Soda, 400 lbs. Ammonia-salts per annum; next 10 years, 1858-67, 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts per annum; 1868, and since, 275 lbs. Nitrate of Soda per annum. 275 lbs. Nitrate of Soda is reckoned to contain the same amount of Nitrogen as 200 lbs. “Ammonia-salts. ”] [¶: Plots “AAS”--the application of Silicates did not commence until 1864; in ‘64-5-6, and 7, 200 lbs. Silicate of Soda and 200 lbs. Silicate of Lime were applied per acre, but in 1868, and since, 400 lbs. Silicate of Soda, and no Silicate of Lime. These plots comprise, respectively, one half of the original “AA” plots, and, excepting the addition of the Silicates, have been, and are, in other respects, manured in the same way as the “AA” plots. ] [**: 2000 lbs. Rape-cake per annum for the first 6 years, and 1000 lbs. Only, each year since. ] [††: 300 lbs. Sulphate Potass, and 3½ cwts. Superphosphate of Lime, without Nitrate of Soda, the first year (1852); Nitrate alone each year since. ] [‡‡: Sulphate Soda--200 lbs. Per annum 1855, 6, and 7. ] [Transcriber’s Note: The following is an alternative version of the same table, giving the information in the form used in all earlier tables. ] FM Farm-yard Manure. ABT Ashes (burnt-soil and turf). SiS Silicate of Soda. SPh Superphosphate. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. SP Sulphate of Potass. SS Sulphate of Soda. NS Nitrate of Soda. RC Rape-Cake. A-S Ammonia-salts. -------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- Plots | FM | ABT | SiS| SPh|SMg | SP | SS | NS | RC |A-S-------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- |Tons. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. 1 O. | . . | . . | -- unmanured continuously-- | . . 2 O. | . . | . . | . . | 350| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . 3 O. | . . | . . | . . | . . | 100| 200| 100| . . | . . | . . 4 O. | . . | . . | . . | 350| 100| 200| 100| . . | . . | . . 1 A. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 2 A. | . . | . . | . . | 350| . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 200 3 A. | . . | . . | . . | . . | 100| 200| 100| . . | . . | 200 4 A. | . . | . . | . . | 350| 100| 200| 100| . . | . . | 200{1 AA. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . {2 AA. | . . | . . | . . | 350| . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . {3 AA. | . . | . . | . . | . . | 100| 200| 100| 275| . . | . . {4 AA. | . . | . . | . . | 350| 100| 200| 100| 275| . . | . . {1 AAS. | . . | . . | 400| . . | . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . {2 AAS. | . . | . . | 400| 350| . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . {3 AAS. | . . | . . | 400| . . | 100| 200| 100| 275| . . | . . {4 AAS. | . . | . . | 400| 350| 100| 200| 100| 275| . . | . . 1 C. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 1000| . . 2 C. | . . | . . | . . | 350| . . | . . | . . | . . | 1000| . . 3 C. | . . | . . | . . | . . | 100| 200| 100| . . | 1000| . . 4 C. | . . | . . | . . | 350| 100| 200| 100| . . | 1000| . . 1 N. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . 2 N. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | 275| . . | . . M. | . . | . . | . . | 350| 100| . . | 100| . . | . . | . . 5 O. | . . | . . | . . | 350| . . | 200| . . | . . | . . | . . 5 A. | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . 6{1 | . . | . . | -- unmanured continuously-- | . . {2* | . . | | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . 7 | 14 | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . -------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- * 6. 2: No amount given for ashes Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England. Table II. --Dressed Corn Per Acre--bushels. [N. B. The double vertical lines ‖ show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see _Table I. _, and foot-notes thereto, p. 231. ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvests------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Plots | 1852 |1853|1854|1855|1856|1857|1858|1859|1860|1861|1862|1863|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. |1 O. | 27¼ | 25¾| 35 | 31 | 13⅞| 26⅛| 21⅛| 13½| 13¼| 16¼| 16½| 22⅞|2 O. | 28⅝ | 33½| 40⅝| 36¼| 17¾| 33¼| 28¾| 19⅝| 15¾| 25 | 21⅞| 32⅜|3 O. | 26⅛ | 27⅝| 36½| 34¾| 16⅝| 32 ‖ 24¼| 15⅞| 15¼| 18⅞| 19¾| 27⅝|4 O. | 32¾ | 35⅝| 42 | 37⅛| 19¾| 39¾‖ 30⅞| 19¾| 18¼| 29⅜| 25⅛| 33 |------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 28¾ | 30⅝| 38½| 34¾| 17 | 32¾| 26¼| 17¼| 15⅝| 22⅜| 20¾| 28⅞|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 A. | 36⅞ | 38⅝| 47¾| 44½| 25 | 38⅞| 31½| 15⅜| 26⅝| 30½| 31⅜| 42⅝|2 A. | 38⅝ | 40⅛| 60½| 47¾| 29⅛| 56½| 51⅜| 34½| 43⅜| 55 | 48⅝| 61⅝|3 A. | 36 | 36½| 50 | 44½| 28⅜| 42⅜‖ 34¼| 16⅞| 28 | 32¾| 35¼| 48⅝|4 A. | 40¾ | 38¼| 60⅝| 48⅜| 31¾| 57⅜‖ 51½| 34⅝| 43½| 54⅝| 47⅝| 55⅜|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 38⅛ | 38⅜| 54¾| 46¼| 28½| 48¾| 42⅛| 25⅜| 35⅜| 43¼| 40¾| 52⅛|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 AA. | 44½ | 40¾| 56⅝| 48 | 36¼| 49¾‖ 39⅜| 21½| 25⅜| 35 | 31½| 49 |2 AA. | 43¾ | 42¼| 63¼| 50⅜| 31½| 66½‖ 56¼| 35⅞| 43¼| 55¾| 51 | 60½|3 AA. | 41¾ | 41¼| 51½| 47¾| 25⅜| 49⅞‖|40⅝| 20⅜| 30¾| 36⅞| 36¼| 54 |4 AA. | 45⅛ | 44½| 62¾| 49⅝| 37⅝| 64⅞‖|56¼| 35¾| 46¼| 55⅞| 48¾| 59½|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 43¾ | 42⅛| 58½| 48⅞| 32⅝| 57¾| 48⅛| 28⅜| 36⅜| 45⅞| 41⅞| 55¾|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |2 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |3 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |4 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | | | | | | | | | | | | |------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 C. | 39⅛ | 39⅞| 60¾| 48½| 36¾| 64⅛‖ 53¾| 38¾| 31¾| 56½| 41 | 51⅞|2 C. | 36½ | 36⅛| 60⅝| 53¼| 37⅛| 62¼‖ 57⅜| 41 | 36¾| 56⅞| 45 | 55 |3 C. | 33½ | 35¼| 56½| 48⅞| 32⅝| 60¼‖|52 | 34⅛| 35¼| 51⅛| 36 | 53⅛|4 C. | 38 | 40⅛| 60¼| 51¾| 35⅜| 62¼‖|57⅛| 35 | 40¾| 53⅝| 45½| 54½|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 36¾ | 37⅞| 59½| 50⅝| 35½| 62¼| 55 | 37¼| 36⅛| 54½| 41⅞| 53⅝|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 N. }(25⅞){‖ 34⅜| 49⅜| 50 | 28½| 47⅞| 37¾| 24⅞| 27⅜| 38¼| 35½| 51½|2 N. } {‖ 37⅛| 53¼| 49⅜| 42 | 58 ‖ 43⅞| 26½| 29¾| 41⅝| 38⅜| 53⅞| | | | | | | | | | | | | |M. | | | ‖ 32⅛| 18¾| 24½| 25⅞‖ 19½| 10⅝| 27⅝| 23⅜| 28⅛|5 O. | (36½)‖ 27½| 30¾| 32⅜| 19⅛| 31⅛| 25⅜‖ 16½| 10⅛| 28⅝| 17⅜| 29½|5 A. | 36½ | 40⅛| 51⅞| 47⅞| 33⅛| 54⅞| 48⅛‖ 33⅛| 39 | 49⅜| 46⅝| 51½| | | | | | | | | | | | | |6{1 | 29 | 26¼| 35⅛| 37¼| 15⅛| 34⅞| 26½| 17⅛| 12¼| 16⅝| 18½| 27¼| {2 | 25⅛ | 27⅜| 33¼| 36¼| 15⅞| 31⅛| 25¼| 14¾| 12⅛| 17⅞| 19 | 28⅝| | | | | | | | | | | | | |7 | 33 | 36⅛| 56⅜| 50⅛| 32⅛| 51¼| 55 | 40 | 41⅝| 54⅜| 49¾| 59½|------+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-’61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-’71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-’71. ----------------------------------------++--------------------++------- Harvests || Average Annual. ||+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| | | | | | | | || 1st |2nd | Total |||1864|1865|1866|1867|1868|1869|1870|1871|| ten |ten |Period || Plots+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. | bu. || bush. | bu. |bushels ||| 24 | 18 | 15⅞| 17⅛| 15⅝| 15⅛| 13½| 16¾|| 22⅜| 17½|20 || 1 O. | 30¼| 22½| 22⅜| 24⅝| 18½| 18¼| 18 | 23⅛|| 27⅞| 23¼|25½ || 2 O. | 26⅛| 22 | 19⅛| 17 | 14¼| 18¾| 16¾| 19⅜|| 24¾| 20⅛|22⅜ || 3 O. | 33¼| 24⅜| 24 | 20⅞| 17⅝| 22¼| 18½| 25 || 30½| 24⅜|27½ || 4 O. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 28⅜| 21¾| 20⅜| 19⅞| 16½| 18⅝| 16¾| 21⅛|| 26⅜| 21¼|23⅞ || Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 38⅞| 29⅞| 27⅛| 30⅝| 20⅜| 27⅞| 27¾| 36⅜|| 33⅝| 31¼|32½ || 1 A. | 58½| 48⅜| 50½| 44 | 37⅝| 48 | 41½| 45⅛|| 45⅝| 48⅜|47 || 2 A. | 43⅞| 33¼| 27½| 33 | 25 | 34¾| 30⅞| 38⅛|| 35 | 35 |35 || 3 A. | 55⅜| 46½| 47 | 43⅞| 34⅝| 49¼| 38 | 46½|| 46⅛| 46⅜|46¼ || 4 A. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 49⅛| 39½| 38⅛| 37⅞| 29⅜| 39⅞| 34½| 41½|| 40⅛| 40¼|40¼ || Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 41¾| 33¾| 29⅛| 29¾‖ 27 | 32⅛| 29¼| 39⅛|| 39¾| 34¼|37 || 1 AA. | 56⅞| 47½| 50⅞| 44¼‖ 44 | 48¼| 46¼| 46½|| 48⅞| 49⅝|49¼ || 2 AA. | 44⅝| 34⅛| 29¾| 32⅞‖ 27½| 33⅞| 32⅜| 36⅛|| 38⅝| 36⅛|37⅜ || 3 AA. | 56⅜| 48⅞| 50⅞| 45 ‖ 45⅜| 49⅞| 44½| 46 || 49⅞| 49½|49¾ || 4 AA. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 49⅞| 41⅛| 40⅛| 38 | 36 | 41 | 38⅛| 42 || 44¼| 42⅜|43⅜ || Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------‖ 44⅛| 34⅞| 37⅞| 32¼‖ 29⅜| 34¾| 35 | 48⅛|| {37¼| 36⅞|37 } || 1 AAS. ‖ 54⅞| 47¼| 51⅛| 44 ‖ 44⅞| 49⅞| 44¾| 49½||[1]{49¼| 47¼|48¼}[1]|| 2 AAS. ‖ 50 | 41 | 41⅞| 39½‖ 36⅜| 40½| 42¾| 48⅜|| {43⅛| 42 |42⅝} || 3 AAS. ‖ 59⅛| 50½| 50¾| 45¼‖ 46⅝| 51¾| 47¼| 48⅞|| {51⅜| 48⅝|50 } || 4 AAS. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 52 | 43⅜| 45⅜| 40¼| 39⅜| 44¼| 42½| 48¾|| 45¼| 43¾|44½ || Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 48⅛| 45 | 45⅞| 38⅝| 37 | 42½| 41¾| 44 || 47 | 43⅝|45¼ || 1 C. | 51¾| 46⅛| 47½| 45½| 35¼| 48¼| 41¾| 41¾|| 47¾| 45¾|46¾ || 2 C. | 49⅛| 48¾| 43⅞| 38⅞| 35⅛| 43⅝| 38½| 45⅜|| 44 | 43¼|43⅝ || 3 C. | 53 | 48⅛| 48⅝| 42⅝| 36¼| 52⅛| 43¾| 47½|| 47⅜| 47¼|47⅜ || 4 C. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 50½| 47 | 46½| 41⅜| 35⅞| 46⅝| 41½| 44⅝|| 46½| 45 |45¾ || Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++-------| 40¾| 37 | 34⅜| 33 | 25½| 35¼| 34¾| 43⅛||[2]{37⅝| 37⅛|37⅜}[2]|| 1 N. | 46¼| 39⅞| 41 | 36⅜| 25⅜| 38⅜| 40¼| 45⅜|| {42⅜| 40½|41⅜} || 2 N. | | | | | | | | || | | ||| 25⅞| 19¾| 19 | 20½| 14¾| 16⅝| 16⅛| 22⅛||[3](22⅝| 20⅝|21½)[3]|| M. | 26½| 23 | 22½| 19½| 15 | 23⅜| 14½| 20 ||[4](24⅝| 21⅛|22¾)[4]|| 5 O. | 50¾| 48¼| 43⅞| 34⅞| 36⅛| 49⅞| 41¾| 44¼|| 43⅜| 44¾|44⅛ || 5 A. | | | | | | | | || | | ||| 25⅛| 21 | 16⅛| 16⅜| 15¼| 14⅞| 15¼| 18¾|| 25 | 18⅞|22 ||[1]}6| 25⅛| 19¼| 17¼| 19¾| 15⅞| 15⅜| 15⅛| 24¼|| 23⅞| 20 |21⅞ ||[2]}| | | | | | | | || | | ||| 62 | 52¾| 53⅛| 45⅝| 43⅝| 46⅞| 47½| 54¼|| 45 | 51½|48¼ || 7+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+-------++------- [Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years. ] [Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] [Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years. ] [Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England. Table III. --Weight per Bushel of Dressed Corn--lbs. [N. B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see _Table I. _, and foot-notes thereto, p. 231. ] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvests------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+---- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Plots | 1852 |1853|1854|1855|1856|1857 |1858|1859|1860|1861|1862|1863------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+---- | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. 1 O. | 52. 1 |51. 4|53. 6|52. 4|49. 1|52. 0 |53. 0|49. 0|50. 8|52. 3|50. 3|53. 62 O. | 52. 6 |52. 6|54. 0|52. 5|46. 5|52. 8 |54. 0|52. 0|50. 5|53. 8|52. 0|54. 23 O. | 52. 5 |51. 9|53. 6|52. 9|48. 5|52. 5 ‖53. 5|49. 5|50. 3|52. 8|51. 8|54. 54 O. | 51. 5 |52. 1|54. 0|53. 1|47. 0|53. 7 ‖54. 0|52. 5|51. 3|54. 0|52. 0|54. 8------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 52. 2 |52. 0|53. 8|52. 7|47. 8|52. 8 |53. 6|50. 8|50. 7|53. 1|51. 5|54. 3------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----1 A. | 50. 7 |52. 4|53. 6|51. 8|48. 5|51. 9 |53. 0|47. 5|50. 8|51. 5|49. 4|53. 62 A. | 50. 5 |52. 5|54. 3|51. 3|46. 3|54. 3 |53. 8|51. 0|51. 0|53. 5|53. 5|55. 33 A. | 50. 9 |52. 6|54. 0|52. 2|49. 1|52. 1 ‖54. 0|47. 5|50. 8|51. 5|50. 5|54. 34 A. | 51. 4 |53. 1|54. 3|52. 0|46. 4|54. 8 ‖54. 0|51. 0|51. 1|54. 0|54. 0|56. 5------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 50. 9 |52. 7|54. 1|51. 8|47. 6|53. 3 |53. 7|49. 3|50. 9|52. 6|51. 9|54. 9------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----1 AA. | 49. 1 |51. 3|52. 8|50. 6|48. 3|52. 0 ‖53. 5|47. 5|50. 7|51. 8|50. 0|53. 92 AA. | 49. 5 |51. 7|52. 4|50. 1|46. 1|53. 5 ‖53. 3|50. 7|51. 3|53. 5|54. 4|55. 73 AA. | 50. 6 |51. 3|53. 1|50. 2|47. 3|52. 1‖|53. 9|47. 5|50. 4|51. 5|51. 5|54. 54 AA. | 50. 6 |51. 4|52. 1|48. 9|45. 4|53. 9‖|53. 5|50. 5|51. 0|53. 5|54. 0|56. 4------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 50. 0 |51. 4|52. 6|50. 0|46. 8|52. 9 |53. 6|49. 1|50. 9|52. 6|52. 5|55. 1------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----1 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |2 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |3 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |4 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----Means | | | | | | | | | | | |------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----1 C. | 51. 7 |51. 3|52. 9|50. 5|46. 1|53. 2 ‖53. 5|52. 0|52. 0|54. 0|54. 5|56. 32 C. | 51. 8 |51. 6|52. 8|50. 0|47. 3|53. 8 ‖52. 8|51. 5|51. 5|54. 1|55. 3|56. 43 C. | 51. 3 |51. 5|52. 6|50. 6|46. 6|54. 1‖|53. 5|51. 7|51. 8|53. 5|53. 5|56. 84 C. | 51. 4 |50. 4|52. 8|49. 5|46. 3|54. 1‖|53. 1|51. 0|51. 1|54. 3|54. 0|56. 7------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 51. 6 |51. 2|52. 8|50. 2|46. 6|53. 8 |53. 2|51. 6|51. 6|54. 0|54. 3|56. 6------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----1 N. |}{51. 7}{‖51. 3|53. 3|52. 0|50. 0|52. 9 |53. 5|48. 0|51. 0|52. 0|51. 5|53. 42 N. |} {‖49. 7|53. 1|50. 1|48. 4|53. 0 ‖54. 0|48. 5|51. 1|51. 8|51. 3|53. 9 | | | | | | | | | | | | M. | | | ‖52. 6|49. 3|52. 6 ‖53. 6|49. 5|51. 0|53. 8|52. 8|53. 85 O. | (51. 0) ‖51. 8|53. 1|52. 6|47. 5|53. 4 ‖54. 0|51. 0|51. 0|53. 3|51. 5|54. 15 A. | 51. 0 |52. 3|53. 8|51. 5|46. 6|54. 5 ‖54. 0|51. 0|51. 2|53. 0|52. 0|55. 6 | | | | | | | | | | | |6{1 | 52. 0 |50. 3|52. 8|52. 5|50. 0|52. 3 |53. 1|48. 5|51. 3|52. 0|51. 8|54. 0 {2 | 53. 0 |50. 9|53. 6|52. 6|50. 0|52. 3 |53. 1|47. 5|51. 0|52. 0|52. 0|54. 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |7 | 52. 8 |51. 6|53. 9|52. 9|47. 1|54. 2 |54. 5|52. 5|52. 1|54. 8|54. 8|57. 2------+--------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+---- 1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-’61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-’71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-’71. +---------------------------------------++---------------------++-----| Harvests || Average Annual. ||+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++| | | | | | | | || 1st | 2nd | Total|||1864|1865|1866|1867|1868|1869|1870|1871|| ten | ten |Period||Plots+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. || lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |||55. 7|53. 9|51. 1|51. 8|54. 3|52. 4|52. 9|55. 0|| 51. 6 | 53. 1| 52. 3 ||1 O. |56. 8|53. 8|53. 2|53. 9|55. 8|54. 3|53. 6|56. 0|| 52. 0 | 54. 4| 53. 2 ||2 O. |56. 9|54. 5|52. 3|52. 9|55. 7|54. 7|54. 3|55. 4|| 51. 8 | 54. 3| 53. 0 ||3 O. |57. 3|54. 0|52. 7|53. 6|55. 3|54. 6|55. 6|55. 6|| 52. 3 | 54. 6| 53. 4 ||4 O. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|56. 7|54. 1|52. 3|53. 1|55. 3|54. 0|54. 1|55. 5|| 52. 0 | 54. 1| 53. 0 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|55. 4|53. 8|50. 9|51. 3|53. 3|52. 4|54. 6|55. 6|| 51. 2 | 53. 0| 52. 1 ||1 A. |57. 0|52. 7|54. 4|54. 1|54. 6|57. 0|57. 2|55. 0|| 51. 8 | 55. 1| 53. 5 ||2 A. |56. 4|54. 7|52. 1|51. 9|54. 8|54. 6|55. 4|56. 1|| 51. 5 | 54. 1| 52. 8 ||3 A. |57. 6|53. 5|54. 7|54. 3|55. 6|57. 4|57. 1|56. 5|| 52. 2 | 55. 7| 54. 0 ||4 A. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|56. 6|53. 7|53. 0|52. 9|54. 6|55. 4|56. 1|55. 8|| 51. 6 | 54. 5| 53. 1 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|55. 5|53. 5|50. 9|52. 4‖53. 7|53. 1|54. 5|54. 1|| 50. 8 | 53. 2| 52. 0 ||1 AA. |57. 2|52. 3|55. 0|54. 1‖55. 6|57. 2|56. 9|55. 9|| 51. 2 | 55. 4| 53. 3 ||2 AA. |56. 5|54. 8|51. 4|51. 9‖55. 1|53. 7|54. 6|54. 3|| 50. 8 | 53. 8| 52. 3 ||3 AA. |57. 6|53. 3|55. 4|54. 6‖56. 0|57. 1|57. 1|56. 3|| 51. 1 | 55. 8| 53. 4 ||4 AA. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|56. 7|53. 5|53. 2|53. 3|55. 1|55. 3|55. 8|55. 2|| 51. 0 | 54. 6| 52. 8 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----‖56. 1|54. 2|51. 8|53. 5‖54. 2|54. 8|55. 0|54. 6|| {53. 9| 54. 6| 54. 3}||1 AAS. ‖57. 2|52. 4|55. 6|55. 1‖56. 2|57. 4|57. 4|55. 6||[1]{55. 1| 56. 7| 55. 9}||2 AAS. ‖57. 2|54. 8|52. 5|53. 0‖55. 5|56. 6|55. 9|53. 8|| {54. 4| 55. 5| 55. 0}||3 AAS. ‖57. 0|53. 1|55. 3|54. 1‖56. 2|57. 8|57. 8|55. 4|| {54. 9| 56. 8| 55. 8}||4 AAS. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|56. 9|53. 6|53. 8|53. 9|55. 5|56. 7|56. 5|54. 9|| 54. 6 | 55. 9| 55. 2 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|57. 1|53. 8|55. 1|54. 4|56. 2|56. 7|57. 5|56. 3|| 51. 7 | 55. 8| 53. 8 ||1 C. |57. 0|53. 3|55. 7|55. 0|56. 1|57. 1|57. 8|56. 4|| 51. 7 | 56. 0| 53. 9 ||2 C. |57. 3|53. 3|55. 3|54. 7|55. 8|57. 1|57. 6|56. 3|| 51. 7 | 55. 8| 53. 7 ||3 C. |57. 2|53. 5|55. 6|54. 8|55. 4|57. 4|58. 0|56. 4|| 51. 4 | 55. 9| 53. 6 ||4 C. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|57. 1|53. 5|55. 4|54. 7|55. 9|57. 1|57. 7|56. 4|| 51. 6 | 55. 9| 53. 8 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++-----|56. 0|54. 1|52. 0|52. 9|52. 8|54. 3|55. 6|54. 6||[2]{51. 6| 53. 7| 52. 7}||1 N. |56. 5|53. 8|52. 8|52. 7|55. 5|54. 8|55. 8|54. 6|| {51. 1| 54. 2| 52. 7}||2 N. | | | | | | | | |||56. 3|54. 4|52. 9|53. 9|54. 0|54. 0|55. 3|55. 0||[3](51. 8| 54. 2| 53. 2)|| M. |57. 6|54. 5|53. 4|54. 0|56. 4|55. 6|55. 9|55. 1||[4](52. 0| 54. 8| 53. 4)||5 O. |57. 5|54. 1|54. 8|55. 2|57. 5|57. 5|57. 3|55. 5|| 51. 9 | 55. 7| 53. 8 ||5 A. | | | | | | | | |||56. 0|53. 9|51. 3|52. 0|53. 5|52. 8|54. 0|55. 4|| 51. 5 | 53. 5| 52. 5 ||1}6|55. 8|53. 9|51. 8|52. 5|53. 8|52. 9|54. 6|54. 9|| 51. 6 | 53. 6| 52. 6 ||2}| | | | | | | | |||57. 4|54. 4|54. 9|54. 8|57. 1|56. 4|57. 1|56. 6|| 52. 6 | 56. 0| 54. 3 || 7+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++--------+-----+------++----- [Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years. ] [Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] [Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years. ] [Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England. Table IV. --Offal Corn per Acre--lbs. [N. B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see _Table I. _, and foot-notes thereto, p. 231. ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvests------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Plots | 1852 |1853|1854|1855|1856|1857| 1858|1859|1860|1861|1862|1863------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+---- | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. 1 O. | 164 |225 | 84 |144 |131 | 93 | 86 |110 | 78 | 88 | 64 | 492 O. | 100 |101 |101 | 69 | 58 |106 | 103 |159 | 84 | 78 |114 | 583 O. | 183 |151 | 64 | 76 |129 | 61 ‖ 96 | 83 | 78 | 88 | 73 | 544 O. | 136 |160 |105 | 94 | 88 | 53 ‖ 108 |160 | 74 | 58 |117 | 57------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 146 |159 | 89 | 96 |102 | 78 | 98 |129 | 78 | 78 | 92 | 55------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----1 A. | 218 |253 |201 |138 |219 |113 | 98 |184 |150 |170 |269 |1162 A. | 260 |214 |150 |184 |121 | 88 | 114 |274 |159 |130 |191 | 993 A. | 252 |336 |197 |177 |180 | 91 ‖ 96 |175 |115 |109 |269 |1084 A. | 273 |274 |138 |142 |125 | 70 ‖ 117 |253 |150 |110 |150 | 81------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 251 |277 |172 |160 |161 | 91 | 106 |222 |143 |130 |220 |101------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----1 AA. | 299 |303 |326 |204 |310 |135 ‖ 88 |215 |109 |173 |296 |1102 AA. | 315 |251 |329 |181 |233 |133 ‖ 134 |320 |118 |190 |133 |1433 AA. | 318 |236 |334 |212 |290 |108 ‖|118 |265 |122 |138 |364 | 954 AA. | 246 |301 |273 |150 |176 |183 ‖|143 |285 |141 |179 |191 | 66------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 294 |273 |316 |187 |252 |140 | 121 |271 |123 |170 |246 |103------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----1 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |2 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |3 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |4 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | |------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Means | | | | | | | | | | | |------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----1 C. | 170 |268 |178 |219 |173 |135 ‖ 103 |225 |120 |154 |154 | 852 C. | 164 |316 |238 |195 |161 |169 ‖ 148 |171 |156 |150 |128 |1093 C. | 190 |296 |248 |183 |189 |156 ‖|105 |236 |115 |204 |190 | 714 C. | 144 |277 |227 |222 |205 |168 ‖|125 |350 |153 |204 |174 | 66------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----Means | 167 |304 |223 |205 |182 |157 | 120 |246 |136 |178 |161 | 83------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----1 N. |}(94){|283 ‖109 |128 |245 | 99 | 119 |205 |146 |225 |245 |1202 N. |} {|228 ‖286 |224 |193 |151 ‖ 110 |235 |179 |190 |216 |114 | | | | | | | | | | | | M. | | | ‖ 36 | 94 | 90 ‖ 84 | 85 | 75 | 78 |198 | 465 O. |(173) ‖ 68 |113 | 50 | 96 |101 ‖ 71 |110 | 73 | 73 |193 | 415 A. | 173 |210 |170 |126 |151 | 68 ‖ 154 |168 |193 |188 |210 | 81 | | | | | | | | | | | |6 {1 | 120 |200 |144 |116 |152 | 72 | 84 |121 | 88 | 73 | 75 | 51 {2 | 118 |161 |119 | 73 |125 |105 | 81 |127 | 95 | 67 |194 | 65 | | | | | | | | | | | |7 | 101 |269 | 86 |109 |141 |134 | 121 |260 |147 |190 |208 | 66------+------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+---- 1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-’61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-’71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-’71. +---------------------------------------++---------------------++-----| Harvests || Average Annual. ||+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| | | | | | | | || 1st | 2nd| Total |||1864|1865|1866|1867|1868|1869|1870|1871|| ten | ten| Period ||Plots+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++-----|lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. || lbs. | lbs| lbs. ||| 42 | 47 | 41 | 90 | 21 | 44 | 31 | 48 || 120| 48| 84 || 1 O. | 69 | 38 | 21 | 53 | 29 | 89 | 18 | 33 || 96| 52| 74 || 2 O. | 43 | 38 | 38 | 64 | 27 | 70 | 18 | 35 || 101| 46| 74 || 3 O. | 41 | 28 | 55 | 60 | 25 | 69 | 26 | 48 || 104| 53| 78 || 4 O. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 49 | 38 | 39 | 67 | 25 | 68 | 23 | 41 || 105| 50| 78 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 99 | 58 | 94 |115 | 49 |139 | 23 |105 || 174| 107| 141 || 1 A. | 63 | 84 | 64 | 76 | 38 |113 | 26 |189 || 174| 107| 141 || 2 A. | 83 | 51 |106 | 94 | 34 | 95 | 24 | 89 || 173| 95| 134 || 3 A. |110 | 60 | 63 | 71 | 50 | 21 | 27 |146 || 165| 78| 122 || 4 A. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 89 | 63 | 82 | 89 | 43 | 92 | 25 |132 || 171| 94| 133 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++|110 | 64 |148 |110 ‖ 46 | 64 | 33 |133 || 216| 111| 164 || 1 AA. | 50 |113 |111 | 69 ‖ 46 | 89 | 24 |168 || 220| 95| 158 || 2 AA. | 76 | 48 |103 |106 ‖ 59 |111 | 36 |133 || 214| 113| 164 || 3 AA. | 46 | 76 |133 |119 ‖ 43 | 78 | 30 | 90 || 208| 87| 148 || 4 AA. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 71 | 75 |124 |101 | 48 | 86 | 31 |131 || 215| 102| 159 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++‖ 94 | 55 | 88 | 85 ‖ 49 |121 | 33 | 94 || {81| 74| 77} || 1 AAS. ‖ 53 | 86 | 96 | 66 ‖ 64 | 60 | 23 |153 || [1]{75| 75| 75}[1]|| 2 AAS. ‖ 70 | 50 |141 | 79 ‖ 39 |136 | 29 |130 || {85| 84| 85} || 3 AAS. ‖ 93 | 70 | 80 | 93 ‖ 46 |125 | 26 |175 || {84| 93| 89} || 4 AAS. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 77 | 65 |101 | 81 | 50 |111 | 28 |138 || 81| 82| 82 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 78 | 83 |104 |109 | 43 | 69 | 25 | 78 || 175| 83| 129 || 1 C. | 92 | 44 | 89 | 89 | 64 |111 | 24 | 88 || 193| 84| 138 || 2 C. | 90 | 66 | 94 | 91 | 39 | 91 | 37 |141 || 192| 91| 142 || 3 C. |123 | 69 |128 | 72 | 42 | 67 | 28 |124 || 208| 89| 149 || 4 C. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 96 | 66 |104 | 90 | 47 | 85 | 28 |108 || 192| 87| 139 ||Means+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++| 74 | 98 |124 |119 | 61 |150 | 33 | 99 || {173| 112| 141} || 1 N. | 95 | 84 |104 | 88 | 35 | 98 | 33 |171 ||[2]{199| 104| 149}[2]|| 2 N. | | | | | | | | || | | ||| 58 | 69 | 44 | 56 | 26 | 61 | 25 | 58 || [3](77| 64| 69)[3]|| M. | 78 | 35 | 48 | 56 | 20 | 75 | 23 | 41 || [4](84| 61| 72)[4]|| 5 O. | 91 | 94 | 53 | 74 | 33 | 63 | 30 |144 || 160| 87| 124 || 5 A. | | | | | | | | || | | ||| 51 | 45 | 72 |103 | 27 | 71 | 26 | 50 || 117| 57| 87 ||1}| 54 | 47 | 51 | 83 | 21 | 57 | 23 | 41 || 107| 64| 85 ||2}6| | | | | | | | || | | |||117 | 56 |148 |111 | 48 |100 | 26 |171 || 156| 105| 130 || 7+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+----+--------++ [Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years. ] [Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] [Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years. ] [Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England. Table V. --Straw (and chaff) per Acre--cwts. [N. B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see _Table I. _, and foot-notes thereto, p. 231. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvests------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |Plots | 1852 |1853|1854|1855|1856|1857|1858|1859|1860|1861|1862|1863|------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | Cwts. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |1 O. | 16⅝ | 18 | 21¾| 17⅝| 8¾| 12¾| 10⅞| 9⅛| 7½| 11 | 9¾| 11⅜|2 O. | 16½ | 17⅛| 23¼| 17¾| 8¾| 15⅝| 14⅞| 12¼| 8⅞| 13¼| 12⅞| 15⅝|3 O. | 16½ | 17¼| 20⅞| 17½| 9⅛| 15 ‖ 12 | 9¾| 8½| 11½| 10⅞| 13⅜|4 O. | 19½ | 20½| 23⅛| 18 | 9⅜| 17⅛‖ 16 | 12¼| 9⅛| 15⅜| 13½| 15⅜| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+Means | 17¼ | 18¼| 22¼| 17⅝| 9 | 15⅛| 13½| 10⅝| 8⅝| 12¾| 11½| 13⅞| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+1 A. | 22⅞ | 23¾| 30¼| 24⅛| 17⅛| 17¾| 15½| 11½| 14⅞| 19⅝| 20⅜| 21⅜|2 A. | 26 | 25½| 40⅞| 29⅜| 21½| 26¾| 28¾| 24⅞| 25¼| 29¾| 32⅜| 34 |3 A. | 23⅝ | 25⅛| 33¾| 27½| 17⅞| 21⅜‖ 17 | 13½| 16¼| 21½| 23¼| 26¼|4 A. | 27⅞ | 26⅝| 40½| 31 | 21¼| 27⅞‖ 29 | 27¼| 26⅝| 30½| 31⅝| 32 | +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 25⅛ | 25¼| 36⅜| 28 | 19½| 23½| 22⅛| 19¼| 20¾| 25⅜| 26¾| 28⅜| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 AA. | 26⅞ | 26⅛| 37⅞| 32⅛| 24½| 23½‖ 19⅛| 14½| 13½| 22 | 21¼| 25⅛|2 AA. | 28⅜ | 28⅜| 44⅜| 38⅝| 31⅝| 32⅞‖ 32⅝| 26½| 24¼| 31⅝| 31½| 32½|3 AA. | 26⅜ | 27¼| 37⅞| 34 | 26⅛| 26 ‖|22⅛| 16⅛| 18⅛| 24⅛| 24¾| 27⅞|4 AA. | 28⅜ | 31⅝| 49 | 39⅞| 33 | 36¼‖|35¼| 30⅝| 29 | 33⅝| 33⅛| 34¾| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 27½ | 28⅜| 42¼| 36⅛| 28¾| 29⅝| 27½| 21⅞| 21¼| 27⅞| 27⅝| 30 | +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |2 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |3 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | |4 AAS. | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 C. | 24⅝ | 26⅞| 43¼| 36⅛| 26 | 33⅛‖ 30¾| 26⅞| 17⅞| 27⅞| 26 | 28⅝|2 C. | 23¾ | 25⅝| 44⅛| 36⅛| 31½| 33⅛‖ 33⅞| 28¾| 20⅝| 30⅜| 27¼| 30⅛|3 C. | 21⅞ | 25¼| 41¼| 35⅞| 26½| 30⅞‖ 30¾| 25⅝| 20⅛| 30¾| 23⅞| 29⅞|4 C. | 24⅛ | 27½| 42⅛| 37⅝| 30½| 33⅛‖ 35 | 29½| 22¾| 31 | 28⅞| 30¾| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+Means | 23½ | 26¼| 42¾| 36½| 28⅝| 32⅝| 32⅝| 27¾| 20⅜| 30 | 26½| 29⅞| +-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+1 N. |}(15¼){| 23⅛| 33⅜| 27 | 19⅝| 24⅝| 20⅛| 18¾| 16¾| 27¼| 24¼| 30¼|2 N. |} {| 25⅜| 38¼| 33¼| 28¾| 32 ‖ 23⅝| 21¼| 18⅝| 29⅝| 24¾| 29⅞| | | | | | | | | | | | | | M. | | | ‖ 15¼| 10⅝| 10⅜ ‖12⅜| 10⅞| 7¼| 15⅛| 14½| 19½|5 O. | (25⅛) ‖ 15¾| 20¼| 14⅝| 10⅜| 13¼ ‖12½| 10½| 6⅞| 17½| 10½| 15¼|5 A. | 25⅛ | 24 | 35¾| 31 | 22¾| 27⅝ ‖28⅝| 26⅛| 25½| 31⅞| 31⅝| 34 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |6{1 | 17⅛ | 16½| 22½| 18½| 9¼| 16⅛| 12 | 11¼| 7½| 9⅞| 10⅜| 13½| {2 | 14⅛ | 15⅞| 20¾| 16¾| 9½| 14⅝| 11⅜| 10 | 7¾| 10 | 11⅝| 14⅜| | | | | | | | | | | | | |7 | 18½ | 22¾| 37¼| 27½| 19¾| 23⅝| 31⅜| 28½| 25⅜| 31⅝| 34¼| 33⅛|------+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-’61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-’71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-’71. ---------------------------------------++----------------------++------ Harvests || Average Annual. ||----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++ | | | | | | | || 1st | 2nd |Total ||1864|1865|1866|1867|1868|1869|1870|1871|| ten | ten |Period ||Plots----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. |cwt. || cwts. | cwts. | cwts. || 12¾| 8⅛| 9½| 10¼| 11⅝| 11 | 6⅝| 11 || 13⅜ | 10¼ |11¾ ||1 O. 15⅝| 9⅛| 12⅝| 12¼| 9⅜| 10⅜| 8 | 12¼|| 14⅞ | 11⅞ |13⅜ ||2 O. 13⅝| 9¾| 10¼| 10⅛| 8⅝| 11 | 8½| 11¼|| 13⅞ | 10¾ |12¼ ||3 O. 16¾| 10 | 12⅞| 12 | 10⅛| 12⅞| 9⅜| 14 || 16⅛ | 12⅝ |14⅜ ||4 O. ----+----+----+---------+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 14⅝| 9¼| 11¼| 11⅛| 9⅞| 11¼| 8⅛| 12⅛|| 14½ | 11⅜ |12⅞ ||Means----+----+----+---------+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 20⅜| 13 | 15⅜| 17¼| 12¼| 18¼| 12½| 23⅛|| 19¾ | 17⅜ |18½ ||1 A. 32½| 21⅝| 28⅛| 28⅝| 19⅜| 32 | 17⅞| 28⅛|| 27⅞ | 27½ |27⅝ ||2 A. 19¼| 16 | 16¾| 19⅜| 14⅞| 20¾| 15 | 25⅜|| 21⅞ | 19¾ |20¾ ||3 A. 34⅞| 22½| 27⅜| 25½| 20⅞| 34⅜| 18⅝| 32½|| 28⅞ | 28 |28½ ||4 A. ----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 26¾| 18¼| 21¾| 22⅝| 16¾| 26⅜| 16 | 27¼|| 24½ | 23⅛ |23¾ ||Means----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 23¼| 16 | 17¾| 17⅛‖ 14½| 21½| 17⅞| 26¾|| 24 | 20⅛ |22⅛ ||1 AA. 33⅛| 23 | 28⅛| 30⅞‖ 21⅞| 34⅞| 23¾| 32⅛|| 31⅞ | 29⅛ |30½ ||2 AA. 26⅞| 17 | 18⅛| 20¾‖ 16¼| 22¾| 20⅞| 25⅜|| 25¾ | 22¼ |24 ||3 AA. 37¼| 24⅞| 28¼| 28⅜‖ 25⅝| 38⅛| 18¼| 32⅝|| 34¾ | 30⅛ |32⅜ ||4 AA. ----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 30⅛| 20¼| 23⅛| 24¼| 19⅝| 29¼| 20¼| 29¼|| 29 | 25⅜ |27¼ ||Means+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------‖26⅛| 22⅜| 20⅝| 18½‖ 16⅞| 23¾| 17 | 29¾|| {21⅞| 21⅞ |21⅞} ||1 AAS. ‖33½| 23¼| 30¼| 29½‖ 25¼| 37⅛| 20⅛| 36⅛||[1]{29⅛| 29⅝ |29⅜}[1]||2 AAS. ‖30¼| 20⅜| 25 | 23⅜‖ 22 | 30⅝| 20½| 31⅛|| {24¾| 26⅛ |25⅜} ||3 AAS. ‖40¾| 25½| 29½| 28¼‖ 26⅝| 42½| 20¾| 38 || {31 | 32 |31½} ||4 AAS. +---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 32⅝| 22⅞| 26⅜| 24⅞| 22⅝| 33½| 19⅝| 33¾|| 26⅝ | 27⅜ |27 ||Means----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 26⅛| 21½| 24⅛| 25½| 19⅛| 27 | 17¼| 27½|| 29⅜ | 24¼ |26⅞ ||1 C. 31⅞| 21⅞| 24½| 25⅝| 19⅝| 33⅛| 17⅞| 27⅞|| 30⅞ | 26 |28⅜ ||2 C. 31 | 22 | 24⅜| 22¼| 10¾| 30½| 18⅜| 30⅞|| 28⅞ | 25¼ |27⅛ ||3 C. 34⅞| 22 | 27⅝| 24¼| 21⅛| 35⅛| 20⅜| 32 || 31¼ | 27¾ |29½ ||4 C. ----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 31 | 21⅞| 25⅛| 24⅜| 19⅞| 31⅜| 18½| 29⅝|| 30⅛ | 25¾ |28 ||Means----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ 24⅛| 18½| 21⅛| 21⅛| 18⅞| 24 | 13¼| 29¼||[2]{23⅜| 22½ |22⅞}[2]||1 N. 27¾| 21½| 23⅞| 21¾| 17⅛| 27⅝| 19⅛| 31½|| {27⅞| 24½ |26⅛} ||2 N. | | | | | | | || | | || 13⅞| 9⅜| 12⅜| 12 | 10⅛| 11⅝| 8⅞| 14¾||[3](11¾| 12¾ |12⅜)[3]|| M. 14⅞| 10¾| 10⅝| 10⅜| 8½| 15½| 4⅜| 13⅛||[4](13⅝| 11⅜ |12⅜)[4]||5 O. 33⅞| 24⅞| 28 | 22⅜| 20⅝| 36⅛| 21⅜| 29⅝|| 27⅞| 28¼ |28 ||5 A. | | | | | | | || | | || 13⅝| 8¾| 10½| 9⅜| 10½| 9⅞| 7¾| 13 || 14 | 10¾ |12⅜ ||1}6 13⅞| 8⅞| 9½| 10⅞| 10⅞| 10⅜| 7⅞| 13⅝|| 13 | 11¼ |12⅛ ||2} | | | | | | | || | | || 37⅜| 25⅜| 31½| 27⅛| 24½| 28¾| 19¾| 37⅛|| 26⅝| 29⅞ |28¼ || 7----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----++-------+------+-------++------ [Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years. ] [Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] [Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years. ] [Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years. ] The produce of barley the first season (1852), was, per acre: On the unmanured plot 27¼ bushels With superphosphate of lime 28⅝ ” ” potash, soda, and magnesia 26¼ ” ” ” ” ” and superphosphate 32¾ ” ” 14 tons barn-yard manure 33 ” ” 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts alone 36⅞ ” ” ” ” and superphosphate 38⅝ ” ” ” ” and potash, soda, and magnesia 36 ” ” ” ” and superphosphate, potash, soda, and magnesia 40¾ ” ” 400 lbs. Ammonia-salts alone 44½ ” The 200 lbs. Of ammonia-salts contain 50 lbs. Of ammonia = 41 lbs. Nitrogen. It will be seen that this 50 lbs. Of ammonia alone, on plot 1_a_, givesan increase of nearly 10 bushels per acre, or to be more accurate, itgives an increase over the unmanured plot of 503 lbs. Of grain, and 329lbs. Of straw, while double the quantity of ammonia on plot 1_a. A. _, gives an increase of 17¼ bushels per acre--or an increase of 901 lbs. Ofgrain, and 1, 144 lbs. Of straw. “Put that fact in separate lines, side by side, ” said the Deacon, “sothat we can see it. ” Total Grain Straw Produce. 50 lbs. Of ammonia gives an increase of 503 lbs. 704 lbs. 1207 lbs. 100 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” 901 ” 1144 ” 2045 ” The first 50 lbs. Of ammonia gives an increase of 503 ” 704 ” 1207 ” The second 50 lbs. Of ammonia gives an increase of 398 ” 540 ” 738 ” “That shows, ” said the Deacon, “that a dressing of 50 lbs. Per acre paysbetter than a dressing of 100 lbs. Per acre. I wish Mr. Lawes had sown75 lbs. On one plot. ” I wish so, too, but it is quite probable that in our climate, 50 lbs. Ofavailable ammonia per acre is all that it will usually be profitable toapply per acre to the barley crop. It is equal to a dressing of 500 lbs. Guaranteed Peruvian guano, or 275 lbs. Nitrate of soda. --“Or to howmuch manure?” asked the Deacon. To about 5 tons of average stable-manure, or say three tons of good, well-rotted manure from grain-fed animals. “And yet, ” said the Deacon, “Mr. Lawes put on 14 tons of yard manure peracre, and the yield of barley was not as much as from the 50 lbs. Ofammonia alone. How do you account for that?” Simply because the ammonia in the manure is _not_ ammonia. It is whatthe chemists used to call “potential ammonia. ” A good deal of it is inthe form of undigested straw and hay. The nitrogenous matter of the foodwhich has been digested by the animal and thrown off in the liquidexcrements, is in such a form that it will readily ferment and produceammonia, while the nitrogenous matter in the undigested food and in thestraw used for bedding, decomposes slowly even under the most favorableconditions; and if buried while fresh in a clay soil, it probably wouldnot all decompose in many years. But we will not discuss this atpresent. “The superphosphate does not seem to have done much good, ” said theDeacon; “3½ cwt. Per acre gives an increase of less than two bushels peracre. And I suppose it was _good_ superphosphate. ” There need be no doubt on that point. Better superphosphate of limecannot be made. But you must recollect that this is pure superphosphatemade from burnt bones. It contains no ammonia or organic matter. Commercial superphosphates contain more or less ammonia, and had theybeen used in these experiments, they would have shown a better resultthan the pure article. They would have done good in proportion to theavailable nitrogen they contained. If these experiments prove anything, they clearly indicate that superphosphate alone is a very poor manurefor either wheat or barley. The _second_ year, the unmanured plot gave 25¾ bushels per acre. Potash, soda, and magnesia, (or what the Deacon calls “ashes, ”) 27⅝ bushels;superphosphate 33½, and “ashes” and superphosphate, nearly 36 bushelsper acre. 50 lbs. Of ammonia, alone, gives nearly 39 bushels, and ammonia andsuperphosphate together, 40 bushels. The superphosphate and “ashes” give a better account of themselves thisyear; but it is remarkable that the ammonia alone, gives almost as gooda crop as the ammonia and superphosphate, and a _better_ crop than theammonia and “ashes, ” or the ammonia, superphosphate, and ashes, together. The 14 tons farm-yard manure gives over 36 bushels per acre. This plothas now had 28 tons of manure per acre, yet the 50 lbs. Of ammoniaalone, still gives a better yield than this heavy dressing of manure. The _third_ season (1854), was quite favorable for the ripening of wheatand barley. The seed on the experimental barley-field, was sown Feb. 24, and the harvest was late; so that the crop had an unusually long seasonfor growth. It was one of the years when even poor land, if clean, givesa good crop. The unmanured plot, it will be seen, yielded over 35bushels per acre of dressed grain, weighing over 53½ lbs. Per bushel. The total weight of grain, was 1, 963 lbs. This is over 40 bushels peracre, of 48 lbs. Per bushel, which is the standard with us. The 14 tons of farm-yard manure produce nearly 56½ bushels per acre. 50 lbs. Of ammonia, on plot 1_a. _ 47¾ bushels per acre. 100 ” ” ” ” ” 1_a. A. _ 56⅝ ” ” You will see, that though the plot which has received 42 tons of manureper acre, produced a splendid crop; the plot having nothing except 100lbs. Of ammonia per acre, produced a crop equally good. “How muchincrease do you get from 50 lbs. Of ammonia, ” asked the Deacon, “and howmuch from 100 lbs. ?” Equal Amer. Grain. Straw. Bushels. 50 lbs. Of ammonia, gives an increase of 800 lbs. 952 lbs. 16⅔ bush. 100 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” 1, 350 ” 2, 100 ” 28 ” If you buy nitrate of soda at 3¾ cents a lb. , the ammonia will cost 20cents a lb. In the above experiment, 50 lbs. Of ammonia, costing $10, gives an increase of 16⅔ bushels of barley, and nearly half a ton ofstraw. If the straw is worth $4. 00 per ton, the barley will cost 48cents a bushel. Double the quantity of manure, costing $20, gives an increase of 28bushels of barley, and over one ton of straw. In this case the extrabarley costs 57 cents a bushel. On plot 2_a. _, 50 lbs. Of ammonia and 3½ cwt. Of superphosphate, give3, 437 lbs. Of grain, equal to 71½ of our bushels per acre. On plot 2_a. A. _, 100 lbs. Of ammonia and 3½ cwt. Of superphosphate, give3, 643 lbs. Of grain, which lacks only 5 lbs. Of 76 bushels per acre, andnearly 2½ tons of straw. “That will do, ” said the Deacon, “but I see that in 1857, this sameplot, with the same manure, produced 66½ bushels of dressed grain peracre, weighing 53½ lbs. To the bushel, or a total weight of 3, 696 lbs. , equal to just 77 of our bushels per acre. ” “And yet, ” said the Doctor, “this same year, the plot which had 84 tonsof farm-yard manure per acre, produced only 2, 915 lbs. Of grain, or lessthan 61 of our bushels of barley per acre. ” The Squire happened in at this time, and heard the last remark. “Whatare you saying, ” he remarked, “about _only_ 61 bushels of barley peracre. I should like to see such a crop. Last year, in this neighborhood, there were hundreds of acres of barley that did not yield 20 bushels peracre, and very little of it would weigh 44 lbs. To the bushel. ” This is true. And the maltsters find it almost impossible to getsix-rowed barley weighing 48 lbs. Per bushel. They told me, that theywould pay $1. 10 per bushel for good bright barley weighing 48 lbs. Perbushel, and for each pound it weighed less than this, they deducted 10cents a bushel from the price. In other words, they would pay $1. 00 abushel for barley weighing 47 lbs. To the bushel; 90 cents for barleyweighing 46 lbs. ; 80 cents for barley weighing 45 lbs. , and 70 cents forbarley weighing 44 lbs. --and at these figures they much preferred theheaviest barley. It is certainly well worth our while, if we raise barley at all, to seeif we cannot manage not only to raise larger crops per acre, but toproduce barley of better quality. And these wonderful experiments of Mr. Lawes are well worth careful examination and study. The Squire put on his spectacles and looked at the tables of figures. “Like everybody else, ” said he, “you pick out the big figures, and tohear you talk, one would think you scientific gentlemen never have anypoor crops, and yet I see that in 1860, there are three different cropsof only 12⅛, 12¼, and 13¼ bushels per acre. ” “Those, ” said I, “are the three plots which have grown barley every yearwithout any manure, and you have selected the worst year of the wholetwenty. ” “Perhaps so, ” said the Squire, “but we have got to take the bad with thegood, and I have often heard you say that a good farmer who has his landrich and clean makes more money in an unfavorable than in a favorableseason. Now, this year 1860, seems to have been an unfavorable one, andyet your pet manure, superphosphate, only gives an _increase_ of 148lbs. Of barley--or three bushels and 4 lbs. Yet this plot has had atremendous dressing of 3½ cwt. Of superphosphate yearly since 1852. I always told you you lost money in buying superphosphate. ” “That depends on what you do with it. I use it for turnips, andtomatoes, cabbages, lettuce, melons, cucumbers, etc. , and would not liketo be without it; but I have never recommended any one to use it onwheat, barley, oats, Indian corn, or potatoes, except as an experiment. What I have recommended you to get for barley is, nitrate of soda, andsuperphosphate, or Peruvian guano. And you will see that even in thisdecidedly unfavorable season, the plot 2_a. A. _, dressed withsuperphosphate and 275 lbs. Of nitrate of soda, produced 2, 338 lbs. Ofbarley, or 48¾ bushels per acre. This is an _increase_ over theunmanured plots of 33½ bushels per acre, and an _increase_ of 1, 872 lbs. Of straw. And the plot dressed with superphosphate and 200 lbs. Of saltsof ammonia, gave equally as good results. ” And this, mark you, is the year which the Squire selected as the onemost likely to show that artificial manures did not pay. “I never knew a man except you, ” said the Squire, “who wantedunfavorable seasons. ” I have never said I wanted unfavorable seasons. I should not dare to sayso, or even to cherish the wish for one moment. But I do say, that whenwe have a season so favorable that even poorly worked land will producea fair crop, we are almost certain to have prices below the average costof production. But when we have an unfavorable season, such crops asbarley, potatoes, and beans, often advance to extravagantly high prices, and the farmer who has good crops in such a season, gets something likeadequate pay for his patient waiting, and for his efforts to improve hisland. “That sounds all very well, ” said the Squire, “but will it pay to usethese artificial manures?” I do not wish to wander too much from the point, but would like toremark before I answer that question, that I am not a special advocateof artificial manures. I think we can often make manures on our farmsfar cheaper than we can buy them. But as the Squire has asked thequestion, and as he has selected from Mr. Lawes’ results, the year 1860, I will meet him on his own ground. He has selected a season speciallyunfavorable for the growth of barley. Now, in such an unfavorable yearin this country, barley would be likely to bring, at least, $1. 25 perbushel, and in a favorable season not over 75 cents a bushel. Mr. Lawes keeps his land _clean_, which is more than can be said of manybarley-growers. And in this unfavorable season of 1860, he gets on histhree unmanured plots an average of 730 lbs. Of barley, equal to 15¼bushels per acre, and not quite 800 lbs. Of straw. Many of our farmers frequently do no better than this. And you mustrecollect that in such careful experiments as those of Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert, great pains would be taken to get all the barley that grew onthe land. With us, barley is cut with a reaper, and admirable as ourmachines are, it is not an easy matter to cut a light, spindling crop ofbarley perfectly clean. Then, in pitching the crop and drawing it in, more or less barley is scattered, and even after we have been over thefield two or three times with a steel-tooth rake, there is stillconsiderable barley left on the ground. I think we may safely assumethat at least as much barley is left on the ground as we usuallysow--say two bushels per acre. And so, instead of having 15¼ bushels peracre, as Mr. Lawes had, we should only harvest 13¼ bushels. Of all our ordinary farm crops, barley is attended with the least laborand expense. We usually sow it after corn or potatoes. On such strongland as that of Mr. Lawes, we ought to plow the land in the autumn andagain in the spring, or at least stir up the land thoroughly with a twoor three-horse cultivator or gang-plow. Let us say that the cost of plowing, harrowing, drilling, and rolling, is $5. 00 per acre. Seed, $2. 00. Harvesting, $2. 00. Threshing, 6 cents abushel. Receipts: 13¼ bushels barley @ 1. 25 $16. 57 800 lbs. Of straw @ $4. Per ton 1. 60 ------ Putting in and harvesting the crop $9. 00 Threshing 13¼ bushels @ 6c . 80 9. 80 ------ Rent and profit per acre $ 8. 37 “That is a better showing than I expected, ” said the Squire, “and asbarley occupies the land only a few months, and as we sow wheat afterit, we cannot expect large profits. ” “Very well, ” said I, “Now let us take the crop, this same unfavorableyear, on plot 2_a. A. _, dressed with superphosphate and nitrate of soda. ” The expense of plowing, harrowing, drilling, rolling, seed, andharvesting, would be about the same, or we will say $2. 00 an acre morefor extra labor in harvesting. And we will allow two bushels per acrefor scatterings--though there is nothing like as much barley left on theground when we have a good crop, as when we have a poor crop. But I wantto be liberal. The yield on plot 2_a. A. _, was 48¾ bushels per acre, and 2, 715 lbs. Ofstraw. Receipts: 46¾ bushels @ $1. 25 $58. 43 2, 715 lbs. Straw @ $4. Per ton 5. 43 ------ $63. 86 Putting in the crop and harvesting $11. 00 Threshing 46¾ bushels @ 6 c 2. 80 275 lbs. Nitrate of soda @ 4 c 11. 00 392 lbs. Superphosphate @ 2 c 7. 84 ------ $32. 64 ------ Rent and profit $31. 22 In ordinary farm practice, I feel sure we can do better than this. Growing barley year after year on the same land, is not the mosteconomical way of getting the full value of the manure. There is muchnitrogen and phosphoric acid left in the land, which barley or evenwheat does not seem capable of taking up, but which would probably be ofgreat benefit to the clover. MANURE AND ROTATION OF CROPS. The old notion that there is any real chemical necessity for a rotationof crops is unfounded. Wheat can be grown after wheat, and barley afterbarley, and corn after corn, provided we use the necessary manures andget the soil clean and in the right mechanical condition. “What, then, do we gain by a rotation?” asked the Deacon. Much every way. A good rotation enables us to clean the land. We can putin different crops at different seasons. “So we could, ” broke in the Deacon, “if we sowed wheat after wheat, barley after barley, and corn after corn. ” True, but if we sowed winter-wheat after winter-wheat, there would notbe time enough to clean the land. “Just as much as when we sow wheat after oats, or peas, or barley. ” “True again, Deacon, ” I replied, “but we are supposed to have cleanedthe land while it was in corn the previous year. I say supposed, becausein point of fact, many of our farmers do not half clean their land whileit is in corn. It is the weak spot in our agriculture. If our land wasas clean as it should be to start with, there is no rotation soconvenient in this section, as corn the first year, barley, peas, oroats the second year, followed by winter-wheat seeded down. But to carryout this rotation to the best advantage we need artificial manures. ” “But will they pay?” asks the Deacon. “They will pay well, provided we can get them at a fair price and getfair prices for our produce. If we could get a good superphosphate madefrom Charleston phosphates for 1½ cent per lb. , and nitrate of soda for3½ or 4 cents per lb. , and the German potash-salts for ¾ cent per lb. , and could get on the average $1. 25 per bushel for barley, and $1. 75 forgood white wheat, we could use these manures to great advantage. ” “Nothing like barn-yard manure, ” says the Deacon. No doubt on that point, provided it is good manure. Barn-yard manure, whether rich or poor, contains all the elements of plant-food, but thereis a great difference between rich and poor manure. The rich manurecontains twice or three times as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid asordinary or poor manure. And this is the reason why artificial manuresare valuable in proportion to the nitrogen and phosphoric acid that theycontain in an available condition. When we use two or three hundredpounds per acre of a good artificial manure we in effect, directly orindirectly, convert poor manure into rich manure. There is manure in oursoil, but it is poor. There is manure in our barn-yard, but it is pooralso. Nitrogen and phosphoric acid will make these manures rich. This isthe reason why a few pounds of a good artificial manure will produce asgreat an effect as tons of common manure. Depend upon it, the comingfarmer will avail himself of the discoveries of science, and will usemore artificial fertilizers. But whether we use artificial fertilizers or farm-yard manure, we shallnot get the full effect of the manures unless we adopt a judiciousrotation of crops. When we sow wheat after wheat, or barley after barley, or oats afteroats, we certainly do not get the full effect of the manures used. Mr. Lawes’ experiments afford conclusive evidence on this point. You willrecollect that in 1846, one of the plots of wheat (10_b_), which hadreceived a liberal dressing of salts of ammonia the year previous, wasleft without manure, and the yield of wheat on this plot was no greaterthan on the plot which was continuously unmanured. In other words, _theammonia which was left in the soil from the previous year, had no effecton the wheat_. The following table shows the amount of nitrogen furnished by themanure, and the amount recovered in the crop, when wheat is grown afterwheat for a series of years, and also when barley is grown after barley, and oats after oats. Table Showing the Amount of Nitrogen Recovered, and Not Recovered, in Increase of Produce, for 100 Supplied in Manure. ----+-----------------------------------------+--------------------- | | For 100 Nitrogen P | | in Manure l | Manures Per Acre, Per Annum. +----------+---------- o | |Recovered |Not Rec’d t | | in | in s | |Increase. |Increase. ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- Wheat--20 Years, 1852-1871. ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- 6 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 200 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 41 lbs. Nitrogen) | 32. 4 | 67. 6 7 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 400 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 82 lbs. Nitrogen) | 32. 9 | 67. 1 8 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 600 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 123 lbs. Nitrogen) | 31. 5 | 68. 5 16 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 800 lbs. [1] | | | Ammonia-salts (= 164 lbs. Nitrogen) | 28. 5 | 71. 5 9A |Mixed Mineral Manure and 550 lbs. [2] | | | Nitrate Soda (= 82 lbs. Nitrogen) | 45. 3 | 54. 7 2 |14 tons Farmyard-Manure every year. | 14. 6 | 85. 4 ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- Barley--20 Years, 1852-1871. ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- 4A |Mixed Mineral Manure and 200 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 41 lbs. Nitrogen) | 48. 1 | 51. 9 | | | 4AA|Mixed Mineral Manure and 400 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 82 lbs. Nitrogen) | 49. 8 | 50. 2 | 6 years, 1852-’57 | | |Mixed Mineral Manure and 200 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 41 lbs. Nitrogen) | | | 10 years, 1858-’67 | | |Mixed Mineral Manure and 275 lbs. | | | Nitrate Soda (= 41 lbs. Nitrogen) | | | 4 years, 1868-’71 | | | | | 4C |Mixed Mineral Manure and 2000 lbs. | | | Rape-cake (= 95 lbs. Nitrogen) | 36. 3 | 63. 7 | 6 years, 1852-’57 | | |Mixed Mineral Manure and 1000 lbs. | | | Rape-cake (= 47. 5 lbs. Nitrogen) | | | 14 years, 1858-’71 | | | | | 7 |14 tons Farmyard-Manure every year. | 10. 7 | 89. 3 ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- Oats--3 Years, 1869-1871. ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- 4 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 400 lbs. | | | Ammonia-salts (= 82 lbs. Nitrogen) | 51. 9 | 48. 1 6 |Mixed Mineral Manure and 550 lbs. | | | Nitrate Soda (= 82 lbs. Nitrogen) | 50. 4 | 49. 6 ----+-----------------------------------------+----------+---------- [Note 1: 13 years only, 1852-1864. ] [Note 2: 475 lbs. Nitrate = 71 lbs. Nitrogen in 1852; 275 lbs. = 41 lbs. Nitrogen in 1853 and 1854; 550 lbs. = 82 lbs. Nitrogen each year afterwards. ] It is not necessary to make any comments on this table. It speaks foritself; but it does not tell half the story. For instance, in the caseof wheat and barley, it gives the average result for 20 years. It showsthat when 100 lbs. Of nitrogen in a soluble and available form, areapplied to wheat, about 68 lbs. Are _left in the soil_. But you mustrecollect that 100 lbs. Was applied again the next year, and no accountis taken of the 68 lbs. Left in the soil--and so on for 20 years. Inother words, on plot 8, for instance, 2, 460 lbs. Of nitrogen have beenapplied, and only 775 lbs. Have been recovered in the total produce ofgrain, straw, and chaff, and 1, 685 lbs. Have been left in the soil. Mr. Lawes estimates, from several analyses, that his farm-yard manurecontains 0. 637 per cent of nitrogen, 2. 76 per cent of mineral matter, and 27. 24 per cent of organic matter, and 70 per cent of water. According to this, the plot dressed with 14 tons of manure every year, for 20 years, has received 3, 995 lbs. Of nitrogen, of which 583¼ lbs. Were recovered in the produce, and 3, 411¾ lbs. Were left in the soil. In the case of barley, 3, 995 lbs. Of nitrogen was applied during the 20years to the plot dressed with farm-yard manure, of which 427½ lbs. Wererecovered in the crop, and 3, 567½ lbs. Left in the soil. “I see, ” said the Deacon, “that barley gets less of the goodness out offarm-yard manure than wheat, but that it gets more out of the salts ofammonia and nitrate of soda. How do you account for that?” “I suppose, because the manure for wheat was applied in the autumn, andthe rains of winter and spring dissolved more of the plant-food thanwould be the case if the manure was applied in the spring. If the manurehad been applied on the surface, instead of plowing it under, I believethe effect would have been still more in favor of the autumn-manuring. ” When the nitrogen is in an available condition, spring barley can takeup and utilize a larger proportion of the nitrogen than winter wheat. Neither the wheat nor the barley can get at and take up half what isapplied, and this, notwithstanding the fact that a heavy dew or a slightrain furnishes water enough on an acre to dissolve a liberal dressing ofnitrate of soda or sulphate and muriate of ammonia. The truth is, thesoil is very conservative. It does not, fortunately for us, yield up allits plant-food in a year. We have seen that when wheat or barley is dressed with solubleammonia-salts or nitrate of soda, a considerable amount of the nitrogenis left in the soil--and yet this nitrogen is of comparatively littlebenefit to the succeeding crops of wheat or barley, while a freshdressing of ammonia-salts or nitrate of soda is of great benefit to thecrop. In other words, when wheat is sown after wheat, or barley after barley, we do not get half the benefit from the manure which it is theoreticallycapable of producing. Now, the question is, whether by a judicious rotation of crops, we canavoid this great loss of manure? There was a time when it was thought that the growth of turnips enrichedthe soil. I have heard it said, again and again, that the reason Englishfarmers grow larger crops of wheat and barley than we do, is becausethey grow so many acres of turnips. “So I have often heard, ” said the Deacon, “and I supposed the broadturnip leaves absorbed nitrogen from the atmosphere. ” There is no evidence that leaves have any such power; while there aremany facts which point in an opposite direction. The followingexperiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to show that the mere growth ofturnips does not enrich land for grain crops. Turnips were grown on the same land, year after year, for ten years. Theland was then plowed and sown to barley for three years. The followingtable gives the results: Three Years of Barley After Ten Years of Turnips. ------------------------------------+---------------------------- |Produce of Barley per Acre. Particulars of Manures, etc. +------+------+------+------- | 1853. | 1854. | 1855. |Average | | | |3 years ------------------------------------+------+------+------+------- | bush. | bush. | bush. | bush. Hoos-Field-- | | | | Barley, without manure, after 3 | 26 | 35⅛ | 34⅛ | 31⅜ corn-crops | | | | Barn-Field-- | | | | Barley, after 10 yrs. Turnips | | | | manured as under-- | | | | 1. --Mineral manures (last 8 years) | 20½ | 19½ | 20 | 20 2. --Mineral manures (8 yrs. ); | | | | Ammonia-salts (6 yrs. ). | 23⅛ | 21¼ | 21¾ | 22 3. --Mineral manures (8 yrs. ); | | | | Rape-cake (6 yrs. ) | 28¾ | 24⅝ | 23⅛ | 25¾ 4. --Mineral manures (8 yrs. ); | | | | Ammonia-salts and Rape-cake | | | | (6 yrs. ) | 29⅛ | 23¾ | 23¾ | 25⅝ 5. --Mineral manures (8 yrs. ); | | | | Ammonia-salts, for Barley, 1854 |(20½) | 52⅜ | 26⅝ | 39½ 6. --Mineral manures (8 yrs. ); | | | | Ammonia-salts, for Barley, | | | | ’54 and ’55 |(20½) | 54⅞ | 49⅜ | 47⅝ ------------------------------------+------+------+------+------- The yield of barley after turnips is less than it is after grain crops, and it is evident that this is due to a lack of available nitrogen inthe soil. In other words, the turnips leave _less_ available nitrogen inthe soil than grain crops. After alluding to the facts given in the foregoing table, Messrs. Lawesand Gilbert say: “There is evidence of another kind that may be cited as showing that itwas of available nitrogen that the turnips had rendered the soil sodeficient for the after-growth of barley. It may be assumed that, on theaverage, between 25 and 30 lbs. Of nitrogen would be annually removedfrom the Rothamsted soil by wheat or barley grown year after yearwithout nitrogenous manure. But it is estimated that from themineral-manured turnip-plots there were, over the 10 years, more than 50lbs. Of nitrogen per acre per annum removed. As, however, on some of theplots, small quantities of ammonia-salts or rape-cake were applied inthe first two years of the ten of turnips, it is, perhaps, more to thepurpose to take the average over the last 8 years of turnips only; andthis would show about 45 lbs. Of nitrogen removed per acre per annum. Animmaterial proportion of this might be due to the small amounts ofnitrogenous manures applied in the first two years. Still, it may beassumed that about 1½ time as much nitrogen was removed from the landfor 8, if not for 10 years, in succession, as would have been taken inan equal number of crops of wheat or barley grown without nitrogenousmanure. No wonder, then, that considerably less barley has been grown in3 years after a series of mineral-manured turnip-crops, than wasobtained in another field after a less number of corn-crops. “The results obtained in Barn-field afford a striking illustration ofthe dependence of the turnip-plant on a supply of available nitrogenwithin the soil, and of its comparatively great power of exhausting it. They are also perfectly consistent with those in Hoos-field, in showingthat mineral manures will not yield fair crops of barley, unless therebe, within the soil, a liberal supply of available nitrogen. The resultsobtained under such very different conditions in the two fields are, infact, strikingly mutually confirmatory. ” CHAPTER XXX. MANURES FOR OATS. “What is the use of talking about manure for oats, ” said the Deacon, “if land is not rich enough to produce oats without manure, it certainlywill not pay to manure them. We can use our manure on some crop thatwill pay better. ” “That is precisely what we want to know, ” said I. “Very likely you areright, but have you any evidence?” “Evidence of what?” “Have you any facts that show, for instance, that it will pay better touse manure for wheat or barley than for oats?” “Can’t say that I have, but I think manure will pay better on wheat thanon oats. ” Mr. Lawes is making a series of experiments on oats. Let us take a hastyglance at the results of the first two seasons: Experiments on Oats at Rothamsted. ----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------ | Grain, in | Straw, |Weight per | bushels. | cwts. |bushel, lbs. Manures per Acre. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ | 1869| 1870| 1869| 1870| 1869| 1870 ----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ 1. --No manure | 36⅝ | 16⅜ | 19¼ | 9⅛ | 36¾ | 35 2. --Mixed Alkalies and | | | | | | Superphosphate of Lime | 45 | 19⅛ | 24½ | 9⅝ | 38½ | 35⅛ 3. --400 lbs. Ammonia-salts | 56⅛ | 37½ | 36⅞ | 17¼ | 37½ | 34¼ 4. --Mixed Alkalies and | | | | | | Superphosphate, and 400 | | | | | | lbs. Ammonia-salts | 75¼ | 50⅝ | 54 | 28⅝ | 39¼ | 36 5. --550 lbs. Nitrate of Soda| 62¼ | 36½ | 42¾ | 23 | 38½ | 35¼ 6. --Mixed Alkalies, | | | | | | Superphosphate, and 550 | | | | | | lbs. Nitrate of Soda | 69⅜ | 50 | 49⅞ | 28¾ | 38½ | 35¾ ----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ It seems clear that, for oats, as for barley and wheat, what we mostneed in manure, is available nitrogen. The first year, the no-manure plot produced 36⅝ bushels of oats peracre, weighing 36¾ lbs. Per bushel, and plot 3, with ammonia-saltsalone, 56⅛ bushels, and with nitrate of soda alone, on plot 5, 62¼bushels per acre, both weighing 38½ lbs. Per bushel. In other words, 82lbs. Of available nitrogen in the salts of ammonia gave an increase ofabout 20 bushels per acre, and the same quantity of nitrogen in nitrateof soda an increase of 26 bushels per acre. The next year, the season seems to have been a very unfavorable one foroats. The no-manure plot produced less than 17 bushels per acre; and the“ashes” and superphosphate on plot 2, give an increase of less than 3bushels per acre. But it will be seen that on plot 3 the ammonia-saltsdo as much good in this unfavorable season as in the favorable one. Theygive an increase of over 20 bushels per acre. “A few such facts as this, ” said the Deacon, “would almost persuade methat you are right in contending that it is in the unfavorable seasons, when prices are sure to be high in this country, that a good farmerstands the best chance to make money. ” “Where mixed alkalies and superphosphate, ” said the Doctor, “are addedto the ammonia, the increase _from the ammonia_ is far greater thanwhere ammonia is used alone. In other words, by comparing plot 2 andplot 4, you will see that the ammonia gives an increase of 30¼ bushelsper acre in 1869, and 31½ bushels in 1870. ” The truth of the matter probably is this: 100 lbs. Of available ammoniaper acre is an excessive supply, when used alone. And in fact Mr. Laweshimself only recommends about half this quantity. Whether it will pay us to use artificial manures on oats depends on theprice we are likely to get for the oats. When the price of oats _perlb. _ and oat-straw is as high as barley and barley-straw _per lb. _, thenit will pay a _little better_ to use manure on oats than on barley. As arule in this country, however, good barley is worth more per lb. Thangood oats; and it will usually pay better to use artificial manures onbarley than on oats. Some years ago Mr. Bath, of Virginia, made some experiments on oats withthe following results: Bushels of oats per acre. No. 1--200 lbs. Superphosphate 22 No. 2--200 lbs. Peruvian guano 48¾ No. 3--100 lbs. Peruvian guano 32 The oats were sown March 13, and the crop harvested July 4. In 1860, I made some experiments with gypsum, superphosphate, andsulphate of ammonia as a top-dressing on oats. The land was a clover-sod, plowed about the middle of May, and the oatssown May 20. On the 26th of May, just as the oats were coming up, themanures were sown broadcast. The oats were sown too late to obtain thebest results. On another field, where the oats were sown two weeksearlier, the crop was decidedly better. The oats were cut August 28. The following is the result: Experiments on Oats at Moreton Farm, Rochester, N. Y. ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- | |Bushels |Weight/| Straw Plots. | Manures per Acre. |of Oats/|Bushel |per acre | |acre. |in lbs. | in lbs. ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- No. 1 |No manure | 36 | 22 | 1, 958 2 |600 lbs. Gypsum (Sulphate of Lime)| 47 | 26 | 2, 475 3 |300 lbs. Superphosphate of Lime | 50 | 21 | 2, 475 4 |300 lbs. Sulphate of Ammonia | 50 | 22 | 2, 730 5 |300 lbs. Superphosphate of Lime, | | | | and 300 lbs. Sulphate of Ammonia| 51 | 22½ | 2, 575 ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- These experiments were made when my land was not as clean as it is now. I presume the weeds got more benefit from the ammonia than the oats. Totop-dress foul land with expensive artificial manures is money thrownaway. If the land had been plowed in the autumn, and the seed andmanures could have been put in early in the spring, I presume we shouldhave had more favorable results. “Are you not ashamed to acknowledge, ” said the Deacon, “that you haveever raised oats weighing only 22 lbs. Per bushel. ” No. I have raised even worse crops than this--and so has the Deacon. ButI made up my mind that such farming did not pay, and I have been tryinghard since then to clean my land and get it into better condition. Anduntil this is done, it is useless to talk much of artificial manures. The most striking result is the effect of the gypsum. It not onlygave an increased yield of 11 bushels per acre, but the oats were ofdecidedly better quality, and there was nearly half a ton more straw peracre than on the plot alongside, where no manure was used. The superphosphate was a good article, similar to that used in Mr. Lawes’ experiments. CHAPTER XXXI. MANURES FOR POTATOES. Some time ago, a farmer in Pennsylvania wrote me that he wanted “toraise a first-rate crop of potatoes. ” I answered him as follows throughthe _American Agriculturist_: “There are many ways of doing this. But as you only enter on the farmthis spring, you will work to disadvantage. To obtain the best results, it is necessary to prepare for the crop two or three years beforehand. All that you can do this year is to select the best land on the farm, put on 400 lbs. Of Peruvian guano, cultivate thoroughly, and suffer nota weed to grow. A two or three-year-old clover-sod, on warm, rich, sandyloam, gives a good chance for potatoes. Do not plow until you are readyto plant. Sow the guano broadcast after plowing, and harrow it in, orapply a tablespoonful in each hill, and mix it with the soil. Mark outthe rows, both ways, three feet apart, and drop a fair-sized potato ineach hill. Start the cultivator as soon as the rows can bedistinguished, and repeat every week or ten days until there is dangerof disturbing the roots. We usually hill up a little, making a broad, flat hill. A tablespoonful of plaster, dusted on the young plants soonafter they come up, will usually do good. We recommend guano, because inour experience it does not increase the rot. But it is only fair to add, that we have not found even barn-yard manure, if thoroughly rotted andwell mixed with the soil the fall previous, half so injurious as somepeople would have us suppose. If any one will put 25 loads per acre onour potato land, we will agree to plant and run the risk of the rot. Butwe would use some guano as well. The truth is, that it is useless toexpect a large crop of potatoes, say 350 bushels per acre, withoutplenty of manure. ” This was written before the potato-beetle made its appearance. But Ithink I should say the same thing now--only put it a little stronger. The truth is, it will not pay to “fight the bugs” on a poor crop ofpotatoes. We must select the best land we have and make it as rich aspossible. “But why do you recommend Peruvian guano, ” asked the Doctor, “ratherthan superphosphate or ashes? Potatoes contain a large amount of potash, and one would expect considerable benefit from an application of ashes. ” “Ashes, plaster, and hen-dung, ” said the Judge, “will at any rate paywell on potatoes. I have tried this mixture again and again, and alwayswith good effect. ” “I believe in the hen-dung, ” said I, “and possibly in the plaster, buton my land, ashes do not seem to be specially beneficial on potatoes, while I have rarely used Peruvian guano without good effect; andsometimes it has proved wonderfully profitable, owing to the high priceof potatoes. ” Sometime ago, I had a visit from one of the most enterprising andsuccessful farmers in Western New York. “What I want to learn, ” he said, “is how to make manure enough to keepmy land in good condition. I sell nothing but beans, potatoes, wheat, and apples. I feed out all my corn, oats, stalks, straw, and hay on thefarm, and draw into the barn-yard the potato-vines and everything elsethat will rot into manure. I make a big pile of it. But the point withme is to find out what is the best stock to feed this straw, stalks, hay, oats, and corn to, so as to make the best manure and return thelargest profit. Last year I bought a lot of steers to feed in winter, and lost money. This fall I bought 68 head of cows to winter, intendingto sell them in the spring. ” “What did they cost you?” “I went into Wyoming and Cattaraugus Counties, and picked them up amongthe dairy farmers, and selected a very fair lot of cows at an average of$22 per head. I expect to sell them as new milch cows in the spring. Such cows last spring would have been worth $60 to $70 each. ” “That will pay. But it is not often the grain-grower gets such a chanceto feed out his straw, stalks, and other fodder to advantage. It cannotbe adopted as a permanent system. It is bad for the dairyman, and noreal help to the grain-grower. The manure is not rich enough. Straw andstalks alone can not be fed to advantage. And when you winter cows tosell again in the spring, it will not pay to feed grain. If you weregoing to keep the cows it would pay well. The fat and flesh you put onin the winter would be returned in the form of butter and cheese nextsummer. ” “Why is not the manure good? I am careful to save everything, and expectseven or eight hundred loads of manure in the spring. ” “You had 60 acres of wheat that yielded 25 bushels per acre, and haveprobably about 50 tons of wheat straw. You had also 30 acres oats, thatyielded 50 bushels per acre, say 35 tons of straw. Your 20 acres of cornproduced 40 bushels of shelled corn per acre; say the stalks weigh 30tons. And you have 60 tons of hay, half clover and half timothy. Let ussee what your manure from this amount of grain and fodder is worth. Manures from 50 tons wheat-straw, @ $2. 68 $ 134. 00 35 tons oat-straw, @ $2. 90 101. 50 30 tons corn-stalks, @ $3. 58 107. 40 30 tons timothy-hay, @ $6. 43 192. 90 30 tons clover-hay, @ $9. 64 289. 20 14 tons oats (1, 500 bush. ), @ $7. 70 107. 80 24 tons corn (800 bushels), @ $6. 65 159. 60 --------- Total 213 tons $1, 092. 40 “This is the value of the manure _on the land_. Assuming that there are600 loads, and that the labor of cleaning out the stables, piling, carting, and spreading the manure is worth 30 cents per load, or $180, we have $912. 40 as the net value of the manure. “Now, your 250-acre farm _might_ be so managed that this amount ofmanure annually applied would soon greatly increase its fertility. Butyou do not think you can afford to summer-fallow, and you want to raisethirty or forty acres of potatoes every year. ” “I propose to do so, ” he replied. “Situated as I am, close to a goodshipping station, no crop pays me better. My potatoes this year haveaveraged me over $100 per acre. ” “Very good. But it is perfectly clear to my mind that sooner or later, you must either farm slower or feed higher. And in your case, situatedclose to a village where you can get plenty of help, and with a goodshipping station near by, you had better adopt the latter plan. You mustfeed higher, and make richer manure. You now feed out 213 tons of stuff, and make 600 loads of manure, worth $912. 40. By feeding out _one third_, or 71 tons more, you can _more than double_ the value of the manure. 50 tons of bran or mill-feed would give manure worth $ 729. 50 21 tons decorticated cotton-seed cake 585. 06 --------- $1, 314. 56 “Buy and feed out this amount of bran and cake, and you would have 800loads of manure, worth _on the land_ $2, 226. 96, or, estimating as beforethat it cost 30 cents a load to handle it, its net value would be$1, 986. 96. ” I am well aware that comparatively few farmers in this section canafford to adopt this plan of enriching their land. We want better stock. I do not know where I could buy a lot of steers that it would pay tofatten in the winter. Those farmers who raise good grade Shorthorn orDevon cattle are not the men to sell them half-fat at low rates. Theycan fatten them as well as I can. For some time to come, the farmer whoproposes to feed liberally, will have to raise his own stock. He canrarely buy well-bred animals to fatten. A good farmer must be a goodfarmer throughout. He can not be good in spots. His land must bedrained, well-worked, and free from weeds. If he crops heavily he mustmanure heavily, and to do this he must feed liberally--and he can notafford to feed liberally unless he has good stock. “I have, myself, no doubt but you are right on this point, ” said theDoctor, “but all this _takes time_. Suppose a farmer becomes satisfiedthat the manure he makes is not rich enough. To tell him, when he isanxious to raise a good crop of potatoes next year, that he must go towork and improve his stock of cattle, sheep, and swine, and then buybran and oil-cake to make richer manure, is somewhat tantalizing. ” This is true, and in such a case, instead of adding nitrogen andphosphoric acid to his manure in the shape of bran, oil-cake, etc. , hecan buy nitrogen and phosphoric acid in guano or in nitrate of soda andsuperphosphate. This gives him richer manure; which is precisely what hewants for his potatoes. His poor manure is not so much deficient inpotash as in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and consequently it isnitrogen and phosphoric acid that he will probably need to make his soilcapable of producing a large crop of potatoes. I have seen Peruvian guano extensively used on potatoes, and almostalways with good effect. My first experience with it in this country, was in 1852. Four acres of potatoes were planted on a two-year-oldclover-sod, plowed in the spring. On two acres, Peruvian guano was sownbroadcast at the rate of 300 lbs. Per acre and harrowed in. The potatoeswere planted May 10. On the other two acres no manure of any kind wasused, though treated exactly alike in every other respect. The resultwas as follows: No manure 119 bushels per acre. 300 lbs. Peruvian guano 205 ” ” The guano cost, here, about 3 cents a lb. , and consequently ninedollars’ worth of guano gave 84 bushels of potatoes. The potatoes wereall sound and good, but where the guano was used, they were larger, withscarcely a small one amongst them. In 1857, I made the following experiments on potatoes, in the same fieldon which the preceding experiment was made in 1852. In this case, as before, the land was a two-year-old clover-sod. It wasplowed about the first of May, and harrowed until it was in a goodmellow condition. The potatoes were planted in hills 3½ feet apart eachway. The following table shows the manures used and the yield ofpotatoes per acre. Experiments on Potatoes at Moreton Farm. P. Number of Plot. Y/A Yield of Potatoes per acre, in bushels. I/A Increase of Potatoes per acre, in bushels, caused by manure. ---+-----------------------------------------------------+-----+---- | Description of Manures Used, and Quantities | | P. | Applied per Acre. | Y/A |I/A ---+-----------------------------------------------------+-----+---- 1. | No manure | 95 | 2. | 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia | 140 | 45 3. | 300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime | 132 | 37 4. | 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia, and 300 lbs. | | | superphosphate of lime | 179 | 84 5. | 400 lbs. Of unleached wood-ashes | 100 | 5 6. | 100 lbs. Plaster, (gypsum, or sulphate of lime, ) | 101 | 6 7. | 400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes and 100 lbs. Plaster | 110 | 15 8. | 400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes, 150 lbs. | | | sulphate of ammonia and 100 lbs. Plaster | 109 | 14 9. | 300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime, 150 lbs. Sulphate | | | of ammonia and 400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes | 138 | 43 ---+-----------------------------------------------------+-----+---- The superphosphate of lime was made expressly for experimental purposes, from calcined bones, ground fine, and mixed with sulphuric acid in theproper proportions to convert all the phosphate of lime of the bonesinto the soluble superphosphate. It was a purely mineral article, freefrom ammonia and other organic matter. It cost about two and a halfcents per pound. The manures were deposited in the hill, covered with an inch or two ofsoil, and the seed then planted on the top. Where superphosphate of limeor sulphate of ammonia was used in conjunction with ashes, the asheswere first deposited in the hill and covered with a little soil, andthen the superphosphate or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top andcovered with soil before the seed was planted. Notwithstanding thisprecaution, the rain washed the sulphate of ammonia into the ashes, anddecomposition, with loss of ammonia, was the result. This will accountfor the less yield on plot 8 than on plot 2. It would have been betterto have sown the ashes broadcast, but some previous experiments withPeruvian guano on potatoes indicated that it was best to apply guano inthe hill, carefully covering it with soil to prevent it injuring theseed, than to sow it broadcast. It was for this reason, and for thegreater convenience in sowing, that the manures were applied in thehill. The ash of potatoes consists of about 50 per cent of potash, and thisfact has induced many writers to recommend ashes as a manure for thiscrop. It will be seen, however, that in this instance, at least, theyhave very little effect, 400 lbs. Giving an increase of only fivebushels per acre. One hundred pounds of plaster per acre gave anincrease of six bushels. Plaster and ashes combined, an increase peracre of 15 bushels. One fact is clearly brought out by these experiments: that this soil, which has been under cultivation without manure for many years, is not, relatively to other constituents of crops, deficient in potash. Had suchbeen the case, the sulphate of ammonia and superphosphate oflime--manures which contain no potash--would not have give a an increaseof 84 bushels of potatoes per acre. There was sufficient potash in thesoil, in an available condition, for 179 bushels of potatoes per acre;and the reason why the soil without manure produced only 95 bushels peracre, was owing to a deficiency of ammonia and phosphates. Since these experiments were made, Dr. Vœlcker and others have madesimilar ones in England. The results on the whole all point in onedirection. They show that the manures most valuable for potatoes arethose rich in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and that occasionally potashis also a useful addition. “There is one thing I should like to know, ” said the Doctor. “Admittingthat nitrogen and phosphoric acid and potash are the most importantelements of plant-food, how many bushels of potatoes should we be likelyto get from a judicious application of these manures?” “There is no way, ” said I, “of getting at this with any degree ofcertainty. The numerous experiments that have been made in England seemto show that a given quantity of manure will produce a larger _increase_on poor land than on land in better condition. ” In England potatoes are rarely if ever planted without manure, and theland selected for this crop, even without manure, would usually be inbetter condition than the average potato land of this section, andconsequently a given amount of manure, applied to potatoes here, wouldbe likely to do more good, up to a certain point, than the same amountwould in England. Let us look at some of the experiments that have been made in England:-- In the Transactions of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotlandfor 1873 is a prize essay on “Experiments upon Potatoes, with PotashSalts, on Light Land, ” by Charles D. Hunter, F. C. S. , made on the farm ofWilliam Lawson, in Cumberland. Mr. Hunter “was charged with the manuringof the farm and the purchasing of chemical manures to the annual valueof £2, 000, ” or say $10, 000. “Potatoes, ” says Mr. Hunter, “were largely grown on the farm, and in theabsence of a sufficiency of farm-yard manure, potash naturally suggesteditself as a necessary constituent of a chemical potato-manure. The soilwas light and gravelly, with an open subsoil, and the rainfall from 29to 38 inches a year. ” The first series of experiments was made in 1867. The following are someof the results:-- Bushels per acre. No manure 221 4 cwt. Mineral superphosphate 225 4 cwt. Mineral superphosphate and } 240 4 cwt. Of muriate of potash } 15½ tons farm-yard manure 293 “That does not say much for potash and superphosphate, ” said the Deacon. “The superphosphate only produced four bushels more than the no manure, and the potash and superphosphate only fifteen bushels more than thesuperphosphate alone. ” It may be worth while mentioning that one of the experimental plots thisyear was on a head-land, “where the cattle frequently stand forshelter. ” This plot was dressed with only eight and a half tons ofmanure, and the crop was over 427 bushels per acre, while a plotalongside, without manure, produced only 163 bushels per acre. “That shows the importance, ” said the Deacon, “of planting potatoes onrich land, rather than to plant on poor land and try to make it rich byapplying manure directly to the crop. ” The following are some of the results in 1868: Bushels per acre. 1. No manure 232 {4 cwt. Superphosphate } 2. {2 ” muriate of potash } 340 {2 ” sulphate of ammonia } 3. 20 tons farm-yard manure 342 4. {4 cwt. Superphosphate } 274 {4 ” muriate of potash } “Here again, ” said the Doctor, “superphosphate and potash alone give anincrease of only forty-two bushels per acre, while on plot 2, where twohundred weight of muriate of potash is substituted by two hundred weightof sulphate of ammonia, the increase is 108 bushels per acre. Itcertainly looks as though a manure for potatoes, so far as yield isconcerned, should be rich in available nitrogen. ” The following are some of the results in 1869: Bushels per acre. 1. No manure 176 2. {4 cwt. Superphosphate } {¾ ” sulphate of magnesia } 306 {2 ” muriate of potash } {2 ” sulphate of ammonia } 3. 4 cwt. Superphosphate 189 4. {4 cwt. Superphosphate } 201 {2 ” sulphate of ammonia } 5. {4 cwt. Superphosphate } {2 ” muriate of potash } 340 {2 ” sulphate of ammonia. } 6. {4 cwt. Superphosphate } 249 {2 ” muriate of potash } “This is a very interesting experiment, ” said the Doctor. “Superphosphate alone gives an increase of thirteen bushels. Superphosphate and potash an increase of seventy-three bushels. Thepotash, therefore, gives an increase of sixty bushels. Superphosphate_and_ ammonia give twelve bushels more than superphosphate alone, andthe reason it does not produce a better crop is owing to a deficiency ofpotash. When this is supplied the ammonia gives an increase (plots 5 and6) of ninety-one bushels per acre. ” In 1870 the above experiments were repeated on the same land, with thesame general results. In 1871 some experiments were made on a sharp, gravelly soil, which hadbeen over-cropped, and was in poor condition. The following are theresults:-- Bushels per acre. 1. {9 cwt. Superphosphate } 186 {3 ” sulphate of ammonia } 2. {9 cwt. Superphosphate } {3½ ” muriate of potash } 204 {3 ” sulphate of ammonia } 3. No manure 70 4. {9 cwt. Superphosphate } {3½ ” muriate of potash } 205 {3 ” sulphate of ammonia } 5. 20 tons farm-yard manure 197 “On this poor soil, ” said the Doctor, “the ammonia and superphosphategave an increase of 116 bushels per acre; and 3½ hundred weight ofmuriate of potash an increase, on one plot, of eighteen bushels, and onthe other nineteen bushels per acre. ” In the same year, 1871, another set of experiments was made on a betterand more loamy soil, which had been in grass for several years. In 1869it was sown for hay, and in 1870 was broken up and sown to oats, and thenext spring planted with potatoes. The following are some of theresults: Bushels per acre. {6¼ cwt. Superphosphate } 1. {2½ ” muriate of potash } 321 {2½ ” sulphate of ammonia } 2. {6¼ cwt. Superphosphate } 296 {2½ ” sulphate of ammonia } 3. No manure 252 4. {6¼ cwt. Superphosphate } 311 {2½ ” muriate of potash } 5. 2½ cwt. Sulphate of ammonia 238 6. 15 tons farm-yard manure 365 “It is curious, ” said the Doctor, “that the plot with sulphate ofammonia alone should produce less than the no-manure plot. ” “The sulphate of ammonia, ” said I, “may have injured the seed, or it mayhave produced too luxuriant a growth of vine. ” Another series of experiments was made on another portion of the samefield in 1871. The “no-manure” plot produced 337 bushels per acre. Manures of various kinds were used, but the largest yield, 351 bushelsper acre, was from superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia; fourteen tonsbarn-yard manure produce 340 bushels per acre; and Mr. Hunter remarks:“It is evident that, when the produce of the unmanured soil reaches ninetons [336 bushels] per acre, there is but little scope for manure of anykind. ” “I do not see, ” said the Doctor, “that you have answered my question, but I suppose that, with potatoes at fifty cents a bushel, and wheat at$1. 50 per bushel, artificial manures can be more profitably used onpotatoes than on wheat, and the same is probably true of oats, barley, corn, etc. ” I have long been of the opinion that artificial manures can be appliedto potatoes with more profit than to any other ordinary farm-crop, forthe simple reason that, in this country, potatoes, on the average, command relatively high prices. For instance, if average land, without manure, will produce fifteenbushels of wheat per acre and 100 bushels of potatoes, and a givenquantity of manure costing, say $25, will double the crop, we have, inthe one case, _an increase_ of:-- 15 bushels of wheat at $1. 50 $22. 50 15 cwt. Of straw 3. 50 ------ $26. 00 Cost of manure 25. 00 ------ Profit from using manure $1. 00 And in the other:-- 100 bushels of potatoes at 50 cents $50. 00 Cost of manure 25. 00 ------ Profit from using manure $25. 00 The only question is, whether the same quantity of the right kind ofmanure is as likely to double the potato crop as to double the wheatcrop, when both are raised on average land. “It is not an easy matter, ” said the Deacon, “to double the yield ofpotatoes. ” “Neither is it, ” said I, “to double the yield of wheat, but both can bedone, provided you start low enough. If your land is clean, and wellworked, and dry, and only produces ten bushels of wheat per acre, thereis no difficulty in making it produce twenty bushels; and so ofpotatoes. If the land be dry and well cultivated, and, barring the bugs, produces without manure 75 bushels per acre, there ought to be nodifficulty in making it produce 150 bushels. “But if your land produces, without manure, 150 bushels, it is notalways easy to make it produce 300 bushels. Fortunately, orunfortunately, our land is, in most cases, poor enough to start with, and we ought to be able to use manure on potatoes to great advantage. ” “But will not the manure, ” asked the Deacon, “injure the quality of thepotatoes?” I think not. So far as my experiments and experience go, the judicioususe of good manure, on dry land, favors the perfect maturity of thetubers and the formation of starch. I never manured potatoes so highlyas I did last year (1877), and never had potatoes of such high quality. They cook white, dry, and mealy. We made furrows two and a half feetapart, and spread rich, well-rotted manure in the furrows, and plantedthe potatoes on top of the manure, and covered them with a plow. In ourclimate, I am inclined to think, it would be better to apply the manureto the land for potatoes the autumn previous. If sod land, spread themanure on the surface, and let it lie exposed all winter. If stubbleland, plow it in the fall, and then spread the manure in the fall orwinter, and plow it under in the spring. CHAPTER XXXII. WHAT CROPS SHOULD MANURE BE APPLIED TO. “It will not do any harm on any crop, ” said the Deacon, “but on my farmit seems to be most convenient to draw it out in the winter or spring, and plow it under for corn. I do not know any farmer except you who usesit on potatoes. ” My own rule is to apply manure to those crops which require the mostlabor per acre. But I am well aware that this rule will have manyexceptions. For instance, it will often pay well to use manure onbarley, and yet barley requires far less labor than corn or potatoes. People who let out, and those who work farms “on shares” seldomunderstand this matter clearly. I knew a farmer, who last year let out afield of good land, that had been in corn the previous year, to a man tosow to barley, and afterwards to wheat on “the halves. ” Another part ofthe farm was taken by a man to plant corn and potatoes on similar terms, and another man put in several acres of cabbage, beets, carrots, andonions on halves. It never seemed to occur to either of them that theconditions were unequal. The expense of digging and harvesting thepotato-crop alone was greater than the whole cost of the barley-crop;while, after the barley was off, the land was plowed once, harrowed, andsowed to winter wheat; and nothing more has to be done to it until thenext harvest. With the garden crops, the difference is even still morestriking. The labor expended on one acre of onions or carrots would putin and harvest a ten-acre field of barley. If the tenant gets pay forhis labor, the landlord would get say $5 an acre for his barley land, and $50 for his carrot and onion land. I am pretty sure the tenants didnot see the matter in this light, nor the farmer either. Crops which require a large amount of labor can only be grown on veryrich land. Our successful market-gardeners, seed-growers, and nurserymenunderstand this matter. They must get great crops or they cannot paytheir labor bill. And the principle is applicable to ordinary farmcrops. Some of them require much more labor than others, and shouldnever be grown unless the land is capable of producing a maximum yieldper acre, or a close approximation to it. As a rule, the least-payingcrops are those which require the least labor per acre. Farmers areafraid to expend much money for labor. They are wise in this, unless allthe conditions are favorable. But when they have land in a high state ofcultivation--drained, clean, mellow, and rich--it would usually pay themwell to grow crops which require the most labor. And it should never be forgotten that, as compared with nearly all othercountries, our labor is expensive. No matter how cheap our land may be, we can not afford to waste our labor. It is too costly. If men wouldwork for nothing, and board themselves, there are localities where wecould perhaps afford to keep sheep that shear two pounds of wool a year;or cows that make 75 lbs. Of butter. We might make a profit out of awheat crop of 8 bushels per acre, or a corn-crop of 15 bushels, or apotato-crop of 50 bushels. But it cannot be done with labor costing from$1. 00 to $1. 25 per day. And I do not believe labor will cost much lessin our time. The only thing we can do is to employ it to the bestadvantage. Machinery will help us to some extent, but I can see no realescape from our difficulties in this matter, except to raise largercrops per acre. In ordinary farming, “larger crops per acre” means fewer acres plantedor sown with grain. It means more summer fallow, more grass, clover, peas, mustard, coleseed, roots, and other crops that are consumed on thefarm. It means more thorough cultivation. It means clean and rich land. It means husbanding the ammonia and nitric acid, which is brought to thesoil, as well as that which is developed from the soil, or which thesoil attracts from the atmosphere, and using it to grow a crop everysecond, third, or fourth year, instead of every year. If a piece of landwill grow 25 bushels of corn every year, we should aim to so manage it, that it will grow 50 every other year, or 75 every third year, or, ifthe _climate_ is capable of doing it, of raising 100 bushels per acreevery fourth year. Theoretically this can be done, and in one of Mr. Lawes’ experiments hedid it practically in the case of a summer-fallow for wheat, the onecrop in two years giving a little more than two crops sown insuccession. But on sandy land we should probably lose a portion of theliberated plant-food, unless we grew a crop of some kind every year. Andthe matter organized in the renovating crop could not be renderedcompletely available for the next crop. _In the end_, however, we oughtto be able to get it with little or no loss. How best to accomplish thisresult, is one of the most interesting and important fields forscientific investigation and practical experiment. We know enough, however, to be sure that there is a great advantage in waiting untilthere is a sufficient accumulation of available plant-food in the soilto produce a large yield, before sowing a crop that requires much labor. If we do not want to wait, we must apply manure. If we have no barn-yardor stable-manure, we must buy artificials. HOW AND WHEN MANURE SHOULD BE APPLIED. This is not a merely theoretical or chemical question. We must take intoconsideration the _cost_ of application. Also, whether we apply it at abusy or a leisure season. I have seen it recommended, for instance, tospread manure on meadow-land immediately after the hay-crop was removed. Now, I think this may be theoretically very good advice. But, on myfarm, it would throw the work right into the midst of wheat and barleyharvests; and I should make the theory bend a little to my convenience. The meadows would have to wait until we had got in the crops--or untilharvest operations were stopped by rain. I mention this merely to show the complex character of this question. Onmy own farm, the most leisure season of the year, except the winter, isimmediately after wheat harvest. And, as already stated, it is at thistime that John Johnston draws out his manure and spreads it ongrass-land intended to be plowed up the following spring for corn. If the manure was free from weed-seeds, many of our best farmers, ifthey had some well-rotted manure like this of John Johnston’s, woulddraw it out and spread it on their fields prepared for winter-wheat. In this case, I should draw out the manure in heaps and then spread itcarefully. Then harrow it, and if the harrow pulls the manure intoheaps, spread them and harrow again. It is of the greatest importance tospread manure evenly and mix it thoroughly with the soil. If this workis well done, and the manure is well-rotted, it will not interfere withthe drill. And the manure will be near the surface, where the youngroots of the wheat can get hold of it. “You must recollect, ” said the Doctor, “that the roots can only take upthe manure when in solution. ” “It must also be remembered, ” said I, “that a light rain of, say, onlyhalf an inch, pours down on to the manures spread on an acre of landabout 14, 000 gallons of water, or about 56 tons. If you have put on 8tons of manure, half an inch of rain would furnish a gallon of water toeach pound of manure. It is not difficult to understand, therefore, howmanure applied on the surface, or near the surface, can be taken up bythe young roots. ” “That puts the matter in a new light to me, ” said the Deacon. “If themanure was plowed under, five or six inches deep, it would require anabundant rain to reach the manure. And it is not one year in five thatwe get rain enough to thoroughly soak the soil for several weeks aftersowing the wheat in August or September. And when it does come, theseason is so far advanced that the wheat plants make little growth. ” My own opinion is, that on clayey land, manure will act much quicker ifapplied on, or near the surface, than if plowed under. Clay mixed withmanure arrests or checks decomposition. Sand has no such effect. Ifanything, it favors a more active decomposition, and hence, manure actsmuch more rapidly on sandy land than on clay land. And I think, as arule, where a farmer advocates the application of manure on the surface, it will be found that he occupies clay land or a heavy loam; while thosewho oppose the practice, and think manure should be plowed under, occupysandy land or sandy loam. “J. J. Thomas, ” said I, “once gave me a new idea. ” “Is that anything strange, ” remarked the Deacon. “Are ideas so scarceamong you agricultural writers, that you can recollect who firstsuggested them?” “Be that as it may, ” said I, “this idea has had a decided influence onmy farm practice. I will not say that the idea originated with Mr. Thomas, but at any rate, it was new to me. I had always been in thehabit, when spading in manure in the garden, of putting the manure inthe trench and covering it up; and in plowing it in, I thought it wasdesirable to put it at the bottom of the furrow where the next furrowwould cover it up. ” “Well, ” said the Deacon, “and what objection is there to the practice?” “I am not objecting to the practice. I do not say that it is not a goodplan. It may often be the only practicable method of applying manure. But it is well to know that there is _sometimes_ a better plan. The ideathat Mr. Thomas gave me, was, that it was very desirable to break up themanure fine, spread it evenly, and thoroughly mix it with the soil. “After the manure is spread on the soil, ” said Mr. Thomas, “and beforeplowing it in, great benefit is derived by thoroughly harrowing thetop-soil, thus breaking finely both the manure and the soil, and mixingthem well together. Another way for the perfect diffusion of the manureamong the particles of earth, is, to spread the manure in autumn, sothat, all the rains of this season may dissolve the soluble portions andcarry them down among the particles, where they are absorbed andretained for the growing crop. “In experiments, ” continues Mr. Thomas, “when the manure for corn wasthus applied in autumn, has afforded a yield of about 70 bushels peracre, when the same amount applied in spring, gave only 50 bushels. A thin coating of manure applied to winter-wheat at the time of sowing, and was harrowed in, has increased the crop from 7 to 10 bushels peracre--and in addition to this, by the stronger growth it has caused, aswell as by the protection it has afforded to the surface, it has notunfrequently saved the crop from partial or total winter-killing. “In cases where it is necessary to apply coarse manures at once, muchmay be done in lessening the evils of coarseness by artificiallygrinding it into the soil. The instrument called the drag-roller--whichis like the common roller set stiff so as not to revolve--has been usedto great advantage for this purpose, by passing it over the surface inconnection with the harrow. We have known this treatment to effect athorough intermixture, and to more than double the crop obtained bycommon management with common manure. ” TOP-DRESSING WITH MANURE. The term “top-dressing” usually refers to sowing or spreading manureson the growing crop. For instance, we top-dress pastures or meadows byspreading manure on the surface. If we sow nitrate of soda, or guano, onour winter-wheat in the spring, that would be top-dressing. We often sowgypsum on clover, and on barley, and peas, while the plants are growingin the spring, and this is top-dressing. “If the gypsum was sown broadcast on the land before sowing the seed, ”said the Deacon, “would not that be top-dressing also?” Strictly speaking, I suppose that would not be top-dressing. Top-dressing in the sense in which I understand the term, is seldomadopted, except on meadows and pastures as a regular system. It is anafter-thought. We have sown wheat on a poor, sandy knoll, and we drawout some manure and spread on it in the winter or early spring; or wetop-dress it with hen-manure, or guano, or nitrate of soda andsuperphosphate. I do not say that this is better than to apply themanure at the time of sowing the wheat, but if we neglect to do so, then top-dressing is a commendable practice. Dr. Vœlcker reports the result of some experiments in top-dressingwinter-wheat on the farm of the Royal Agricultural College atCirencester, England. The manures were finely sifted and mixed withabout ten times their weight of fine soil, and sown broadcast on thegrowing wheat, March 22. A fine rain occurred the following day, andwashed the manure into the soil. The following is the yield per acre:-- No manure 27 bushels and 1984 lbs. Of straw. 280 lbs. Peruvian guano 40 ” ” 2576 ” ” 195 ” nitrate of soda 38 ” ” 2695 ” ” 180 ” nitrate of soda, and 168 lbs. Of common salt 40½ ” ” 2736 ” ” 448 lbs. Proctor’s wheat-manure 39½ ” ” 2668 ” ” 672 ” ” ” ” 44¼ ” ” 3032 ” ” 4 tons chalk-marl 27 ” ” 1872 ” ” The manures in each case cost $7. 80 per acre, except the large dose ofProctor’s wheat-manure, which cost $11. 70 per acre. The wheat was worth$1. 26 per bushel. Leaving the value of the straw out of the question, the profit from the use of the top dressing was: With guano $8. 70 per acre. ” nitrate of soda 6. 00 ” nitrate of soda and common salt 9. 33 ” 448 lbs. Wheat-manure 7. 94 ” 672 ” ” ” 10. 16 The marl did no good. The nitrate of soda and common salt contained no phosphoric acid, and yet produced an excellent effect. The guano and the wheat-manurecontained phosphoric acid as well as nitrogen, and the following crop ofclover would be likely to get some benefit from it. John Johnston wrote in 1868, “I have used manure only as a top-dressingfor the last 26 years, and I do think one load, used in that way, isworth far more than two loads plowed under on our stiff land. ” CHAPTER XXXIII. MANURES ON PERMANENT MEADOWS AND PASTURES. In this country, where labor is comparatively high, and hay oftencommands a good price, a good, permanent meadow frequently affords asmuch real profit as any other portion of the farm. Now that we have goodmowing-machines, tedders, rakes, and loading and unloading apparatus, the labor of hay-making is greatly lessened. The only difficulty is tokeep up and increase the annual growth of good grass. Numerous experiments on top-dressing meadows are reported from year toyear. The results, of course, differ considerably, being influenced bythe soil and season. The profit of the practice depends very much on theprice of hay. In the Eastern States, hay generally commands a higherrelative price than grain, and it not unfrequently happens that we canuse manure on grass to decided advantage. The celebrated experiments of Messrs. Lawes & Gilbert with “Manures onPermanent Meadow-land” were commenced in 1856, and have been continuedon the same plots every year since that time. “You need not be afraid, Deacon, ” said I, as the old gentleman commencedto button up his coat, “I am not going into the details of thesewonderful experiments; but I am sure you will be interested in theresults of the first six or seven years. ” The following table explains itself: Experiments with Manures on Permanent Meadow land at Rothamsted, England. Hay/Acre 20th (1875): Hay per Acre the 20th Season, 1875. Total/Acre: Total Hay (per) Acre. ----+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | | Annual Produce of Hay | | | per Acre in Lbs. | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | Description and Amount of |1856|1857|1858|1859|1860|1861|1862| | Manures per Acre. | | | | | | | |----+-------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 1 |No manure |2433|2724|3116|2558|2822|3074|3238| 2{|400 lbs. Ammonia-salts = 82 | | | | | | | | {| lbs. Of nitrogen |4028|3774|3982|3644|2940|3808|3854| | | | | | | | | | 3 |Superphosphate of lime | | | |2828|3176|3400|3252| 4{|400 lbs. Ammonia-salts and | | | | | | | | {| superphosphate of lime | | | |4996|4788|4968|4756| 5 |Mixed mineral manures |3429|3666|4082|3416|3928|4488|4424| 6 |400 lbs. Ammonia-salts and | | | | | | | | | mixed mineral manures |6363|6422|7172|6198|5624|6316|6402| 7 |800 lbs. Ammonia-salts and | | | | | | | | | mixed mineral manures |7054|6940|7508|7150|5744|6710|7108| 8 |800 lbs. Ammonia-salts and | | | | | | | | | mixed mineral manures, | | | | | | | | | including 200 lbs. Each | | | | | | | | | silicates, soda, and lime | | | | | | |7120| | | | | | | | | | 9 |275 lbs. Nitrate of soda | | |2952|3588|3948|4092|4446| 10 |550 lbs. Nitrate of soda = 82 | | | | | | | | | lbs. Of nitrogen | | |3564|4116|4410|4452|4086| 11 |Mixed mineral manures and 275 | | | | | | | | | lbs. Nitrate of soda | | |4236|4956|4812|5514|5178| 12 |Mixed mineral manures and 550 | | | | | | | | | lbs. Nitrate of soda | | |5636|6072|5586|5892|5718| 13 |14 tons farmyard-manure |4030|5328|4164|4584|5208|5052|5060| 14 |14 tons farmyard-manure and | | | | | | | | | 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts |5009|6008|5320|5356|5704|5320|5556|----+-------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ --------------------+----------------+---- Average Hay per | Hay/Acre | Acre. | 20th (1875) | ---------+----------+----+----+------+ 1st 7 Yrs| 20 Years. |1st |2nd |Total | 1856-62. | |Crop|Crop| /Acre| ---------+----------+----+----+------+---- 2824 | 2534 |2436|1491| 3927| 1 | | | | | 3719 | 2940 |2702|2016| 4718| 2 (4 yrs. )}|(17 yrs. )}| | | | 3164 }| 2492 }|2352|1722| 4074| 3 (4 yrs. )}|(17 yrs. )}| | | | 4877 }| 3612 }|4102|1610| 5712| 4 3919 | 3948 |4564|2688| 7252| 5 | | | | | 6357 | 5712 |5824|2744| 8508| 6 | | | | | 6876 | 6454 |6222|5684|10, 906| 7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7000 |6720|4592|11, 312| 8 1858-62}|(18 yrs. )}| | | | 3805 }| 3794 }|3360|1456| 4816| 9 |(18 yrs. )}| | | | 4126 | 3962 }|3276|1470| 4746| 10 |(18 yrs. )}| | | | 4939 | 5208 }|5040|1862| 6902| 11 |(18 yrs. )}| | | | 5783 | 6384 }|7028|1974| 9002| 12 4775 | 4130 |2996|1316| 4312| 13 | | | | | 5468 | 4816 |3766|1960| 5726| 14 ---------+----------+----+----+------+---- These are all the figures I will trouble you with. The “mixed mineralmanures” consisted of superphosphate of lime (composed of 150 lbs. Bone-ash and 150 lbs. Sulphuric acid, sp. Gr. 1. 7), 300 lbs. Sulphate ofpotash, 200 lbs. Sulphate of soda, and 100 lbs. Sulphate of magnesia. The ammonia-salts consisted of equal parts sulphate and muriate ofammonia, containing about 25 per cent. Of ammonia. The manures were sownas early as possible in the spring, and, if the weather was suitable, sometimes in February. The farmyard-manure was spread on the land, inthe first year, in the spring, afterwards in November or December. Thehay was cut from the middle to the last of June; and the aftermath waspastured off by sheep in October. “It is curious, ” said the Deacon, “that 400 lbs. Of ammonia-salts shouldgive as great an increase in the yield of hay the first year as 14 tonsof farmyard-manure, but the second year the farmyard-manure comes outdecidedly ahead. ” “The farmyard-manure, ” said I, “was applied every year, at the rate of14 gross tons per acre, for eight years--1856 to 1863. After 1863, thisplot was left without manure of any kind. The average yield of thisplot, during the first 8 years was 4, 800 lbs. Of hay per acre. ” On the plot dressed with 14 tons of farmyard-manure and 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, the average yield of hay for 8 years was 5, 544 lbs. Peracre. After the eighth year the farmyard-manure was discontinued, andduring the next twelve years the yield of hay averaged 3, 683 lbs. , or1, 149 lbs. More than the continuously unmanured plot. In 1859, superphosphate of lime was used alone on plot 3, and has beencontinued ever since. It seems clear that this land, which had been inpasture or meadow for a hundred years or more, was not deficient inphosphates. “It does not seem, ” said the Deacon, “to have been deficient inanything. The twentieth crop, on the continuously unmanured plot wasnearly 1¼ ton per acre, the first cutting, and nearly ¾-ton the secondcutting. And apparently the land was just as rich in 1875, as it was in1856, and yet over 25 tons of hay had been cut and _removed_ from theland, without any manure being returned. And yet we are told that hay isa very exhausting crop. ” “Superphosphate alone, ” said the Doctor, “did very little to increasethe yield of hay, but superphosphate _and_ ammonia produced the firstyear, 1859, over a ton more hay per acre than the superphosphate alone, and when _potash_ is added to the manure, the yield is still furtherincreased. ” “Answer me one question, ” said the Deacon, “and let us leave thesubject. In the light of these and other experiments, what do youconsider the cheapest and best manure to apply to a permanent meadow orpasture?” “Rich, well-decomposed farmyard or stable manure, ” said I, “and if it isnot rich, apply 200 lbs. Of nitrate of soda per acre, in addition. Thiswill make it rich. Poor manure, made from straw, corn-stalks, hay, etc. , is poor in nitrogen, and comparatively rich in potash. The nitrate ofsoda will supply the deficiency of nitrogen. On the sea-shore fish-scrapis a cheaper source of nitrogen, and may be used instead of the nitrateof soda. ” CHAPTER XXXIV. MANURES FOR SPECIAL CROPS. MANURES FOR HOPS. “For hops, ” said the Doctor, “there is nothing better than rich, well-decomposed farmyard-manure--such manure as you are now making fromyour pigs that are bedded with stable-manure. ” “That is so, ” said I, “and the better you feed your horses and pigs, thebetter will the manure be for hops. In England, Mr. Paine, of Surrey, made a series of experiments with different manures for hops, and, asthe result of four years trial, reported that _rape-cake_, singly, orin combination, invariably proved the best manure for hops. In thiscountry, cotton-seed, or cotton-seed-cake, would be a good substitutefor the rape-cake. Whatever manure is used should be used liberally. Hops require a large amount of labor per acre, and it is, therefore, specially desirable to obtain a large yield per acre. This can beaccomplished only by the most lavish expenditure of manure. And allexperience seems to show that it must be manure _rich in nitrogen_. Inthe hop districts of England, 25 tons of rich farmyard-manure areapplied per acre; and in addition to this, soot and rags, both rich innitrogen, have long been popular auxiliaries. The value of soot is dueto the fact that it contains from 12 to 15 per cent of sulphate ofammonia, and the fact that it has been so long used with success as amanure for hops, seems to prove that sulphate of ammonia, which can nowbe readily obtained, could be used to advantage by our hop-growers--sayat the rate, in addition to farm-yard manure, of 500 lbs. Per acre, sownbroadcast early in the spring. ” MANURES FOR TOBACCO. When tobacco is grown for wrappers, it is desirable to get a large, strong leaf. The richest land is selected for the crop, and largequantities of the richest and most stimulating manures are used. Like cabbages, this crop requires a large amount of plant-food per acre;and, like them, it can only be grown by constant and high manuring. Moremanure must be used than the plants can take up out of the soil, andhence it is, that land which has been used for growing tobacco for someyears, will be in high condition for other crops without furthermanuring. Farm-yard or stable-manure, must be the mainstay of the tobacco-planter. With this, he can use artificial fertilizers to advantage--such asfish-scrap, woollen-rags, Peruvian guano, dried blood, slaughter-houseoffal, sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, etc. For choice, high-flavored smoking-tobacco, the grower aims to getquality rather than quantity. This seems to depend more on the land andthe climate than on the manures used. Superphosphate of lime would belikely to prove advantageous in favoring the early growth and maturityof the crop. And in raising tobacco-plants in the seed-bed, I shouldexpect good results from the use of superphosphate, raked into the soilat the rate of three or four lbs. Per square rod. MANURES FOR INDIAN CORN. We know less about the manurial requirements of Indian corn, than ofalmost any other crop we cultivate. We know that wheat, barley, oats, and grasses, require for their maximum growth a liberal supply ofavailable nitrogen in the soil. And such facts and experiments as wehave, seem to indicate that the same is also true of Indian corn. It is, at any rate, reasonable to suppose that, as Indian corn belongs to thesame botanical order as wheat, barley, oats, rye, timothy, and othergrasses, the general manurial requirements would be the same. Such, I presume, is the case; and yet there seem to be some facts that wouldincline us to place Indian corn with the leguminous plants, such asclover, peas, and beans, rather than with the cereals, wheat, barley, oats, etc. “Why so, ” asked the Deacon, “Indian corn does not have much in commonwith beans, peas, and clover?” As we have shown, clover can get more nitrogen out of the soil, thanwheat, barley, and oats. And the same is true of beans and peas, thoughprobably not to so great an extent. Now, it would seem that Indian corn can get more nitrogen out of a soil, than wheat, barley, or oats--and to this extent, at least, we mayconsider Indian corn as a renovating crop. In other words, the Indiancorn can get more nitrogen out of the soil, than wheat, barley, andoats--and when we feed out the corn and stalks on the farm, we have morefood and more manure than if we raised and fed out a crop of oats, barley, or wheat. If this idea is correct, then Indian corn, whenconsumed on the farm, should not be classed with what the Englishfarmers term “white crops, ” but rather with the “green crops. ” In otherwords, Indian corn is what old writers used to call a “fallow crop”--orwhat we call a renovating crop. If this is so, then the growth and consumption of Indian corn on thefarm, as is the case with clover, should leave the farm richer forwheat, rather than poorer. I do not mean richer absolutely, but richerso far as the _available_ supply of plant-food is concerned. “It may be that you are right, ” said the Doctor, “when corn is grown for_fodder_, but not when grown for the grain. It is the formation of theseed which exhausts the soil. ” If I could be sure that it was true of corn-fodder, I should have littledoubt that it is true also of corn as ordinarily grown for grain andstalks. For, I think, it is clear that the grain is formed at theexpense of the stalks, and not directly from the soil. The corn-fodderwill take from the soil as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as the cropof corn, and the more it will take, the more it approximates incharacter to clover and other renovating crops. If corn-fodder is arenovating crop, so is the ordinary corn-crop, also, provided it isconsumed on the farm. “But what makes you think, ” said the Deacon, “that corn can get morenitrogen from the soil, than wheat?” “That is the real point, Deacon, ” said I, “and I will ask you thisquestion. Suppose you had a field of wheat seeded down to clover, andthe clover failed. After harvest, you plow up half of the field and sowit to wheat again, the other half of the field you plow in the spring, and plant with Indian corn. Now, suppose you get 15 bushels of wheat tothe acre, how much corn do you think you would be likely to get?” “Well, that depends, ” said the Deacon, “but I should expect at least 30bushels of shelled corn per acre. ” “Exactly, and I think most farmers would tell you the same; you gettwice as much corn and stalks to the acre as you would of wheat andstraw. In other words, while the wheat cannot find more nitrogen than isnecessary to produce 15 bushels of wheat and straw, the corn can find, and does find, take up, and organize, at least twice as much nitrogen asthe wheat. ” If these are facts, then the remarks we have made in regard to the valueof clover as a fertilizing crop, are applicable in some degree to Indiancorn. To grow clover and sell it, will in the end impoverish the soil;to grow clover and feed it out, will enrich the land. And the same willbe true of Indian corn. It will gather up nitrogen that the wheat-cropcan not appropriate; and when the corn and stalks are fed out, some 90per cent of the nitrogen will be left in the manure. “You do not think, then, ” said the Doctor, “that nitrogen is such animportant element in manure for corn, as it is in a manure for wheat. ” I have not said that. If we want a large crop of corn, we shall usuallyneed a liberal supply of available nitrogen. But this is because alarger crop of corn means a much larger produce per acre, than a largecrop of wheat. Forty bushels of wheat per acre is an unusually largecrop with us; but 80 bushels of shelled corn can be grown in a favorableseason, and on rich, well-cultivated land. As the Deacon has said, 30bushels of corn per acre can be grown as easily as 15 bushels of wheat;and it is quite probable, in many cases, that a manure containing nonitrogen, might give us a crop of 35 or 40 bushels per acre. In otherwords, up to a certain point, manures containing mineral, orcarbonaceous matter, might frequently, in ordinary agriculture, increasethe yield of Indian corn; while on similar land, such manures would havelittle effect on wheat. “That is so, ” said the Deacon, “we all know that plaster frequentlyincreases the growth of corn, while it seldom does much good on wheat. ” But, after you have got as large a crop as the land will produce, aidedby plaster, ashes, and superphosphate, say 40 bushels of shelled cornper acre, _then_ if you want to raise 70 bushels per acre, you mustfurnish the soil with manures containing sufficient available nitrogen. Some years ago, I made some careful experiments with artificial manureson Indian corn. “Oh, yes, ” said the Deacon, “they were made on the south lot, in frontof my house, and I recollect that the N. Y. State Ag. Society awarded youa prize of $75 for them. ” “And I recollect, ” said I, “how you and some other neighbors laughed atme for spending so much time in measuring the land and applying themanures, and measuring the crop. But I wish I could have afforded tocontinue them. A single experiment, however carefully made, can not bedepended on. However, I will give the results for what they are worth, with some remarks made at the time: “The soil on which the experiments were made, is a light, sandy loam. Ithas been under cultivation for upwards of twenty years, and so far as Ican ascertain has never been manured. It has been somewhat impoverishedby the growth of cereal crops, and it was thought that for this reason, and on account of its light texture and active character, which wouldcause the manures to act immediately, it was well adapted for thepurpose of showing the effect of different manurial substances on thecorn-crop. “The land was clover-sod, two years old, pastured the previous summer. It was plowed early in the spring, and harrowed until in excellentcondition. The corn was planted May 23, in hills 3½ feet apart each way. “The manures were applied in the hill immediately before the seed wasplanted. “With superphosphate of lime, and with plaster (gypsum, or _sulphate oflime_), the seed was placed directly on top of the manure, as it is wellknown that these manures do not injure the germinating principle of eventhe smallest seeds. “The ashes were dropped in the hill, and then covered with soil, and theseed planted on the top, so that it should not come in contact with theashes. “Guano and sulphate of ammonia were treated in the same way. “On the plots where ashes and guano, or ashes and sulphate of ammoniawere both used, the ashes were first put in the hill, and covered withsoil, and the guano or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top, and alsocovered with soil before the seed was planted. The ashes andsuperphosphate of lime was also treated in the same way. It is wellknown that unleached ashes, mixed either with guano, sulphate ofammonia, or superphosphate, mutually decompose each other, setting freethe ammonia of the guano and sulphate of ammonia, and converting thesoluble phosphate of the superphosphate of lime into the insoluble formin which it existed before treatment with sulphuric acid. All the plotswere planted on the same day, and the manures weighed and applied undermy own immediate supervision. Everything was done that was deemednecessary to secure accuracy. “The following table gives the results of the experiments: Table Showing the Results of Experiments on Indian Corn. SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre. SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre. TC Total No. Of bushels of ears of corn per acre. ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn. ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn. TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn. -----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- | Descriptions of manures and | | | | | |Plots| quantities applied per acre | SdC | SfC| TC |ISdC|ISfC|TIC-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- 1. |No manure | 60 | 7 | 67 | . . | . . | . . 2. |100 lbs. Plaster (gypsum or | | | | | | | sulphate of lime) | 70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11 3. |400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes | | | | | | | and 100 lbs. Plaster (mixed) | 68 | 10 | 78 | 8 | 3 | 11 4. |150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia | 90 | 15 | 105 | 30 | 8 | 38 5. |300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime | 70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11 6. |150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia | | | | | | | and 300 lbs. Superphosphate of | | | | | | | lime (mixed) | 85 | 5 | 90 | 25 | . . | 23 7. |400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes, | | | | | | | (uncertain) | 60 | 12 | 72 | . . | 5 | 5 8. |150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia and | | | | | | | 400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes | | | | | | | (sown separately) | 87 | 10 | 97 | 27 | 3 | 30 9. |300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime, | | | | | | | 150 lbs. Sulph. Ammonia, and | | | | | | | 400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes | 100 | 8 | 108 | 40 | 1 | 41 10. |400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes | 60 | 8 | 68 | . . | 1 | 1 11. |100 lbs. Plaster. 400 lbs. | | | | | | | unleached wood-ashes, 300 lbs. | | | | | | | superphosphate of lime, and | | | | | | | 200 lbs. Peruvian guano | 95 | 10 | 105 | 35 | 3 | 38 12. |75 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia | 78 | 10 | 88 | 18 | 3 | 21 13. |200 lbs. Peruvian guano | 88 | 13 | 101 | 28 | 6 | 34 14. |400 lbs. Unleached wood-ashes, | | | | | | | 100 lbs. Plaster, and | | | | | | | 500 lbs. Peruvian guano | 111 | 14 | 125 | 51 | 7 | 58-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- “The superphosphate of lime was made on purpose for these experiments, and was a pure mineral manure of superior quality, made from calcinedbones; it cost about 2½ cents per pound. The sulphate of ammonia was agood, commercial article, obtained from London, at a cost of about sevencents per pound. The ashes were made from beech and hard maple (_Acersaccharinum_) wood, and were sifted through a fine sieve before beingweighed. The guano was the best Peruvian, costing about three cents perpound. It was crushed and sifted before using. In sowing the ashes onplot 7, an error occurred in their application, and for the purpose ofchecking the result, it was deemed advisable to repeat the experiment onplot 10. “On plot 5, with 300 lbs. Of superphosphate of lime per acre, the plantscame up first, and exhibited a healthy, dark-green appearance, whichthey retained for some time. This result was not anticipated, though itis well known that superphosphate of lime has the effect of stimulatingthe germination of turnip-seed, and the early growth of the plants to anastonishing degree; yet, as it has no such effect on wheat, it appearedprobable that it would not produce this effect on Indian corn, which, inchemical composition, is very similar to wheat. The result shows howuncertain are all speculations in regard to the manurial requirements ofplants. This immediate effect of superphosphate of lime on corn was somarked, that the men (who were, at the time of planting, somewhatinclined to be skeptical, in regard to the value of such small doses ofmanure), declared that ‘superphosphate beats all creation for corn. ’ Thedifference in favor of superphosphate, at the time of hoeing, was veryperceptible, even at some distance. “Although every precaution was taken that was deemed necessary, toprevent the manures from mixing in the hill, or from injuring the seed, yet, it was found, that those plots dressed with ashes and guano, orwith ashes and sulphate of ammonia, were injured to some extent. Shortlyafter the corn was planted, heavy rain set in, and washed the sulphateof ammonia and guano, down into the ashes, and mutual decomposition tookplace, with more or less loss of ammonia. In addition to this loss ofammonia, these manures came up to the surface of the ground in the formof an excrescence, so hard that the plants could with difficultypenetrate through it. “It will be seen, by examining the table, that although thesuperphosphate of lime had a good effect during the early stages of thegrowth of the plants, yet the increase of ears of corn in the end didnot come up to these early indications. On plot 5, with 300 lbs. Ofsuperphosphate of lime per acre, the yield is precisely the same as onplot 2, with 100 lbs. Of plaster (_sulphate of lime_), per acre. Now, superphosphate of lime is composed necessarily of soluble phosphate oflime and plaster, or sulphate of lime, formed from a combination of thesulphuric acid, employed in the manufacture of superphosphate, with thelime of the bones. In the 300 lbs. Of superphosphate of lime, sown onplot 5, there would be about 100 lbs. Of plaster; and as the effect ofthis dressing is no greater than was obtained from the 100 lbs. Ofplaster, sown on plot 2, it follows, that the good effect of thesuperphosphate of lime was due to the plaster that it contained. “Again, on plot 4, with 150 lbs. Of sulphate of ammonia per acre, wehave 90 bushels of ears of sound corn, and 15 bushels of ears of softcorn, (‘nubbins, ’) per acre; or a total increase over the plot withoutmanure, of 38 bushels. Now, the sulphate of ammonia contains nophosphate of lime, and the fact that such a manure gives a considerableincrease of crop, confirms the conclusion we have arrived at, from acomparison of the results on plots 2 and 5; that the increase from thesuperphosphate of lime, is not due to the phosphate of lime which itcontains, unless we are to conclude that the sulphate of ammoniarendered the phosphate of lime in the soil more readily soluble, andthus furnished an increased quantity in an available form forassimilation by the plants--a conclusion, which the results withsuperphosphate alone, on plot 5, and with superphosphate and sulphate ofammonia, combined, on plot 6, do not sustain. “On plot 12, half the quantity of sulphate of ammonia, was used as onplot 4, and the increase is a little more than half what it is wheredouble the quantity was used. Again, on plot 13, 200 lbs. Of Peruvianguano per acre, gives nearly as great an increase of sound corn, as the150 lbs. Of sulphate of ammonia. Now, 200 lbs. Of Peruvian guanocontains nearly as much ammonia as 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia, and theincrease in both cases is evidently due to the ammonia of these manures. The 200 lbs. Of Peruvian guano, contained about 50 lbs. Of phosphate oflime; but as the sulphate of ammonia, which contains no phosphate oflime, gives as great an increase as the guano, it follows, that thephosphate of lime in the guano, had little, if any effect; a resultprecisely similar to that obtained with superphosphate of lime. “We may conclude, therefore, that on this soil, which has never beenmanured, and which has been cultivated for many years with the_Ceralia_--or, in other words, with crops which remove a large quantityof phosphate of lime from the soil--the phosphate of lime, relatively tothe ammonia, is not deficient. If such was not the case, an applicationof soluble phosphate of lime would have given an increase of crop, whichwe have shown was not the case in any one of these experiments. “Plot 10, with 400 lbs. Of unleached wood-ashes per acre, produces thesame quantity of _sound corn_, with an extra bushel of ‘nubbins’ peracre, as plot 1, without any manure at all; ashes, therefore, appliedalone, may be said to have had no effect whatever. On plot 3, 400 lbs. Of ashes, and 100 lbs. Of plaster, give the same total number of bushelsper acre, as plot 2, with 100 lbs. Of plaster alone. Plot 8, with 400lbs. Ashes, and 150 lbs. Of sulphate of ammonia, yields three bushels ofsound corn, and five bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre, _less_ than plot 4, with 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia alone. This result may be ascribed tothe fact previously alluded to--the ashes dissipated some of theammonia. “Plot 11, with 100 lbs. Of plaster, 400 lbs. Ashes, 300 lbs. Ofsuperphosphate of lime, and 200 lbs. Peruvian guano (which containsabout as much ammonia as 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia), producedprecisely the same number of total bushels per acre, as plot 4, with 150lbs. Sulphate of ammonia alone, and but 4 bushels more per acre, thanplot 13, with 200 lbs. Peruvian guano alone. It is evident, from theseresults, that neither ashes nor phosphates had much effect on Indiancorn, on this impoverished soil. Plot 14 received the largest dressingof ammonia (500 lbs. Peruvian guano), and produced much the largestcrop; though the increase is not so great in proportion to the guano, aswhere smaller quantities were used. “The manure which produced the most profitable result, was the 100 lbs. Of plaster, on plot 2. The 200 lbs. Of Peruvian guano, on plot 13, andwhich cost about $6, gave an increase of 14 bushels of shelled corn, and6 bushels of ‘nubbins. ’ This will pay at the present price of corn inRochester, although the profit is not very great. The superphosphate oflime, although a very superior article, and estimated at cost price, inno case paid for itself. The same is true of the ashes. “But the object of the experiment was not so much to ascertain whatmanures will pay, but to ascertain, if possible, what constituents ofmanures are required, in greatest quantity, for the maximum growth ofcorn. * * Hitherto, no experiments have been made in this country, onIndian corn, that afforded any certain information on this point. Indeed, we believe no satisfactory experiments have been made on Indiancorn, in any country, that throw any definite light on this interestingand important question. A few years ago, Mr. Lawes made similarexperiments to those given above, on his farm, at Rothamsted, England;but owing to the coolness of the English climate, the crop did notarrive at maturity. “Numerous experiments have been made in this country, with guano andsuperphosphate of lime; but the superphosphates used were commercialarticles, containing more or less ammonia, and if they are of anybenefit to those crops to which they are applied, it is a matter ofuncertainty whether the beneficial effect of the application is due tothe soluble phosphate of lime, or to the ammonia. On the other hand, guano contains both ammonia and phosphate; and we are equally at a lossto determine, whether the effect is attributable to the ammonia orphosphate, or both. In order, therefore, to determine satisfactorily, which of the several ingredients of plants is required in greatestproportion, for the maximum growth of any particular crop, we must applythese ingredients separately, or in such definite compounds, as willenable us to determine to what particular element or compounds thebeneficial effect is to be ascribed. It was for this reason, thatsulphate of ammonia, and a purely mineral superphosphate of lime, wereused in the above experiments. No one would think of using sulphate ofammonia at its price, [sulphate of ammonia is now cheaper, whilePeruvian guano is more costly and less rich in ammonia], as an ordinarymanure, for the reason, that the same quantity of ammonia can beobtained in other substances, such as barnyard-manure, Peruvian guano, etc. , at a much cheaper rate. But these manures contain _all_ theelements of plants, and we can not know whether the effect produced bythem is due to the ammonia, phosphates, or any other ingredients. Forthe purpose of experiment, therefore, we must use a manure thatfurnishes ammonia without any admixture of phosphates, potash, soda, lime, magnesia, etc. , even though it cost much more than we could obtainthe same amount of ammonia in other manures. I make these remarks inorder to correct a very common opinion, that if experiments do not_pay_, they are useless. The ultimate object, indeed, is to ascertainthe most profitable method of manuring; but the _means_ of obtainingthis information, can not in all cases be profitable. “Similar experiments to those made on Indian corn, were made on soil ofa similar character, on about an acre of Chinese sugar-cane. I do notpropose to give the results in detail, at this time, and allude to themmerely to mention one very important fact, _the superphosphate of limehad a very marked effect_. This manure was applied in the hill on oneplot (the twentieth of an acre, ) at the rate of 400 lbs. Per acre, andthe plants on this plot came up first, and outgrew all the others fromthe start, and ultimately attained the height of about ten feet; whileon the plot receiving no manure, the plants were not five feet high. This is a result entirely different from what I should have expected. Ithas been supposed, from the fact that superphosphate of lime had noeffect on wheat, that it would probably have little effect on corn, oron the sugar-cane, or other _ceralia_; and that, as ammonia is sobeneficial for wheat, it would probably be beneficial for corn andsugar-cane. The above experiments indicate that such is the case, inregard to Indian corn, so far as the production of grain is concerned, though, as we have stated, it is not true in reference to the earlygrowth of the plants. The superphosphate of lime on Indian corn, stimulated the growth of the plants, in a very decided manner at first, so much so, that we were led to suppose, for some time, that it wouldgive the largest crop; but at harvest, it was found that it produced nomore corn than plaster. These results seem to indicate, thatsuperphosphate of lime stimulates the growth of stalks and leaves, andhas little effect in increasing the production of seed. In raisingIndian corn, for fodder or for soiling purposes, superphosphate of limemay be beneficial, as well as in growing the sorghum for sugar-makingpurposes, or for fodder--though, perhaps, not for seed. ” “In addition to the experiments given above, I also made the sameseason, on an adjoining field, another set of experiments on Indiancorn, the results of which are given below. “The land on which these experiments were made, is of a somewhat firmertexture than that on which the other set of experiments was made. It issituated about a mile from the barn-yard, and on this account, hasseldom, if ever been manured. It has been cultivated for many years withordinary farm crops. It was plowed early in the spring, and it washarrowed until quite mellow. The corn was planted May 30, 1857. Eachexperiment occupied one-tenth of an acre, consisting of 4 rows 3½ feetapart, and the same distance between the hills in the rows, with one rowwithout manure between each experimental plot. “The manure was applied in the hill, in the same manner as in the firstset of experiments. “The barnyard-manure was well-rotted, and consisted principally ofcow-dung with a little horse-dung. Twenty two-horse wagon loads of thiswas applied per acre, and each load would probably weigh about one ton. It was put in the hill and covered with soil, and the seed then plantedon the top. “The following table gives the results of the experiments: Table Showing the Results of Experiments on Indian Corn, Made Near Rochester, N. Y. , in the Year 1857. SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre. SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre. TC Total No. Of bushels of ears of corn per acre. ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn. ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn. TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn. -----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- | Descriptions of manures and | | | | | |Plots| quantities applied per acre | SdC | SfC| TC |ISdC|ISfC|TIC-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- 1. | No manure | 75 | 12 | 87 | . . | . . | . . 2. | 20 loads barn-yard manure | 82½ | 10 | 92½| 5½ | . . | 5½ 3. | 150 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia | 85 | 30 | 115 | 10 | 18 | 28 4. | 300 lbs. Superphosphate of lime | 88 | 10 | 98 | 11 | . . | 11 5. | 400 lbs. Peruvian guano | 90 | 30 | 120 | 15 | 18 | 33 6. | 400 lbs. Of “Cancerine, ” or fish | 85 | 20 | 105 | 10 | 8 | 18 | manure | | | | | |-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+---- “As before stated, the land was of a stronger nature than that on whichthe first set of experiments was made, and it was evidently in bettercondition, as the plot having no manure produced 20 bushels of ears ofcorn per acre more than the plot without manure in the other field. “On plot 4, 300 lbs. Of superphosphate of lime gives a total increase of11 bushels of ears of corn per acre over the unmanured plot, agreeingexactly with the increase obtained from the same quantity of the samemanure on plot 5, in the first set of experiments. “Plot 3, dressed with 150 lbs. Of sulphate of ammonia per acre, gives atotal increase of 28 bushels of ears of corn per acre, over theunmanured plot; and an increase of 22½ bushels of ears per acre overplot 2, which received 20 loads of good, well-rotted barnyard-dung peracre. “Plot 5, with 400 lbs. Of Peruvian guano per acre gives the best crop ofthis series viz: an increase of 33 bushels of corn per acre over theunmanured plot, and 27½ over the plot manured with 20 loads ofbarnyard-dung. The 400 lbs. Of ‘Cancerine’--an artificial manure made inNew Jersey from fish--gives a total increase of 18 bushels of ears peracre over the unmanured plot, and 12½ bushels more than that manuredwith barn-yard dung, though 5 bushels of ears of sound corn and 10bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre _less_ than the same quantity of Peruvianguano. ” MANURES FOR TURNIPS. To raise a large crop of turnips, especially of ruta-bagas, there isnothing better than a liberal application of rich, well-rottedfarm-yard-manure, and 250 to 300 lbs. Of good superphosphate of lime peracre, _drilled in with the seed_. I have seen capital crops of common turnips grown with no other manureexcept 300 lbs. Of superphosphate per acre, drilled with the seed. Superphosphate has a wonderful effect on the development of the roots ofthe turnip. And this is the secret of its great value for this crop. Itincreases the growth of the young plant, developing the formation of theroots, and when the turnip once gets full possession of the soil, itappropriates all the plant-food it can find. A turnip-crop grown withsuperphosphate, can get from the soil much more nitrogen than a crop ofwheat. The turnip-crop, when supplied with superphosphate, is a good“scavenger. ” It will gather up and organize into good food the refuseplant-food left in the soil. It is to the surface soil, what clover isto the subsoil. To the market gardener, or to a farmer who manuresheavily common turnips drilled in with superphosphate will prove avaluable crop. On such land no other manure will be needed. I cannot tooearnestly recommend the use of superphosphate as a manure for turnips. For Swede turnips or ruta-bagas, it will usually be necessary, in orderto secure a maximum crop, to use a manure which, in addition tosuperphosphate, contains available nitrogen. A good dressing of rich, well-rotted manure, spread on the land, and plowed under, and then 300lbs. Of superphosphate drilled in with the seed, would be likely to givea good crop. In the absence of manure, there is probably nothing better for theruta-bagas than 300 lbs. Of so-called “rectified” Peruvian guano, thatis, guano treated with sulphuric acid, to render the phosphates soluble. Such a guano is guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, and 10 percent of soluble phosphoric acid, and would be a good dressing for Swedeturnips. The best way to use guano for turnips is to sow it broadcast on theland, and harrow it in, and then either drill in the turnip-seed on theflat, or on ridges. The latter is decidedly the better plan, providedyou have the necessary implements to do the work expeditiously. A doublemould-board plow will ridge up four acres a day, and the guano beingpreviously sown on the surface, will be turned up with the mellowsurface-soil into the ridge, where the seed is to be sown. The youngplants get hold of it and grow so rapidly as to be soon out of dangerfrom the turnip-beetle. MANURES FOR MANGEL-WURZEL OR SUGAR-BEETS. When sugar-beets are grown for feeding to stock, there is probablylittle or no difference in the manurial requirements of sugar-beets andmangel-wurzel. Our object is to get as large a growth as possibleconsistent with quality. “Large roots, ” said the Deacon, “have been proved to contain lessnutriment than small roots. ” True, but it does not follow from this that rich land, or heavy manuringis the chief cause of this difference. It is much more likely to be dueto the variety selected. The seed-growers have been breeding solely forsize and shape. They have succeeded to such an extent that 84 gross tonsof roots have been grown on an acre. This is equal to over 94 of ourtons per acre. “That is an enormous crop, ” said the Deacon; “and itwould require some labor to put 10 acres of them in a cellar. ” “If they were as nutritious as ordinary mangels, ” said I, “that would beno argument against them. But such is not the case. In a letter justreceived from Mr. Lawes, (May, 1878, ) he characterizes them as ‘bladdersof water and salts. ’” Had the seed-growers bred for _quality_, the roots would have been ofless size, but they would contain more nutriment. What we want is a variety that has been bred with reference to quality;and when this is secured, we need not fear to make the land rich andotherwise aim to secure great growth and large-sized roots. It certainly is not good economy to select a variety which has been bredfor years to produce large-sized roots, and then sow this seed on poorland for the purpose of obtaining small-sized roots. Better take avariety bred for quality, and then make the land rich enough to producea good crop. We are not likely to err in making the land too rich for mangel-wurzelor for sugar-beets grown for stock. When sugar-beets are grown forsugar, we must aim to use manures favorable for the production of sugar, or rather to avoid using those which are unfavorable. But wheresugar-beets are grown for food, our aim is to get a large amount ofnutriment to the acre. And it is by no means clear to my mind that thereis much to be gained by selecting the sugar-beet instead of a goodvariety of mangel-wurzel. It is not a difficult matter, by selecting thelargest roots for seed, and by liberal manuring, and continuouslyselecting the largest roots, to convert the sugar-beet into amangel-wurzel. When sugar-beets are grown for food, we may safely manure them as wewould mangel-wurzel, and treat the two crops precisely alike. I usually raise from ten to fifteen acres of mangel-wurzel every year. I grow them in rotation with other crops, and not as the Hon. HarrisLewis and some others do, continuously on the same land. We manureliberally, but not extravagantly, and get a fair yield, and the land isleft in admirable condition for future crops. I mean by this, not that the land is specially rich, but that it is veryclean and mellow. “In 1877, ” said the Deacon, “you had potatoes on the land where you grewmangels the previous year, and had the best crop in the neighborhood. ” This is true, but still I do not think it a good rotation. A barley cropseeded with clover would be better, especially if the mangels wereheavily manured. The clover would get the manure which had been washedinto the subsoil, or left in such a condition that potatoes or graincould not take it up. There is one thing in relation to my mangels of 1876 which has escapedthe Deacon. The whole piece was manured and well prepared, and dibbledin with mangels, the rows being 2½ feet apart, and the seed dropped 15inches apart in the rows. Owing to poor seed, the mangels failed onabout three acres, and we plowed up the land and drilled in corn forfodder, in rows 2½ feet apart, and at the rate of over three bushels ofseed per acre. We had a _great crop_ of corn-fodder. The next year, as I said before, the whole piece was planted withpotatoes, and if it was true that mangels are an “enriching crop, ” whilecorn is an “exhausting” crop, we ought to have had much better potatoesafter the mangels than after corn. This was certainly not the case; ifthere was any difference, it was in favor of the corn. But I do notplace any confidence in an experiment of this kind, where the crops werenot weighed and the results carefully ascertained. Mr. Lawes has made some most thorough experiments with different manureson sugar-beets, and in 1876 he commenced a series of experiments withmangel-wurzel. The land is a rather stiff clay loam, similar to that on which the wheatand barley experiments were made. It is better suited to the growth ofbeets than of turnips. “Why so, ” asked the Deacon, “I thought that black, bottom land was bestfor mangels. ” “Not so, Deacon, ” said I, “we can, it is true, grow large crops ofmangels on well-drained and well-manured swampy or bottom land, but thebest soil for mangels, especially in regard to quality, is a good, stiff, well-worked, and well-manured loam. ” “And yet, ” said the Deacon, “you had a better crop last year on thelower and blacker portions of the field than on the heavy, clayey land. ” In one sense, this is true. We had dry weather in the spring, and themangel seed on the dry, clayey land did not come up as well as on thecooler and moister bottom-land. We had more plants to the acre, but theroots on the clayey land, when they once got fair hold of the soil andthe manure, grew larger and better than on the lighter and moister land. The great point is to get this heavy land into a fine, mellow condition. But to Mr. Lawes’ experiments. They are remarkably interesting andinstructive. But it is not necessary to go into all the details. Sufficeit to say that the experiments seem to prove, very conclusively, thatbeets require a liberal supply of available nitrogen. Thus, withoutmanure, the yield of beets was about 7½ tons of bulbs per acre. With 550 lbs. Nitrate of soda per acre, the yield was a little over 22tons per acre. With 14 tons of farmyard-manure, 18 tons per acre. With14 tons of farmyard manure and 550 lbs. Nitrate of soda, over 27½ tonsper acre. Superphosphate of lime, sulphates of potash, soda, and magnesia, andcommon salt, alone, or with other manures, had comparatively littleeffect. Practically, when we want to grow a good crop of beets or mangels, theseexperiments prove that what we need is the richest kind ofbarnyard-manure. If our manure is not rich, then we should use, in addition to themanure, a dressing of nitrate of soda--say 400 or 500 lbs. Per acre. If the land is in pretty good condition, and we have no barnyard-manure, we may look for a fair crop from a dressing of nitrate of soda alone. “I see, ” said the Deacon, “that 550 lbs. Of nitrate of soda alone, gavean increase of 14½ tons per acre. And the following year, on the sameland, it gave an increase of 13½ tons; and the next year, on the sameland, over 9 tons. ” “Yes, ” said I, “the first three years of the experiments (1871-2-3), 550lbs. Of nitrate of soda alone, applied every year, gave an average yieldof 19¼ tons of bulbs per acre. During the same three years, the plotdressed with 14 tons of barnyard-manure, gave an average yield of 16¼tons. But now mark. The next year (1874) all the plots were left withoutany manure, and the plot which had been previously dressed with nitrateof soda, alone, fell off to 3 tons per acre, while the plot which hadbeen previously manured with barnyard-manure, produced 10¾ tons peracre. ” “Good, ” said the Deacon, “there is nothing like manure. ” MANURES FOR CABBAGE, PARSNIPS, CARROTS, LETTUCE, ONIONS, ETC. I class these plants together, because, though differing widely in manyrespects, they have one feature in common. They are all artificialproductions. A distinguished amateur horticulturist once said to me, “I do not seewhy it is I have so much trouble with lettuce. My land is rich, and thelettuce grow well, but do not head. They have a tendency to run up toseed, and soon get tough and bitter. ” I advised him to raise his own seed from the best plants--and especiallyto reject all plants that showed any tendency to go prematurely to seed. Furthermore, I told him I thought if he would sow a littlesuperphosphate of lime with the seed, it would greatly stimulate the_early_ growth of the lettuce. As I have said before, superphosphate, when drilled in with the seed, has a wonderful effect in developing the root-growth of the young plantsof turnips, and I thought it would have the same effect on lettuce, cabbage, cauliflowers, etc. “But, ” said he, “it is not _roots_ that I want, but heads. ” “Exactly, ” said I, “you do not want the plants to follow out theirnatural disposition and run up to seed. You want to induce them to throwout a great abundance of tender leaves. In other words, you want them to‘head. ’ Just as in the turnip, you do not want them to run up to seed, but to produce an unnatural development of ‘bulb. ’” Thirty years ago, Dr. Gilbert threw out the suggestion, that while itwas evident that turnips required a larger proportion of solublephosphates in the soil than wheat; while wheat required a largerproportion of available nitrogen in the soil, than turnips, it was quiteprobable, if we were growing turnips _for seed_, that then, turnipswould require the same kind of manures as wheat. We want exceedingly rich land for cabbage, especially for an early crop. This is not merely because a large crop of cabbage takes a large amountof plant-food out of the soil, but because the cultivated cabbage is anartificial plant, that requires its food in a concentrated shape. Inpopular language, the plants have to be “forced. ” According to the analyses of Dr. Anderson, the outside leaves ofcabbage, contain, in round numbers, 91 per cent of water; and the heartleaves, 94½ per cent. In other words, the green leaves contain 3½ percent more dry matter than the heart leaves. Dr. Vœlcker, who analyzed more recently some “cattle-cabbage, ” found 89½per cent of water in the green leaves, and 83¾ per cent in the heart andinner leaves--thus confirming previous analyses, and showing also thatthe composition of cabbages varies considerably. Dr. Vœlcker found much less water in the cabbage than Dr. Anderson. The specimen analyzed by Dr. V. , was grown on the farm of the Royal Ag. College of England, and I infer from some incidental remarks, that thecrop was grown on rather poor land. And it is probably true that a largecrop of cabbage grown on rich land, contains a higher percentage ofwater than cabbage grown on poorer land. On the poor land, the cabbagewould not be likely to head so well as on the rich land, and the greenleaves of cabbage contain more than half as much again real drysubstance as the heart leaves. The dry matter of the heart leaves, however, contains more actualnutriment than the dry matter of the green leaves. It would seem very desirable, therefore, whether we are raising cabbagefor market or for home consumption, to make the land rich enough to growgood heads. Dr. Vœlcker says, “In ordinary seasons, the average produceof Swedes on our poorer fields is about 15 tons per acre. On weighingthe produce of an acre of cabbage, grown under similar circumstances, I found that it amounted to 17½ tons per acre. On good, well-manuredfields, however, we have had a much larger produce. ” In a report on the “Cultivation of Cabbage, and its comparative Valuefor Feeding purposes, ” by J. M. M’Laren, of Scotland, the yield of Swedeturnips, was 29¾ tons per acre, and the yield of cabbage, 47¾ tons peracre. “It is very evident, ” said the Deacon, “that if you grow cabbage youshould make the land rich enough to produce a good crop--and I take itthat is all you want to show. ” “I want to show, ” I replied, “that our market gardeners have reason forapplying such apparently excessive dressings of rich manure to thecabbage-crop. They find it safer to put far more manure into the landthan the crop can possibly use, rather than run any risk of getting aninferior crop. An important practical question is, whether they can notgrow some crop or crops after the cabbage, that can profitably take upthe manure left in the soil. ” Prof. E. Wolff, in the last edition of “Praktische Düngerlehre, ” givesthe composition of cabbage. For the details of which, see Appendix, page345. From this it appears that 50 tons of cabbage contain 240 lbs. Ofnitrogen, and 1, 600 lbs. Of ash. Included in the ash is 630 lbs. Ofpotash; 90 lbs. Of soda; 310 lbs. Of lime; 60 lbs. Of magnesia; 140 lbs. Of phosphoric acid; 240 lbs. Of sulphuric acid, and 20 lbs. Of silica. Henderson, in “Gardening for Profit, ” advises the application of 75 tonsof stable or barn-yard manure per acre, for early cabbage. For latecabbage, after peas or early potatoes, he says about 10 tons per acreare used. Brill, in “Farm Gardening and Seed Growing, ” also makes the samedistinction in regard to the quantity of manure used for early and latecabbage. He speaks of 70 to 80 tons or more, per acre, of well-rottedstable-manure as not an unusual or excessive dressing every year. Now, according to Wolff’s table, 75 tons of fresh stable-manure, withstraw, contains 820 lbs. Of nitrogen; 795 lbs. Of potash; 150 lbs. Soda;315 lbs. Of lime; 210 lbs. Of magnesia; 420 lbs. Of phosphoric acid; 105lbs. Sulphuric acid; 2, 655 lbs. Of silica, and 60 lbs. Of chlorine. “Put the figures side by side, ” said the Deacon, “so that we can comparethem. ” Here they are: ------------------+--------------+----------- | _75 tons | | Fresh Horse | _50 tons | Manure. _ | Cabbage. _ ------------------+--------------+----------- Nitrogen | 820 lbs. | 240 lbs. Potash | 795 ” | 630 ” Phosphoric acid | 420 ” | 140 ” Soda | 150 ” | 90 ” Lime | 315 ” | 310 ” Magnesia | 210 ” | 60 ” ------------------+--------------+----------- “That is rather an interesting table, ” said the Doctor. “In the case oflime, the crop takes about all that this heavy dressing of manuresupplies--but I suppose the soil is usually capable of furnishing aconsiderable quantity. ” “That may be so, ” said the Deacon, “but all the authorities on marketgardening speak of the importance of either growing cabbage on landcontaining lime, or else of applying lime as a manure. Quinn, who writeslike a sensible man, says in his book, ‘Money in the Garden, ’ ‘Atop-dressing of lime every third year, thirty or forty bushels per acre, spread broadcast, and harrowed in, just before planting, payshandsomely. ’” Henderson thinks cabbage can only be grown successfully on landcontaining abundance of lime. He has used heavy dressings of lime onland which did not contain shells, and the result was satisfactory for atime, but he found it too expensive. Experience seems to show that to grow large crops of perfect cabbage, the soil must be liberally furnished with manures rich in nitrogen andphosphoric acid. In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that cabbage require a largequantity of potash. I think, however, that when large quantities ofstable or barn-yard manure is used, it will rarely be found that thesoil lacks potash. What we need to grow a large crop of cabbage, is manure from well-fedanimals. Such manure can rarely be purchased. Now, the differencebetween rich manure and ordinary stable or barnyard-manure, consistsprincipally in this: The rich manure contains more nitrogen andphosphoric acid than the ordinary stable-manure--and it is in a moreavailable condition. To convert common manure into rich manure, therefore, we must addnitrogen and phosphoric acid. In other words, we must use Peruvianguano, or nitrate of soda and superphosphate, or bone-dust, or someother substance that will furnish available nitrogen and phosphoricacid. Or it may well be, where stable-manure can be bought for $1. 00 pertwo-horse load, that it will be cheaper to use it in larger quantityrather than to try to make it rich. In this case, however, we mustendeavor to follow the cabbage by some crop that has the power of takingup the large quantity of nitrogen and other plant-food that will be leftin the soil. The cabbage needs a large supply of nitrogen in the soil, but removescomparatively little of it. We see that when 75 tons of manure is used, a crop of 50 tons of cabbage takes out of the soil less than 30 per centof the nitrogen. And yet, if you plant cabbage on this land, the nextyear, without manure, you would get a small crop. “It cannot be for want of nitrogen, ” said the Deacon. “Yes it can, ” said I. “The cabbage, especially the early kinds, musthave in the soil a much larger quantity of available nitrogen than theplants can use. ” I do not mean by this that a large crop of cabbage could be raised, yearafter year, if furnished only with a large supply of available nitrogen. In such a case, the soil would soon lack the necessary inorganicingredients. But, what I mean, is this: Where land has been heavilymanured for some years, we could often raise a good crop of cabbage by aliberal dressing of available nitrogen, and still more frequently, ifnitrogen and phosphoric acid were both used. You may use what would be considered an excessive quantity of ordinarystable-manure, and grow a large crop of cabbage; but still, if you plantcabbage the next year, without manure of any kind, you will get a smallcrop; but dress it with a manure containing the necessary amount ofnitrogen, and you will, so far as the supply of plant-food is concerned, be likely to get a good crop. In such circumstances, I think an application of 800 lbs. Of nitrate ofsoda per acre, costing, say $32, would be likely to afford a veryhandsome profit. For lettuce, in addition to well prepared rich land, I should sow3 lbs. Of superphosphate to each square rod, scattered in the rowsbefore drilling in the seed. It will favor the formation of fibrousroots and stimulate the growth of the young plants. In raising onions from seed, we require an abundance of rich, well-rotted manure, clean land, and early sowing. Onions are often raised year after year on the same land. That thisentails a great waste of manure, is highly probable, but it is not aneasy matter to get ordinary farm-land properly prepared for onions. Itneeds to be clean and free from stones and rubbish of all kinds, andwhen once it is in good condition, it is thought better to continue itin onions, even though it may entail more or less loss of fertility. “What do you mean, ” asked the Deacon, “by loss of manure?” “Simply this, ” said I. “We use a far greater amount of plant-food in theshape of manure than is removed by the crop of onions. And yet, notwithstanding this fact, it is found, as a matter of experience, thatit is absolutely necessary, if we would raise a large and profitablecrop, to manure it every year. ” A few experiments would throw much light on this matter. I shouldexpect, when land had been heavily dressed every year for a few years, with stable-manure, and annually sown to onions, that 800 lbs. Ofsulphate of ammonia, or of nitrate of soda, or 1, 200 lbs. Of Peruvianguano would give as good a crop as 25 or 30 tons of manure. Or perhaps abetter plan would be to apply 10 or 15 loads of manure, and 600 lbs. Ofguano, or 400 lbs. Sulphate of ammonia. CHAPTER XXXV. MANURES FOR GARDENS AND ORCHARDS. MANURE FOR MARKET-GARDENS. The chief dependence of the market gardener must be on the stable-manurewhich he can obtain from the city or village. The chief defect of thismanure is that it is not rich enough in available nitrogen. The activenitrogen exists principally in the urine, and this in our city stablesis largely lost. A ton of fresh, unmixed horse-dung contains about 9lbs. Of nitrogen. A ton of horse-urine, 31 lbs. But this does not tellthe whole story. The nitrogen in the dung is contained in the crude, undigested portions of the food. It is to a large extent insoluble andunavailable, while the nitrogen in the urine is soluble and active. The market-gardener, of course, has to take such manure as he can get, and the only points to be considered are (1), whether he had bettercontinue to use an excessive quantity of the manure, or (2), to buysubstances rich in available nitrogen, and either mix them with themanure, or apply them separately to the soil, or (3), whether he can usethis horse-manure as bedding for pigs to be fed on rich nitrogenousfood. The latter plan I adopt on my own farm, and in this way I get a veryrich and active manure. I get available nitrogen, phosphoric acid, andpotash, at far cheaper rates than they can be purchased in the bestcommercial fertilizers. Pigs void a large amount of urine, and as pigs are ordinarily kept, muchof this liquid is lost for want of sufficient bedding to absorb it. Withthe market-gardener or nurseryman, who draws large quantities ofhorse-manure from the city, this need not be the case. The necessarybuildings can be constructed at little cost, and the horse-manure can beused freely. The pigs should be fed on food rich in nitrogen, such asbran, malt-combs, brewers’ grains, the refuse animal matter from theslaughter-houses or butchers’ stores, fish scrap, pea or lentil-meal, palm-nut cake, or such food as will furnish the most nitrogenous food, other things being equal, at the cheapest rate. The market-gardener not only requires large quantities of rich manure, but he wants them to act quickly. The nurseryman who sets out a block oftrees which will occupy the ground for three, four, or five years, maywant a “lasting manure, ” but such is not the case with the gardener whogrows crops which he takes off the land in a few months. As long as hecontinues to use horse or cow-manure freely, he need not trouble himselfto get a slow or lasting manure. His great aim should be to make themanure as active and available as possible. And this is especially thecase if he occupies clayey or loamy land. On sandy land the manure willdecompose more rapidly and act quicker. “There are many facts, ” said the Doctor, “that show that an artificialapplication of water is equivalent to an application of manure. It hasbeen shown that market-gardeners find it necessary to apply a muchlarger amount of plant-food to the soil than the crops can take up. Thisthey have to do year after year. And it may well be that, when a supplyof water can be had at slight cost, it will be cheaper to irrigate theland, or water the plants, rather than to furnish such an excess ofmanure, as is now found necessary. Even with ordinary farm-crops, weknow that they feel the effects of drouth far less on rich land than onpoor land. In other words, a liberal supply of plant-food enables thecrops to flourish with less water; and, on the other hand, a greatersupply of water will enable the crops to flourish with a less supply ofplant-food. The market-gardeners should look into this question ofirrigation. ” MANURES FOR SEED-GROWING FARMS. In growing garden and vegetable seeds, much labor is necessarilyemployed per acre, and consequently it is of great importance to producea good yield. The best and cleanest land is necessary to start with, andthen manures must be appropriately and freely used. “But not too freely, ” said the Doctor, “for I am told it is quitepossible to have land too rich for seed-growing. ” It is not often that the land is too rich. Still, it may well be thatfor some crops too much stable-manure is used. But in nine cases out often, when such manure gives too much growth and too little or too poorseed, the trouble is in the quality of the manure. It contains too muchcarbonaceous matter. In other words, it is so poor in nitrogen andphosphoric acid, that an excessive quantity has to be used. The remedy consists in making richer manures and using a less quantity, or use half the quantity of stable-manure, and apply the rectified orprepared Peruvian guano, at the rate of 300 lbs. Or 400 lbs. Per acre, or say 200 lbs. Superphosphate and 200 lbs. Nitrate of soda per acre. Where it is very important to have the seeds ripen early, a liberaldressing, say 400 lbs. Per acre, of superphosphate of lime, will belikely to prove beneficial. MANURE FOR PRIVATE GARDENS. I once had a small garden in the city, and having no manure, I dependedentirely on thorough cultivation and artificial fertilizers, such assuperphosphate and sulphate of ammonia. It was cultivated not forprofit, but for pleasure, but I never saw a more productive piece ofland. I had in almost every case two crops a year on the same land, andon some plots three crops. No manure was used, except the superphosphateand sulphate of ammonia, and coal and wood ashes from the house. About 5 lbs. Of sulphate of ammonia was sown broadcast to the squarerod, or worked into the soil very thoroughly in the rows where the seedwas to be sown. Superphosphate was applied at the same rate, but insteadof sowing it broadcast, I aimed to get it as near the seed or the rootsof plants as possible. Half a teaspoonful of the mixture, consisting of equal parts ofsuperphosphate and sulphate of ammonia, stirred into a large threegallon can of water, and sprinkled on to a bed of verbenas, seemed tohave a remarkable effect on the size and brilliancy of the flowers. Even to this day, although I have a good supply of rich barnyard-manure, I do not like to be without some good artificial manure for the garden. MANURE FOR HOT-BEDS. The best manure for hot-beds is horse or sheep-dung that has been usedas bedding for pigs. When fresh stable-manure is used, great pains should be taken to saveall the urine. In other words, you want the horse-dung thoroughlysaturated with urine. The heat is produced principally from the carbon in the manure andstraw, but you need active nitrogenous matter to start the fire. And thericher the manure is in nitrogenous matter, and the more thoroughly thisis distributed through the manure, the more readily will it ferment. There is also another advantage in having rich manure, or manure wellsaturated with urine. You can make the heap more compact. Poor manurehas to be made in a loose heap, or it will not ferment; but such manureas we are talking about can be trodden down quite firm, and stillferment rapid enough to give out the necessary heat, and this compactheap will continue to ferment longer and give out a steadier heat, thanthe loose heap of poor manure. MANURE FOR NURSERYMEN. Our successful nurserymen purchase large quantities of stable and othermanures from the cities, drawing it as fast as it is made, and puttingit in piles until wanted. They usually turn the piles once or twice, andoften three times. This favors fermentation, greatly reducing it inbulk, and rendering the manure much more soluble and active. It alsomakes the manure in the heap more uniform in quality. Messrs. Ellwanger & Barry tell me that they often ferment the manurethat they draw from the stables in the city, and make it so fine andrich, that they get but one load of rotted manure from three loads asdrawn from the stables. For some crops, they use at least 20 loads ofthis rotted manure per acre, and they estimate that each load of thisrotted manure costs at least $5. 00. H. E. Hooker places the cost of manure equally high, but seems willingto use all he can get, and does not think we can profitably employartificial manures as a substitute. In this I agree with him. But while I should not expect artificialmanures, when used alone, to prove as cheap or as valuable asstable-manure at present prices, I think it may well be that a littlenitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, and superphosphate of lime, ordissolved Peruvian guano, might be used as an _auxiliary_ manure togreat advantage. Mr. H. E. Hooker, once sowed, at my suggestion, some sulphate of ammoniaand superphosphate on part of a block of nursery trees, and he could notperceive that these manures did any good. Ellwanger & Barry also triedthem, and reported the same negative result. This was several years ago, and I do not think any similar experiments have been made since. “And yet, ” said the Deacon, “you used these self same manures onfarm-crops, and they greatly increased the growth. ” “There are several reasons, ” said the Doctor, “why these manures mayhave failed to produce any marked effect on the nursery trees. In thefirst place, there was considerable prejudice against them, and thenurserymen would hardly feel like relying on these manures alone. Theyprobably sowed them on land already well manured; and I think they sowedthem too late in the season. I should like to see them fairly tried. ” So would I. It seems to me that nitrate of soda, and superphosphate, ordissolved Peruvian guano, could be used with very great advantage andprofit by the nurserymen. Of course, it would hardly be safe to dependupon them alone. They should be used either in connection withstable-manure, or on land that had previously been frequently dressedwith stable-manure. MANURE FOR FRUIT-GROWERS. How to keep up the fertility of our apple-orchards, is becoming animportant question, and is attracting considerable attention. There are two methods generally recommended--I dare not say generallypractised. The one, is to keep the orchard in bare-fallow; the other, tokeep it in grass, and top-dress with manure, and either eat the grassoff on the land with sheep and pigs, or else mow it frequently, and letthe grass rot on the surface, for mulch and manure. “You are speaking now, ” said the Deacon, “of bearing apple-orchards. Noone recommends keeping a young orchard in grass. We all know that youngapple trees do far better when the land is occupied with corn, potatoes, beans, or some other crop, which can be cultivated, than they do on landoccupied with wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, or grass and clover. And even with bearing peach trees, I have seen a wonderful difference inan orchard, half of which was cultivated with corn, and the other halfsown with wheat. The trees in the wheat were sickly-looking, and bore asmall crop of inferior fruit, while the trees in the corn, grewvigorously and bore a fine crop of fruit. And the increased value of thecrop of peaches on the cultivated land was far more than we can everhope to get from a crop of wheat. ” “And yet, ” said the Doctor, “the crop of corn on the cultivated half ofthe peach-orchard removed far more plant-food from the soil, than thecrop of wheat. And so it is evident that the difference is not duewholly to the supply of manure in the surface-soil. It may well be thatthe cultivation which the corn received favored the decomposition oforganic matter in the soil, and the formation of nitrates, and when therain came, it would penetrate deeper into the loose soil than on theadjoining land occupied with wheat. The rain would carry the nitrogendown to the roots of the peach trees, and this will account for the darkgreen color of the leaves on the cultivated land, and the yellow, sickly-looking leaves on the trees among the wheat. ” HEN-MANURE, AND WHAT TO DO WITH IT. A bushel of corn fed to a hen would give no more nitrogen, phosphoricacid, and potash, in the shape of manure, than a bushel of corn fed to apig. The manure from the pig, however, taking the urine and solidexcrement together, contain 82 per cent of water, while that from thehen contains only 56 per cent of water. Moreover, hens pick up worms andinsects, and their food in such case would contain more nitrogen thanthe usual food of pigs, and the manure would be correspondingly richerin nitrogen. Hence it happens that 100 lbs. Of _dry_ hen-manure wouldusually be richer in nitrogen than 100 lbs. Of _dry_ pig-manure. Butfeed pigs on peas, and hens on corn, and the dry pig-manure would bemuch richer in nitrogen than the dry hen-manure. The value of themanure, other things being equal, depends on the food and not on theanimal. Let no man think he is going to make his farm any richer by keepinghens, ducks, and geese, than he will by keeping sheep, pigs, and horses. “Why is it, then, ” asked the Deacon, “that hen-dung proves such avaluable manure. I would rather have a hundred lbs. Of hen-dung thanhalf a ton of barnyard-manure?” “And I presume you are right, ” said I, “but you must recollect that yourhen-manure is kept until it is almost chemically dry. Let us figure upwhat the half ton of manure and the 100 lbs. Of hen-manure wouldcontain. Here are the figures, side by side: --------------------------+---------------+------------- | _100 lbs. Dry | _Half ton | Hen-Manure. _ | Cow-Dung | | with straw. _ --------------------------+---------------+------------- Water (estimated) | 12 lbs. | 775 lbs. Organic Matter | 51 ” | 203 ” Ash | 37 ” | 22 ” +---------------+------------- Nitrogen | 3¼ ” | 3⅖ ” Potash | 1¾ ” | 4 ” Lime | 4¾ ” | 3 ” Phosphoric acid | 3 ” | 1½ ” --------------------------+---------------+------------- I would, myself, far rather have 100 lbs. Of your dry hen-manure thanhalf a ton of your farmyard-manure. Your hens are fed on richer foodthan your cows. The 100 lbs. Of hen-manure, too, would act much morerapidly than the half ton of cow-manure. It would probably do twice asmuch good--possibly three or four times as much good, on the first crop, as the cow-manure. The nitrogen, being obtained from richer and moredigestible food, is in a much more active and available condition thanthe nitrogen in the cow-dung. “If you go on, ” said the Deacon, “I think you will prove that I amright. ” “I have never doubted, ” said I, “the great value of hen-dung, ascompared with barnyard-manure. And all I wish to show is, that, notwithstanding its acknowledged value, the fact remains that a givenquantity of the same kind of food will give no greater amount offertilizing matter when fed to a hen than if fed to a pig. ” I want those farmers who find so much benefit from an application ofhen-manure, ashes, and plaster, to their corn and potatoes, to feel thatif they would keep better cows, sheep, and pigs, and feed them better, they would get good pay for their feed, and the manure would enable themto grow larger crops. While we have been talking, the Deacon was looking over the tables. (SeeAppendix. ) “I see, ” said he, “that wheat and rye contain more nitrogenthan hen-manure, but less potash and phosphoric acid. ” “This is true, ” said I, “but the way to compare them, in order to seethe effect of passing the wheat through the hen, is to look at thecomposition of the air-dried hen-dung. The fresh hen-dung, according tothe table, contains 56 per cent of water, while wheat contains less than14½ per cent. ” Let us compare the composition of 1, 000 lbs. Air-dried hen-dung with1, 000 lbs. Of air-dried wheat and rye, and also with bran, malt-combs, etc. _Phosphoric _Nitrogen. _ _Potash. _ Acid. _ Wheat 20. 8 5. 3 7. 9 Wheat Bran 22. 4 14. 3 27. 3 Rye 17. 6 5. 6 8. 4 Rye Bran 23. 2 19. 3 34. 3 Buckwheat 14. 4 2. 7 5. 7 Buckwheat Bran 27. 2 11. 2 12. 5 Malt-roots 36. 8 20. 6 18. 0 Air-dry Hen-dung. 32. 6 17. 0 30. 8 “That table, ” said the Doctor, “is well worth studying. You see, thatwhen wheat is put through the process of milling, the miller takes outas much of the starch and gluten as he wants, and leaves you a product(bran), richer in phosphoric acid, potash, and nitrogen, than you gavehim. ” “And the same is true, ” continued the Doctor, “of the hen. You gave her2, 000 grains of wheat, containing 41. 6 grains of nitrogen. She puts thisthrough the mill, together with some ashes, and bones, that she picksup, and she takes out all the starch and fat, and nitrogen, andphosphate of lime, that she needs to sustain life, and to produce flesh, bones, feathers, and eggs, and leaves you 1, 000 grains of manurecontaining 32. 6 grains of nitrogen, 17. 0 grains of potash, and 30. 8grains of phosphoric acid. I do not say, ” continued the Doctor, “that ittakes exactly 2, 000 grains of wheat to make 1, 000 grains of dry manure. I merely give these figures to enable the Deacon to understand why 1, 000lbs. Of hen-dung is worth more for manure than 1, 000 lbs. Of wheat. ” “I must admit, ” said the Deacon, “that I always have been troubled tounderstand why wheat-bran was worth more for manure than the wheatitself, I see now--it is because there is less of it. It is for the samereason that boiled cider is richer than the cider from which it is made. The cider has lost water, and the bran has lost starch. What is left isricher in nitrogen, and potash, and phosphoric acid. And so it is withmanure. The animals take out of the food the starch and fat, and leavethe manure richer in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. ” “Exactly, ” said I, “Mr. Lawes found by actual experiment, that if youfeed 500 lbs. Of barley-meal to a pig, containing 420 lbs. Of _drysubstance_, you get only 70 lbs. Of dry substance in the manure. Of the420 lbs. Of dry substance, 276. 2 lbs. Are used to support respiration, etc. ; 73. 8 lbs. Are found in the increase of the pig, and 70 lbs. In themanure. ” The food contains 52 lbs. Of nitrogenous matter; the increase of pigcontains 7 lbs. , and consequently, if there is no loss, the manureshould contain 45 lbs. Of nitrogenous substance = to 7. 14 lbs. Ofnitrogen. “In other words, ” said the Doctor, “the 70 lbs. Of _dry_ liquid andsolid pig-manure contains 7. 14 lbs. Of nitrogen, or 100 lbs. Wouldcontain 10. 2 lbs. Of nitrogen, which is more nitrogen than we now get inthe very best samples of Peruvian guano. ” “And thus it will be seen, ” said I, “that though corn-fed pigs, leavingout the bedding and water, produce a very small quantity of manure, itis exceedingly rich. ” The table from which these facts were obtained, will be found in theAppendix--pages 342-3. CHAPTER XXXVI. DIFFERENT KINDS OF MANURE. COW-MANURE, AND HOW TO USE IT. “It will do more good if fermented, ” said a German farmer in theneighborhood, who is noted for raising good crops of cabbage, “but Ilike hog-manure better than cow-dung. The right way is to mix thehog-manure, cow-dung, and horse-manure together. ” “No doubt about that, ” said I, “but when you have a good many cows, andfew other animals, how would you manage the manure?” “I would gather leaves and swamp-muck, and use them for bedding the cowsand pigs. Leaves make splendid bedding, and they make rich manure, andthe cow-dung and leaves, when made into a pile, will ferment readily, and make grand manure for--anything. I only wish I had all I could use. ” There is no question but what cow-manure is better if fermented, but itis not always convenient to pile it during the winter in such a way thatit will not freeze. And in this case it may be the better plan to drawit out on to the land, as opportunity offers. “I have heard, ” said Charley, “that pig-manure was not good for cabbage, it produces ‘fingers and toes, ’ or club-foot. ” Possibly such is the case when there is a predisposition to the disease, but our German friend says he has never found any ill-effects from itsuse. “Cows, ” said the Doctor, “when giving a large quantity of milk, makerather poor manure. The manure loses what the milk takes from the food. ” “We have shown what that loss is, ” said I. “It amounts to less than Ithink is generally supposed. And in the winter, when the cows are dry, the manure would be as rich as from oxen, provided both were fed alike. See Appendix, page 342. It will there be seen that oxen take out only4. 1 lbs. Of nitrogen from 100 lbs. Of nitrogen consumed in the food. Inother words, provided there is no loss, we should get in the liquid andsolid excrements of the ox and dry cow 95. 9 per cent of the nitrogenfurnished in the food, and a still higher per cent of the mineralmatter. ” SHEEP-MANURE. According to Prof. Wolff’s table of analyses, sheep-manure, both solidand liquid, contain less water than the manure from horses, cows, orswine. With the exception of swine, the solid dung is also the richestin nitrogen, while the urine of sheep is pre-eminently rich in nitrogenand potash. These facts are in accordance with the general opinions of farmers. Sheep-manure is considered, next to hen-manure, the most valuable manuremade on the farm. I do not think we have any satisfactory evidence to prove that 3 tons ofclover-hay and a ton of corn fed to a lot of fattening-sheep will afforda quantity of manure containing any more plant-food than the same kindand amount of food fed to a lot of fattening-cattle. The experiments ofLawes & Gilbert indicate that if there is any difference it is in favorof the ox. See Appendix, page 343. But it may well be that it is mucheasier to save the manure from the sheep than from the cattle. And so, practically, sheep may be better manure-makers than cattle--for thesimple reason that less of the urine is lost. “As a rule, ” said the Doctor, “the dung of sheep contains far less waterthan the dung of cattle, though when you slop your breeding ewes to makethem give more milk, the dung differs but little in appearance from thatof cows. Ordinarily, however, sheep-dung is light and dry, and, likehorse-dung, will ferment much more rapidly than cow or pig-dung. Inpiling manure in the winter or spring, special pains should be used tomix the sheep and horse-manure with the cow and pig-manure. And it maybe remarked that for any crop or for any purpose where stable-manure isdeemed desirable, sheep-manure would be a better substitute than cow orpig-manure. ” MANURE FROM SWINE. The dry matter of hog-manure, especially the urine, is rich in nitrogen, but it is mixed with such a large quantity of water that a ton ofhog-manure, as it is usually found in the pen, is less valuable than aton of horse or sheep-manure, and only a little more valuable than a tonof cow-manure. As I have before said, my own plan is to let the store-hogs sleep in abasement-cellar, and bed them with horse and sheep-manure. I have thiswinter over 50 sows under the horse-stable, and the manure from 8 horseskeeps them dry and comfortable, and we are not specially lavish withstraw in bedding the horses. During the summer we aim to keep the hogs out in the pastures andorchards as much as possible. This is not only good for the health ofthe pigs, but saves labor and straw in the management of the manure. Itgoes directly to the land. The pigs are good grazers and distribute themanure as evenly over the land as sheep--in fact, during hot weather, sheep are even more inclined to huddle together under the trees, and bythe side of the fence, than pigs. This is particularly the case with thelarger breeds of sheep. In the winter it is not a difficult matter to save all the liquid andsolid excrements from pigs, provided the pens are dry and no water comesin from the rain and snow. As pigs are often managed, this is the realdifficulty. Pigs void an enormous quantity of water, especially when fedon slops from the house, whey, etc. If they are kept in a pen with aseparate feeding and sleeping apartment, both should be under cover, andthe feeding apartment may be kept covered a foot or so thick with thesoiled bedding from the sleeping apartment. When the pigs get up in amorning, they will go into the feeding apartment, and the liquid will bedischarged on the mass of manure, straw, etc. “Dried muck, ” said the Deacon, “comes in very handy about a pig-pen, forabsorbing the liquid. ” “Yes, ” said I, “and even dry earth can be used to great advantage, notmerely to absorb the liquid, but to keep the pens sweet and healthy. Thethree chief points in saving manure from pigs are: 1, To have the pensunder cover; 2, to keep the feeding apartment or yard covered with athick mass of strawy manure and refuse of any kind, and 3, to scatterplenty of dry earth or dry muck on the floor of the sleeping apartment, and on top of the manure in the feeding apartment. ” “You feed most of your pigs, ” said the Deacon, “out of doors in theyard, and they sleep in the pens or basement cellars, and it seems to meto be a good plan, as they get more fresh air and exercise than ifconfined. ” “We do not lose much manure, ” said I, “by feeding in the yards. You leta dozen pigs sleep in a pen all night, and as soon as they hear youputting the food in the troughs outside, they come to the door of thepen, and there discharge the liquid and solid excrements on the mass ofmanure left there on purpose to receive and absorb them. I am well awarethat as pigs are often managed, we lose at least half the value of theirmanure, but there is no necessity for this. A little care and thoughtwill save nearly the whole of it. ” BUYING MANURE BY MEASURE OR WEIGHT. The Deacon and I have just been weighing a bushel of different kinds ofmanure made on the farm. We made two weighings of each kind, one thrownin loose, and the other pressed down firm. The following is the result: Weight of Manure per Bushel, and per Load of 50 Bushels. Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel in lbs. Wt/Load Weight per Load of 50 bushels. ---+--------------------------------------------+-------+--------- No. | Kind And Condition Of Manures. | Wt/Bu | Wt/Load ---+--------------------------------------------+-------+--------- | | lbs. | lbs. 1. |Fresh horse-manure free from straw | 37½ | 1875 2. | ” ” ” ” ” ” pressed | 55 | 2750 3. |Fresh horse-manure, | | | as used for bedding pigs | 28 | 1400 4. | ” ” ” | | | ” ” ” ” ” pressed | 46 | 2300 5. |Horse-manure from pig cellar | 50 | 2500 6. | ” ” ” ” ” pressed | 72 | 3600 7. |Pig-manure | 57 | 2850 8. | ” ” pressed | 75 | 3750 9. |Pig-manure and dry earth | 98 | 4900 10. |Sheep-manure from open shed | 42 | 2100 11. | ” ” ” ” ” pressed | 65 | 3250 12. |Sheep-manure from closed shed | 28 | 1400 13. | ” ” ” ” ” pressed | 38 | 1900 14. |Fresh cow-dung, free from straw | 87 | 4350 15. |Hen-manure | 34 | 1700 16. | ” ” pressed | 48 | 2400 ---+--------------------------------------------+-------+--------- “In buying manure, ” said the Deacon, “it makes quite a differencewhether the load is trod down solid or thrown loosely into the box. A load of fresh horse-manure, when trod down, weighs half as much againas when thrown in loose. ” “A load of horse-manure, ” said Charley, “after it has been used forbedding pigs, weighs 3, 600 lbs. , and only 2, 300 lbs. When it is throwninto the pens, and I suppose a ton of the ‘double-worked’ manure isfully as valuable as a ton of the fresh horse-manure. If so, 15 ‘loads’of the pig-pen manure is equal to 24 ‘loads’ of the stable-manure. ” “A ton of fresh horse-manure, ” said the Doctor, “contains about 9 lbs. Of nitrogen; a ton of fresh cow-dung about 6 lbs. ; a ton of freshsheep-dung, 11 lbs. , and a ton of fresh pig-manure, 12 lbs. But if theDeacon and you weighed correctly, a ‘load’ or cord of cow-manure wouldcontain more nitrogen than a load of pressed horse-manure. The figuresare as follows: A load of 50 bushels of fresh horse-dung, pressed and free from straw contains 12. 37 lbs. Nitrogen. A load of fresh cow-dung 13. 05 ” ” ” ” sheep ” 10. 45 ” ” ” ” pig ” 22. 50 ” ” “These figures, ” said I, “show how necessary it is to look at thissubject in all its aspects. If I was buying manures _by weight, _ I wouldmuch prefer a ton of sheep-manure, if it had been made under cover, toany other manure except hen-dung, especially if it contained all theurine from the sheep. But if buying manure by the load or cord, thatfrom a covered pig-pen would be preferable to any other. ” LIQUID MANURE ON THE FARM. I have never had any personal experience in the use of liquid manure toany crop except grass. At Rothamsted, Mr. Lawes used to draw out theliquid manure in a water-cart, and distribute it on grass land. “What we want to know, ” said the Deacon, “is whether the liquid from ourbarn-yards will pay to draw out. If it will, the proper method of usingit can be left to our ingenuity. ” According to Prof. Wolff, a ton of urine from horses, cows, sheep, andswine, contains the following amounts of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, andpotash, and, for the sake of comparison, I give the composition ofdrainage from the barn-yard, and also of fresh dung of the differentanimals: Table Showing the Amount of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash, in One Ton of the Fresh Dung and Fresh Urine of Different Animals, and Also of the Drainage of the Barn-Yard. Nitro(gen). Phos(phoric) Acid. Pot(ash). ---------------+----------------------+----------------------- | 1 Ton Fresh Dung. | 1 Ton Fresh Urine. ---------------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------- |Nitro. |Phos. | Pot. |Nitro. |Phos. | Pot. | |acid. | | |acid. | ---------------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------- | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. Horse | 8. 8 | 7. 0 | 7. 0 | 31. 0 | | 30. 0 Cow | 5. 8 | 3. 4 | 2. 0 | 11. 6 | | 9. 8 Sheep | 11. 0 | 6. 2 | 3. 0 | 39. 0 | 0. 2 | 45. 2 Swine | 12. 0 | 8. 2 | 5. 2 | 8. 6 | 1. 4 | 16. 6 Mean | 9. 4 | 6. 2 | 4. 3 | 22. 5 | 0. 4 | 25. 4 Drainage of | | | | | | barn-yard | | | | 3. 0 | 0. 2 | 9. 8 ---------------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------+------- The drainage from a barn-yard, it will be seen, contains a little morethan half as much nitrogen as cow-dung; and it is probable that thenitrogen in the liquid is in a much more available condition than thatin the dung. It contains, also, nearly five times as much potash as thedung. It would seem, therefore, that with proper arrangements forpumping and distributing, this liquid could be drawn a short distancewith profit. But whether it will or will not pay to cart away the drainage, it isobviously to our interest to prevent, as far as possible, any of theliquid from running to waste. It is of still greater importance to guard against any loss of urine. Itwill be seen that, on the average, a ton of the urine of our domesticanimals contains more than twice as much nitrogen as a ton of the dung. Where straw, leaves, swamp-muck, or other absorbent materials are notsufficiently abundant to prevent any loss of urine, means should be usedto drain it into a tank so located that the liquid can either be pumpedback on to the manure when needed, or drawn away to the land. “I do not see, ” said the Deacon, “why horse and sheep-urine shouldcontain so much more nitrogen and potash than that from the cow andpig. ” “The figures given by Prof. Wolff, ” said I, “are general averages. Thecomposition of the urine varies greatly. The richer the food indigestible nitrogenous matter, the more nitrogen will there be in thedry matter of the urine. And, other things being equal, the less waterthe animal drinks, the richer will the urine be in nitrogen. The urinefrom a sheep fed solely on turnips would contain little or no morenitrogen than the urine of a cow fed on turnips. An ox or a dry cow fedon grass would probably void no more nor no poorer urine than a horsefed on grass. The urine that Mr. Lawes drew out in a cart on to hisgrass-land was made by sheep that had one lb. Each of oil-cake per day, and one lb. Of chaffed clover-hay, and all the turnips they would eat. They voided a large quantity of urine, but as the food was rich innitrogen, the urine was doubtless nearly or quite as rich as thatanalyzed by Prof. Wolff, though that probably contained less water. ” If I was going to draw out liquid manure, I should be very careful tospout all the buildings, and keep the animals and manure as much undercover as possible, and also feed food rich in nitrogen. In suchcircumstances, it would doubtless pay to draw the urine full as well asto draw the solid manure. NIGHTSOIL AND SEWAGE. The composition of human excrements, as compared with the meancomposition of the excrements from horses, cows, sheep, and swine, sofar as the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash are concerned, is asfollows: Table Showing the Amount of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash, in One Ton of Fresh Human Excrements, and in One Ton of Fresh Excrements From Horses, Cows, Sheep, and Swine. Phos(phoric) Acid. -----------+----------------------------+---------------------------- | Solids | Urine One ton +---------+---------+--------+---------+--------+--------- (2000 lbs). | | Phos. | | | Phos. | |Nitrogen. | acid. |Potash. |Nitrogen. | acid. |Potash. -----------+---------+---------+--------+---------+--------+--------- Human |20. 0 lbs. |21. 8 lbs. |5. 0 lbs. |12. 0 lbs. |3. 7 lbs. | 4. 0 lbs. -----------+---------+---------+--------+---------+--------+--------- Mean of | | | | | | horse, cow, | | | | | | sheep, and | | | | | | swine | 9. 4 ” | 6. 2 ” |4. 3 ” |22. 5 ” |0. 4 ” |25. 4 ” -----------+---------+---------+--------+---------+--------+--------- One ton of fresh fæces contains more than twice as much nitrogen, andmore than three times as much phosphoric acid, as a ton of fresh mixedanimal-dung. The nitrogen, too, is probably in a more availablecondition than that in common barnyard-dung; and we should not be farwrong in estimating 1 ton of fæces equal to 2½ tons of ordinary dung, orabout equal in value to carefully preserved manure from liberally-fedsheep, swine, and fattening cattle. “It is an unpleasant job, ” said the Deacon, “but it pays well to emptythe vaults at least twice a year. ” “If farmers, ” said the Doctor, “would only throw into the vaults fromtime to time some dry earth or coal ashes, the contents of the vaultscould be removed without any disagreeable smell. ” “That is so, ” said I, “and even where a vault has been shamefullyneglected, and is full of offensive matter, it can be cleaned outwithout difficulty and without smell. I have cleaned out a large vaultin an hour. We were drawing manure from the yards with three teams andpiling it in the field. We brought back a load of sand and threw half ofit into the vault, and put the other half on one side, to be used asrequired. The sand and fæces were then, with a long-handled shovel, thrown into the wagon, and drawn to the pile of manure in the field, andthrown on to the pile, not more than two or three inches thick. The teambrought back a load of sand, and so we continued until the work wasdone. Sand or dry earth is cheap, and we used all that was necessary toprevent the escape of any unpleasant gases, and to keep the materialfrom adhering to the shovels or the wagon. ” “Human urine, ” said the Doctor, “is richer in phosphoric acid, but muchpoorer in nitrogen and potash than the urine from horses, cows, sheep, and swine. ” “Some years ago, ” said the Deacon, “Mr. H. E. Hooker, of Rochester, usedto draw considerable quantities of urine from the city to his farm. Itwould pay better to draw out the urine from farm animals. ” “The figures given above, ” said I, “showing the composition of humanexcrements, are from Prof. Wolff, and probably are generally correct. But, of course, the composition of the excrements would vary greatly, according to the food. ” It has been ascertained by Lawes and Gilbert that the amount of mattervoided by an adult male in the course of a year is--fæces, 95 lbs. ;urine, 1, 049 lbs. ; total liquid and solid excrements in the pure state, 1, 144 lbs. These contain: Dry substance--fæces, 23¾ lbs. ; urine, 34½; total, 58¼ lbs. Mineral matter--fæces, 2½ lbs. ; urine, 12; total, 14½ lbs. Carbon--fæces, 10 lbs. ; urine, 12; total 22 lbs. Nitrogen--fæces, 1. 2 lbs. ; urine, 10. 8; total, 12 lbs. Phosphoric acid--fæces, 0. 7 lbs. ; urine, 1. 93; total, 2. 63 lbs. Potash--fæces, 0. 24 lbs. ; urine, 2. 01; total, 2. 25 lbs. The amount of potash is given by Prof. E. Wolff, not by Lawes andGilbert. The mixed solid and liquid excrements, in the condition they leave thebody, contain about 95 per cent of water. It would require, therefore, 20 tons of fresh mixed excrements, to make one ton of _dry_ nightsoil, or the entire amount voided by a mixed family of 43 persons in a year. One hundred lbs. Of fresh fæces contain 75 lbs. Of water, and 25 lbs. Ofdry substance. One hundred lbs. Of fresh urine contain 96½ lbs. Of water, and 3½ lbs. Of dry substance. One hundred lbs. Of the dry substance of the fæces contain 5 lbs. Ofnitrogen, and 5½ lbs. Of phosphates. One hundred lbs. Of the dry substance of the urine contain 27 lbs. Ofnitrogen, and 10¾ lbs. Of phosphates. These figures are from Lawes and Gilbert, and may be taken asrepresenting the composition of excrements from moderately well-fedpersons. According to Wolff, a ton of fresh human urine contains 12 lbs. Ofnitrogen. According to Lawes and Gilbert, 18 lbs. The liquid carted from the city by Mr. Hooker was from well-fed adultmales, and would doubtless be fully equal to the figures given by Lawesand Gilbert. If we call the nitrogen worth 20 cents a lb. , and thephosphoric acid (soluble) worth 12½ cents, a ton of such urine would beworth, _on the land_, $1. 06. “A ton of the fresh fæces, ” said the Deacon, “at the same estimate, would be worth (20 lbs. Nitrogen, at 20 cents, $4; 21¾ lbs. Phosphoricacid, at 12½ cents, $2. 70), $6. 70. ” “Not by a good deal, ” said the Doctor. “The nitrogen and phosphoric acidin the urine are both soluble, and would be immediately available. Butthe nitrogen and phosphoric acid in the fæces would be mostly insoluble. We cannot estimate the nitrogen in the fæces at over 15 cents a lb. , andthe phosphoric acid at 5 cents. This would make the value of a ton offresh fæces, _on the land_, $4. 09. ” “This makes the ton of fæces worth about the same as a ton of urine. ButI would like to know, ” said the Deacon, “if you really believe we couldafford to pay $4 per ton for the stuff delivered on the farm?” “If we could get the genuine article, ” said the Doctor, “it would beworth $4 a ton. But, as a rule, it is mixed with water, and dirt, andstones, and bricks, and rubbish of all kinds. Still, it isunquestionably a valuable fertilizer. ” “In the dry-earth closets, ” said I, “such a large quantity of earth hasto be used to absorb the liquid, that the material, even if used severaltimes, is not worth carting any considerable distance. Dr. Gilbert foundthat 5 tons of absolutely dry earth, before using, contained 16. 7 lbs. Of nitrogen. After being used _once_, 5 tons of the dry earth contained 24. 0 lbs. ” ” ” twice, ” ” ” ” ” 36. 3 ” ” ” ” three times, ” ” ” ” ” 44. 6 ” ” ” ” four times, ” ” ” ” ” 54. 0 ” ” ” ” five times, ” ” ” ” ” 61. 4 ” ” ” ” six times, ” ” ” ” ” 71. 6 ” Dr. Vœlcker found that five tons of dry earth gained about 7 lbs. Ofnitrogen, and 11 lbs. Of phosphoric acid, each time it was used in theclosets. If we consider each lb. Of nitrogen with the phosphoric acidworth 20 cents a lb. , 5 tons of the dry earth, after being used once, would be worth $1. 46, or less than 30 cents a ton, and after it had beenused six times, five tons of the material would be worth $11. 98, orabout $2. 40 per ton. In this calculation I have not reckoned in the value of the nitrogen thesoil contained before using. Soil, on a farm, is cheap. It is clear from these facts that any earth-closet manure a farmer wouldbe likely to purchase in the city has not a very high value. It isabsurd to talk of making “guano” or any concentrated fertilizer out ofthe material from earth-closets. “It is rather a reflection on our science and practical skill, ” said theDoctor, “but it looks at present as though the only plan to adopt inlarge cities is to use enormous quantities of water and wash the stuffinto the rivers and oceans for the use of aquatic plants and fishes. Thenitrogen is not all lost. Some of it comes back to us in rains and dews. Of course, there are places where the sewage of our cities and villagescan be used for irrigating purposes. But when water is used as freely asit ought to be used for health, the sewage is so extremely poor infertilizing matter, that it must be used in enormous quantities, tofurnish a dressing equal to an application of 20 tons of stable-manureper acre. ” “If, ” continued the Doctor, “the sewage is used merely as _water_ forirrigating purposes, that is another question. The water itself mayoften be of great benefit. This aspect of the question has not receivedthe attention it merits. ” PERUVIAN GUANO. Guano is the manure of birds that live principally on fish. Fish contain a high percentage of nitrogen and phosphoric acid, andconsequently when fish are digested and the carbon is burnt out of them, the manure that is left contains a still higher percentage of nitrogenand phosphoric acid than the fish from which it was derived. Guano is digested fish. If the guano, or the manure from the birdsliving on fish, has been preserved without loss, it would contain notonly a far higher percentage of nitrogen, but the nitrogen would be in amuch more available condition, and consequently be more valuable thanthe fish from which the guano is made. The difference in the value of guano is largely due to a difference inthe climate and locality in which it is deposited by the birds. In arainless and hot climate, where the bird-droppings would dry rapidly, little or no putrefaction or fermentation would take place, and therewould be no loss of nitrogen from the formation and escape of ammonia. In a damper climate, or where there was more or less rain, thebird-droppings would putrefy, and the ammonia would be liable toevaporate, or to be leached out by the rain. Thirty years ago I saw a quantity of Peruvian guano that contained morethan 18 per cent of nitrogen. It was remarkably light colored. You knowthat the white part of hen-droppings consists principally of uric acid, which contains about 33 per cent of nitrogen. For many years it was not difficult to find guano containing 13 per centof nitrogen, and genuine Peruvian guano was the cheapest and best sourceof available nitrogen. But latterly, not only has the price beenadvanced, but the quality of the guano has deteriorated. It hascontained less nitrogen and more phosphoric acid. See the Chapter on“Value of Fertilizers, ” Page 324. SALTS OF AMMONIA AND NITRATE OF SODA. “I wish, ” said the Deacon, “you would tell us something about the‘ammonia-salts’ and nitrate of soda so long used in Lawes and Gilbert’sexperiments. I have never seen any of them. ” “You could not invest a little money to better advantage than to sendfor a few bags of sulphate of ammonia and nitrate of soda. You wouldthen see what they are, and would learn more by using them, than I cantell you in a month. You use them just as you would common salt. As arule, the better plan is to sow them broadcast, and it is important todistribute them evenly. In sowing common salt, if you drop a handful ina place, it will kill the plants. And so it is with nitrate of soda orsulphate of ammonia. Two or three pounds on a square rod will do good, but if you put half of it on a square yard, it will burn up the crop, and the other half will be applied in such a small quantity that youwill see but little effect, and will conclude that it is a humbug. Judging from over thirty years’ experience, I am safe in saying that notone man in ten can be trusted to sow these manures. They should be sownwith as much care as you sow grass or clover-seed. ” “The best plan, ” said the Doctor, “is to mix them with siftedcoal-ashes, or with gypsum, or sifted earth. ” “Perhaps so, ” said I, “though there is nothing gained by mixing earth orashes with them, except in securing a more even distribution. And if Iwas going to sow them myself, I would much prefer sowing them unmixed. Any man who can sow wheat or barley can sow sulphate of ammonia ornitrate of soda. ” “Lawes and Gilbert, ” said the Deacon, “used sulphate and muriate ofammonia, and in one or two instances the carbonate of ammonia. Which isthe best?” “The one that will furnish ammonia or nitrogen at the cheapest rate, ”said the Doctor, “is the best to use. The muriate of ammonia containsthe most ammonia, but the sulphate, in proportion to the ammonia, ischeaper than the muriate, and far cheaper than the carbonate. ” Carbonate of ammonia contains 21½ per cent of ammonia. Sulphate of ammonia contains 25¾ per cent of ammonia = 21⅕ of nitrogen. Muriate of ammonia contains 31 per cent of ammonia = 25½ of nitrogen. Nitrate of soda contains 16⅖ per cent of nitrogen. Nitrate of potash, 13¾ per cent of nitrogen. From these figures you can ascertain, when you know the price of each, which is the cheapest source of nitrogen. “True, ” said I, “but it must be understood that these figures representthe composition of a pure article. The commercial sulphate of ammonia, and nitrate of soda, would usually contain 10 per cent of impurities. Lawes and Gilbert, who have certainly had much experience, and doubtlessget the best commercial articles, state that a mixture of equal partssulphate and muriate of ammonia contains about 25 per cent of ammonia. According to the figures given by the Doctor, the mixture would contain, if pure, over 28 per cent of ammonia. In other words, 90 lbs. Of thepure article contains as much as 100 lbs. Of the commercial article. ” As to whether it is better, when you can buy nitrogen at the same pricein nitrate of soda as you can in sulphate of ammonia, to use the one orthe other will depend on circumstances. The nitrogen exists as nitricacid in the nitrate of soda, and as ammonia in the sulphate of ammonia. But there are good reasons to believe that before ammonia is used by theplants it is converted into nitric acid. If, therefore, we could applythe nitrate just where it is wanted by the growing crop, and when thereis rain enough to thoroughly distribute it through the soil to the depthof six or eight inches, there can be little doubt that the nitrate, inproportion to the nitrogen, would have a quicker and better effect thanthe sulphate of ammonia. “There is another point to be considered, ” said the Doctor. “Nitric acidis much more easily washed out of the soil than ammonia. More or less ofthe ammonia enters into chemical combination with portions of the soil, and may be retained for months or years. ” When we use nitrate of soda, we run the risk of losing more or less ofit from leaching, while if we use ammonia, we lose, for the time being, more or less of it from its becoming locked up in insoluble combinationsin the soil. For spring crops, such as barley or oats, or spring wheat, or for a meadow or lawn, or for top-dressing winter-wheat in the spring, the nitrate of soda, provided it is sown early enough, or at any time inthe spring, just previous to a heavy rain, is likely to produce a bettereffect than the sulphate of ammonia. But for sowing in the autumn onwinter-wheat the ammonia is to be preferred. “Saltpetre, or nitrate of potash, ” said the Deacon, “does not contain asmuch nitrogen as nitrate of soda. ” “And yet, ” said the Doctor, “if it could be purchased at the same price, it would be the cheaper manure. It contains 46½ per cent of potash, andon soils, or for crops where potash is needed, we may sometimes be ableto purchase saltpetre to advantage. ” “If I could come across a lot of damaged saltpetre, ” said I, “that couldbe got for what it is worth as manure, I should like to try it on myapple trees--one row with nitrate of soda, and one row with nitrate ofpotash. When we apply manure to apple trees, the ammonia, phosphoricacid, and potash, are largely retained in the first few inches ofsurface soil, and the deeper roots get hold of only those portions whichleach through the upper layer of earth. Nitric acid, however, is easilywashed down into the subsoil, and would soon reach all the roots of thetrees. ” CHAPTER XXXVII. BONE-DUST AND SUPERPHOSPHATE OF LIME. Bone-dust is often spoken of as a phosphatic manure, and it has beensupposed that the astonishing effect bone-dust sometimes produces on oldpasture-land, is due to its furnishing phosphoric acid to the soil. But it must be remembered that bone-dust furnishes nitrogen as well asphosphoric acid, and we are not warranted in ascribing the good effectof bones to phosphoric acid alone. Bones differ considerably in composition. They consist essentially ofgelatine and phosphate of lime. Bones from young animals, and the softporous parts of all bones, contain more gelatine than the solid parts, or the bones from older animals. On the average, 1, 000 lbs. Of goodcommercial bone-dust contains 38 lbs. Of nitrogen. On the old dairy farms of Cheshire, where bone-dust produced such markedimprovement in the quantity and quality of the pastures and meadows, itwas usual to apply from 4, 000 to 5, 000 lbs. Per acre, and often more. Inother words, a dressing of bone-dust frequently contained 200 lbs. Ofnitrogen per acre--equal to 20 or 25 tons of barn-yard manure. “It has been supposed, ” said the Doctor, “that owing to the removal ofso much phosphoric acid in the cheese sold from the farm, that the dairypastures of Cheshire had been exhausted of phosphoric acid, and that thewonderful benefits following an application of bone-dust to thesepastures, was due to its supplying phosphoric acid. ” “I do not doubt, ” said I, “the value of phosphoric acid when applied inconnection with nitrogen to old pasture lands, but I contend that theexperience of the Cheshire dairymen with bone-dust is no positive proofthat their soils were particularly deficient in phosphoric acid. Thereare many instances given where the gelatine of the bones, alone, provedof great value to the grass. And I think it will be found that theCheshire dairymen do not find as much benefit from superphosphate asthey did from bone-dust. And the reason is, that the latter, in additionto the phosphoric acid, furnished a liberal dressing of nitrogen. Furthermore, it is not true that dairying specially robs the soil ofphosphoric acid. Take one of these old dairy farms in Cheshire, where adressing of bone-dust, according to a writer in the Journal of the RoyalAgricultural Society, has caused ‘a miserable covering of pink grass, rushes, and a variety of other noxious weeds, to give place to the mostluxuriant herbage of wild clover, trefoil, and other succulent andnutritious grasses. ’ It is evident from this description of the pasturesbefore the bones were used, that it would take at least three acres tokeep a cow for a year. ” “I have known, ” says the same writer quoted above, “many a poor, honest, but half broken-hearted man raised from poverty to comparativeindependence, and many a sinking family saved from inevitable ruin bythe help of this wonderful manure. ” And this writer not only spoke fromobservation and experience, but he showed his faith by his works, for hetells us that he had paid nearly $50, 000 for this manure. Now, on one of these poor dairy farms, where it required 3 acres to keepa cow, and where the grass was of poor quality, it is not probable thatthe cows produced over 250 lbs. Of cheese in a year. One thousand poundsof cheese contains, on the average, about 45½ lbs. Of nitrogen; 2½ lbs. Of potash, and 11½ lbs. Of phosphoric acid. From this it follows, if 250lbs. Of cheese are sold annually from three acres of pasture, less thanone lb. Of phosphoric acid per acre is exported from the farm in thecheese. One ton of timothy-hay contains nearly 14½ lbs. Of phosphoric acid. Andso a farmer who raises a ton of timothy-hay per acre, and sells it, sends off as much phosphoric acid in one year as such a Cheshiredairyman as I have alluded to did in fourteen years. What the dairymen want, and what farmers generally want, is nitrogen_and_ phosphoric acid. Bone-dust furnishes both, and this was the reasonof its wonderful effects. It does not follow from this, that bone-dust is the cheapest and bestmanure we can use. It is an old and popular manure, and usually commandsa good price. It sells for all it is worth. A dozen years ago, I boughtten tons of bone-dust at $18 per ton. I have offered $25 per ton sincefor a similar lot, but the manufacturers find a market in New York forall they can make. Bone-dust, besides nitrogen, contains about 23 per cent of phosphoricacid. “That does not give me, ” said the Deacon, “any idea of its value. ” “Let us put it in another shape, then, ” said I. “One ton of goodbone-dust contains about as much nitrogen as 8½ tons of freshstable-manure, and as much phosphoric acid as 110 tons of freshstable-manure. But one ton of manure contains more potash than 5 tons ofbone-dust. ” Bone-dust, like barnyard-manure, does not immediately yield up itsnitrogen and phosphoric acid to plants. The bone phosphate of lime isinsoluble in water, and but very slightly soluble in water containingcarbonic acid. The gelatine of the bones would soon decompose in amoist, porous, warm soil, provided it was not protected by the oil andby the hard matter of the bones. Steaming, by removing the oil, removesone of the hindrances to decomposition. Reducing the bones as fine aspossible is another means of increasing their availability. Another good method of increasing the availability of bone-dust is tomix it with barnyard-manure, and let both ferment together in a heap. I am inclined to think this the best, simplest, and most economicalmethod of rendering bone-dust available. The bone-dust causes the heapof manure to ferment more readily, and the fermentation of the manuresoftens the bones. Both the manure and the bones are improved andrendered richer and more available by the process. Another method of increasing the availability of bone-dust is by mixingit with sulphuric acid. The phosphate of lime in bones is insoluble in water, though rain watercontaining carbonic acid, and the water in soils, slowly dissolve it. Bytreating the bones with sulphuric acid, the phosphate of lime isdecomposed and rendered soluble. Consequently, bone-dust treated withsulphuric acid will act much more rapidly than ordinary bone-dust. Thesulphuric acid does not make it any _richer_ in phosphoric acid ornitrogen. It simply renders them more available. “And yet, ” said the Doctor, “the use of sulphuric acid for ‘dissolving’bones, or rather phosphate of lime, introduced a new era in agriculture. It is the grand agricultural fact of the nineteenth century. ” “It is perhaps not necessary, ” said I, “to give any direction fortreating bones with sulphuric acid. We have got beyond that. We can nowbuy superphosphate cheaper than we can make it from bones. ” “But is it as good?” asked the Deacon. “Soluble phosphate of lime, ” said I, “is soluble phosphate of lime, andit makes no difference whether it is made from burnt bones, or fromphosphatic guano, or mineral phosphate. That question has been fullydecided by the most satisfactory experiments. ” “Before you and the Deacon discuss that subject, ” said the Doctor, “itwould be well to tell Charley what superphosphate is. ” “I wish you would tell me, ” said Charley. “Well, ” said the Doctor, “phosphate of lime, as it exists in bones, iscomposed of three atoms of lime and one atom of phosphoric acid. Chemists call it the tricalcic phosphate. It is also called the basicphosphate of lime, and not unfrequently the ‘bone-earth phosphate. ’ Itis the ordinary or common form of phosphate of lime, as it exists inanimals, and plants, and in the various forms of mineral phosphates. “Then there is another phosphate of lime, called the dicalcic phosphate, or neutral phosphate of lime, or reverted phosphate of lime. It iscomposed of one atom of water, two atoms of lime, and one atom ofphosphoric acid. “Then we have what we call superphosphate, or acid phosphate of lime, ormore properly monocalcic phosphate. It is composed of two atoms ofwater, one atom of lime, and one atom of phosphoric acid. This acidphosphate of lime _is soluble in water_. “The manufacture of superphosphate of lime is based on these facts. The_one-lime_ phosphate is soluble, the _three-lime_ phosphate isinsoluble. To convert the latter into the former, all we have to do isto _take away two atoms of lime_. “Sulphuric acid has a stronger affinity for lime than phosphoric acid. And when you mix enough sulphuric acid with finely ground three-limephosphate, to take away two atoms of lime, you get the phosphoric acidunited with one atom of lime and two atoms of water. ” “And what, ” asked the Deacon, “becomes of the two atoms of lime?” “They unite with the sulphuric acid, ” said the Doctor, “and formplaster, gypsum, or sulphate of lime. ” “The molecular weight of water, ” continued the Doctor, “is 18; of lime, 56; of sulphuric acid, 80; of phosphoric acid, 142. “An average sample of commercial bone dust, ” continued the Doctor, “contains about 50 per cent of phosphate of lime. If we take 620 lbs. Offinely-ground bone-dust, containing 310 lbs. Of three-lime phosphate, and mix with it 160 lbs. Of sulphuric acid (say 240 lbs. Common oil ofvitriol, sp. Gr. 1. 7), the sulphuric acid will unite with 112 lbs. Oflime, and leave the 142 lbs. Of phosphoric acid united with theremaining 56 lbs. Of lime. ” “And that will give you, ” said the Deacon, “780 lbs. Of ‘dissolvedbones, ’ or superphosphate of lime. ” “It will give you more than that, ” said the Doctor, “because, as I saidbefore, the two atoms of lime (112 lbs. ) are replaced by two atoms (36lbs. ) of water. And, furthermore, the two atoms of sulphate of limeproduced, contained two atoms (36 lbs. ) of water. The mixture, therefore, contains, even when perfectly dry, 72 lbs. Of water. ” “Where does this water come from?” asked the Deacon. “When I was at Rothamsted, ” said I, “the superphosphate which Mr. Lawesused in his experiments was made on the farm from animal charcoal, orburnt bones, ground as fine as possible--the finer the better. We took40 lbs. Of the meal, and mixed it with 20 lbs. Of water, and then pouredon 30 lbs. Of common sulphuric acid (sp. G. 1. 7), and stirred it uprapidly and thoroughly, and then threw it out of the vessel into a heap, on the earth-floor in the barn. Then mixed another portion, and so on, until we had the desired quantity, say two or three tons. The last yearI was at Rothamsted, we mixed 40 lbs. Bone-meal, 30 lbs. Water, and 30lbs. Acid; and we thought the additional water enabled us to mix theacid and meal together easier and better. ” “Dr. Habirshaw tells me, ” said the Doctor, “that in making the‘Rectified Peruvian Guano’ no water is necessary, and none is used. Thewater in the guano and in the acid is sufficient to furnish the twoatoms of water for the phosphate, and the two atoms for the sulphate oflime. ” “Such is undoubtedly the case, ” said I, “and when large quantities ofsuperphosphate are made, and the mixing is done by machinery, it is notnecessary to use water. The advantage of using water is in the greaterease of mixing. ” “Bone-dust, ” said the Doctor, “contains about 6 per cent of water, andthe sulphuric acid (sp. G. 1. 7) contains about one-third its weight ofwater. So that, if you take 620 lbs. Of bone-dust, and mix with it 240lbs. Of common sulphuric acid, you have in the mixture 117 lbs. Ofwater, which is 45 lbs. More than is needed to furnish the water ofcombination. ” “The superphosphate produced from 620 lbs. Of bones, therefore, ”continued the Doctor, “would contain: Phosphoric acid} {142 lbs. Lime } acid phosphate { 56 ” Water } { 36 ” Sulphuric acid } {160 lbs. Lime } sulphate of lime {112 ” Water } { 36 ” Organic matter, ash, etc. , of the bones* 335 ” -------- Total _dry_ superphosphate 877 ” Moisture, or loss 45 ” -------- Total mixture 922 lbs. * Containing nitrogen, 23½ lbs. “There is a small quantity of carbonate of lime in the bones, ” said I, “which would take up a little of the acid, and you will have aremarkably good article if you calculate that the 620 lbs. Of bone-dustfurnish you half a ton (1, 000 lbs. ) of superphosphate. It will be abetter article than it is practically possible to make. ” “Assuming that it made half a ton, ” said the Doctor, “it would contain14¼ per cent of soluble phosphoric acid, and 2⅓ per cent of nitrogen. ” “With nitrogen at 20 cents per lb. , and soluble phosphoric acid at 12½c. Per lb. , this half ton of superphosphate, made from 620 lbs. Of goodbone-dust, would be worth $22. 50, or $45 per ton. ” “Or, to look at it in another light, ” continued the Doctor, “a ton ofbone-dust, made into such a superphosphate as we are talking about, would be worth $72. 58. ” “How much, ” asked the Deacon, “would a ton of the bone-dust beconsidered worth before it was converted into superphosphate?” “A ton of bone-dust, ” replied the Doctor, “contains 76 lbs. Of nitrogen, worth, at 18 cents per lb. , $13. 68, and 464 lbs. Phosphoric acid, worth7 cents per lb. , $32. 48. In other words, a ton of bone-dust, at theusual estimate, is worth $46. 16. ” “And, ” said the Deacon, “after it is converted into superphosphate, thesame ton of bones is worth $72. 58. It thus appears that you pay $26. 42per ton for simply making the phosphoric acid in a ton of bones soluble. Isn’t it paying a little too much for the whistle?” “Possibly such is the case, ” said I, “and in point of fact, I thinkbone-dust, especially from steamed or boiled bones, can be used withmore economy in its natural state than in the form of superphosphate. ” Superphosphate can be made more economically from mineral phosphatesthan from bones--the nitrogen, if desired, being supplied fromfish-scrap or from some other cheap source of nitrogen. But for my own use I would prefer to buy a good article ofsuperphosphate of lime, containing no nitrogen, provided it can beobtained cheap enough. I would buy the ammoniacal, or nitrogenous manureseparately, and do my own mixing--unless the mixture could be bought ata less cost than the same weight of soluble phosphoric acid, andavailable nitrogen could be obtained separately. A pure superphosphate--and by pure I mean a superphosphate containing nonitrogen--can be drilled in with the seed without injury, but I shouldbe a little afraid of drilling in some of the ammoniacal or nitrogenoussuperphosphates with small seeds. And then, again, the “nitrogen” in a superphosphate mixture may be inthe form of nitric acid, or sulphate of ammonia, in one case, or, inanother case, in the form of hair, woollen rags, hide, or leather. It isfar more valuable as nitric acid or ammonia, because it will actquicker, and if I wanted hair, woollen rags, horn-shavings, etc. , I would prefer to have them separate from the superphosphate. CHAPTER XXXVIII. SPECIAL MANURES. Twenty five to thirty years ago, much was said in regard to specialmanures. Fertilizers were prepared for the different crops with specialreference to the composition of the plants. “But it was known then, as now, ” said the Doctor, “that all ouragricultural plants were composed of the same elements. ” “True, but what was claimed was this: Some crops contain, for instance, more phosphoric acid than other crops, and for these a manure rich inphosphoric acid was provided. Others contained a large proportion ofpotash, and these were called ‘potash crops, ’ and the manure prescribedfor them was rich in potash. And so with the other ingredients ofplants. ” “I recollect it well, ” said the Doctor, “and, in truth, for severalyears I had much faith in the idea. It was advocated with consummateability by the lamented Liebig, and in fact a patent was taken out bythe Musgraves, of Liverpool, for the manufacture of Liebig’s SpecialManures, based on this theory. But the manures, though extensively usedby the leading farmers of England, and endorsed by the highestauthorities, did not in the end stand the test of actual farm practice, and their manufacture was abandoned. And I do not know of anyexperienced agricultural chemist who now advocates this doctrine ofspecial manures. “Dr. Vœlcker says: ‘The ash-analyses of plants do not afford asufficiently trustworthy guide to the practical farmer in selecting thekind of manure which is best applied to each crop. ’” “Never mind the authorities, ” said the Deacon; “what we want are facts. ” “Well, ” replied the Doctor, “take the wheat and turnip crop as anillustration. “We will suppose that there is twice the weight of wheat-straw as ofgrain; and that to 10 tons of bulbs there is 3 tons of turnip-tops. Now, 100 lbs. Each of the ash of these two crops contain: _Wheat crop. _ _Turnip crop. _ Phosphoric acid 11. 44 7. 33 Potash 15. 44 32. 75 Sulphuric acid 2. 44 11. 25 Lime 5. 09 19. 28 Magnesia 3. 33 1. 56 “There are other ingredients, ” continued the Doctor, “but these are themost important. “Now, if you were going to compound a manure for wheat, say 100 lbs. , consisting of potash and phosphoric acid, what would be theproportions?” The Deacon figured for a few moments, and then produced the followingtable: 100 Lbs. Special Manure for Wheat and Turnips. _Wheat manure. _ _Turnip manure. _ Phosphoric acid 42½ lbs. 18⅓ lbs. Potash 57½ ” 81⅔ ” ------------ ------------ 100 lbs. 100 lbs. “Exactly, ” said the Doctor, “and yet the experiments of Lawes andGilbert clearly prove that a soil needs to be richer in availablephosphoric acid, to produce even a fair crop of turnips, than to producea large crop of wheat. And the experience of farmers everywhere tends inthe same direction. England is the greatest turnip-growing country inthe world, and you will find that where one farmer applies potash toturnips, or superphosphate to wheat, a hundred farmers usesuperphosphate as a special manure for the turnip crop. ” “And we are certainly warranted in saying, ” continued the Doctor, “_thatthe composition of a plant affords_, in practical agriculture, and onordinary cultivated soils, _no sort of indication as to the compositionof the manure it is best to apply to the crop_. ” “Again, ” continued the Doctor, “if the theory was a correct one, itwould follow that those crops which contained the most nitrogen, wouldrequire the most nitrogen in the manure. Beans, peas, and clover wouldrequire a soil or a manure richer in available nitrogen than wheat, barley, or oats. We know that the _very reverse_ is true--know it fromactual, and repeated, and long-continued experiments like those of Lawesand Gilbert, and from the common experience of farmers everywhere. ” “You need not get excited, ” said the Deacon, “the theory is a veryplausible one, and while I cannot dispute your facts, I must confess Icannot see _why_ it is not reasonable to suppose that a plant whichcontains a large amount of nitrogen should not want a manure speciallyrich in nitrogen; or why turnips which contain so much potash should notwant a soil or manure specially rich in potash. ” “Do you recollect, ” said I, “that crop of turnips I raised on a poorblowing-sand?” “Yes, ” said the Deacon, “it was the best crop of turnips I ever sawgrow. ” “That crop of turnips, ” said I, “was due to a dressing of superphosphateof lime, with little or no potash in it. ” “I know all that, ” said the Deacon. “I admit the fact thatsuperphosphate is a good manure for turnips. What I want to know is thereason why superphosphate is better for turnips than for wheat?” “Many reasons might be given, ” said the Doctor; “Prof. Vœlckerattributes it to the limited feeding range of the roots of turnips, ascompared to wheat. ‘The roots of wheat, ’ says Prof. Vœlcker, ‘as is wellknown, penetrate the soil to a much greater depth than the more delicatefeeding fibres of the roots of turnips. Wheat, remaining on the groundtwo or three months longer than turnips, can avail itself for a longerperiod of the resources of the soil; therefore in most cases thephosphoric acid disseminated through the soil is amply sufficient tomeet the requirements of the wheat crop; whilst turnips, depending on athinner depth of soil during their shorter period of growth, cannotassimilate sufficient phosphoric acid, to come to perfection. ’ This is, I believe, the main reason why the direct supply of readily availablephosphates is so beneficial to root-crops, and not to wheat. ” “This reason, ” said I, “has never been entirely satisfactory to me. Ifthe roots of the turnip have such a limited range, how are they able toget such a large amount of potash? “It is probable that the turnip, containing such a large relative amountof potash and so little phosphoric acid, has roots capable of absorbingpotash from a very weak solution, but not so in regard to phosphoricacid. ” “There is another way of looking at this matter, ” said the Doctor. “Youmust recollect that, if turnips and wheat were growing in the samefield, both plants get their food from the same solution. And instead ofsupposing that the wheat-plant has the power of taking up morephosphoric acid than the turnip-plant, we may suppose that the turniphas the power of rejecting or excluding a portion of phosphoric acid. Ittakes up no more potash than the wheat-plant, but it takes _less_phosphoric acid. ” But it is not necessary to speculate on this matter. For the present wemay accept the fact, that the proportion of potash, phosphoric acid, andnitrogen in the crop is no indication of the proper proportion in whichthese ingredients should be applied to the soil for these crops inmanure. It may well be that we should use special manures for special crops; butwe must ascertain what these manures should be, not from analyses of thecrops to be grown, but from experiment and experience. So far as present facts throw light on this subject, we should concludethat those crops which contain the _least_ nitrogen are the most likelyto be benefited by its artificial application; and the crops containingthe most phosphoric acid, are the crops to which, in ordinary practicalagriculture, it will be unprofitable to apply superphosphate of lime. “That, ” said the Doctor, “may be stating the case a little too strong. ” “Perhaps so, ” said I, “but you must recollect I am now speaking ofpractical agriculture. If I wanted to raise a good crop of cabbage, I should not think of consulting a chemical analysis of the cabbage. IfI set out cabbage on an acre of land, which, without manure, wouldproduce 16 tons of cabbage, does any one mean to tell me that if I putthe amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash which 10 tons ofcabbage contain, on an adjoining acre, that it would produce an extragrowth of 10 tons of cabbage. I can not believe it. The facts are allthe other way. Plant growth is not such a simple matter as the advocatesof this theory, if there be any at this late day, would have usbelieve. ” CHAPTER XXXIX. VALUE OF FERTILIZERS. In 1857, Prof. S. W. Johnson, in his Report to the ConnecticutAgricultural Society, adopted the following valuation: Potash 4 cents per lb. Phosphoric acid, insoluble in water 4½ ” ” ” ” ” soluble ” ” 12½ ” ” ” Nitrogen 17 ” ” ” Analyses of many of the leading commercial fertilizers at that timeshowed that, when judged by this standard, the price charged was farabove their actual value. In some cases, manures selling for $60 perton, contained nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash worth only from $20to $25 per ton. And one well-known manure, which sold for $28 per ton, was found to be worth only $2. 33 per ton. A Bone Fertilizer selling at$50 per ton, was worth less than $14 per ton. “In 1852, ” said the Doctor, “superphosphate of lime was manufactured bythe New Jersey Zinc Co. , and sold in New York at $50 per ton of 2, 000lbs. At the same time, superphosphate of lime made from Coprolites, wasselling in England for $24 per ton of 2, 240 lbs. The late Prof. Mapescommenced making “Improved Superphosphate of Lime, ” at Newark, N. J. , in1852, and Mr. De Burg, the same year, made a plain superphosphate oflime in Brooklyn, N. Y. The price, in proportion to value, was high, and, in fact, the same may be said of many of our superphosphate manures, until within the last few years. ” Notwithstanding the comparatively high price, and the uncertain qualityof these commercial manures, the demand has been steadily on theincrease. We have now many honorable and intelligent men engaged in themanufacture and sale of these artificial manures, and owing to moredefinite knowledge on the part of the manufacturers and of thepurchasers, it is not a difficult matter to find manures well worth themoney asked for them. “A correct analysis, ” said I, “furnishes the only sure test of value. ‘Testimonials’ from farmers and others are pre-eminently unreliable. With over thirty years’ experience in the use of these fertilizers, I would place far more confidence on a good and reliable analysis thanon any actual trial I could make in the field. Testimonials to a patentfertilizer are about as reliable as testimonials to a patent-medicine. In buying a manure, we want to know what it contains, and the conditionof the constituents. ” In 1877, Prof. S. W. Johnson gives the following figures, showing “thetrade-values, or cost in market, per pound, of the ordinary occurringforms of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, as recently found in theNew York and New England markets: _Cents per pound. _ Nitrogen in ammonia and nitrates 24 ” in Peruvian Guano, fine steamed bone, dried and fine ground blood, meat, and fish 20 ” in fine ground bone, horn, and wool-dust 18 ” in coarse bone, horn-shavings, and fish-scrap 15 Phosphoric acid soluble in water 12½ ” ” “reverted, ” and in Peruvian Guano 9 ” ” insoluble, in fine bone and fish guano 7 ” ” ” in coarse bone, bone-ash, and bone-black 5 ” ” ” in fine ground rock phosphate 3½ Potash in high-grade sulphate 9 ” in kainit, as sulphate 7½ ” in muriate, or potassium chloride 6 “These ‘estimated values, ’” says Prof. Johnson, “are not fixed, but varywith the state of the market, and are from time to time subject torevision. They are not exact to the cent or its fractions, because thesame article sells cheaper at commercial or manufacturing centers thanin country towns, cheaper in large lots than in small, cheaper for cashthan on time. These values are high enough to do no injustice to thedealer, and accurate enough to serve the object of the consumer. “By multiplying the per cent of Nitrogen, etc. , by the trade-value perpound, and then by 20, we get the value per ton of the severalingredients, and adding the latter together, we obtain the totalestimated value per ton. “The uses of the ‘Valuation’ are, 1st, to show whether a given lot orbrand of fertilizer is worth as a commodity of trade what it costs. Ifthe selling price is no higher than the estimated value, the purchasermay he quite sure that the price is reasonable. If the selling price isbut $2 to $3 per ton more than the estimated value, it may still be afair price, but if the cost per ton is $5 or more over the estimatedvalue, it would be well to look further. 2d, Comparisons of theestimated values, and selling prices of a number of fertilizers willgenerally indicate fairly which is the best for the money. But the‘estimated value’ is not to be too literally construed, for analysiscannot always decide accurately what is the _form_ of nitrogen, etc. , while the mechanical condition of a fertilizer is an item whoseinfluence cannot always be rightly expressed or appreciated. “The _Agricultural value_ of a fertilizer is measured by the benefitreceived from its use, and depends upon its fertilizing effect, orcrop-producing power. As a broad general rule it is true that Peruvianguano, superphosphates, fish-scraps, dried blood, potash salts, plaster, etc. , have a high agricultural value which is related to theirtrade-value, and to a degree determines the latter value. But the rulehas many exceptions, and in particular instances the trade-value cannotalways be expected to fix or even to indicate the agricultural value. Fertilizing effect depends largely upon soil, crop, and weather, and asthese vary from place to place, and from year to year, it cannot beforetold or estimated except by the results of past experience, and thenonly in a general and probable manner. ” “It will be seen, ” said the Doctor, “that Prof. Johnson places a highervalue on potash now than he did 20 years ago. He retains the samefigures for soluble phosphoric acid, and makes a very just and properdiscrimination between the different values of different forms ofnitrogen and phosphoric acid. ” “The prices, ” said I, “are full as high as farmers can afford to pay. But there is not much probability that we shall see them permanentlyreduced. The tendency is in the other direction. In a public addressMr. J. B. Lawes has recently remarked: ‘A future generation of Britishfarmers will doubtless hear with some surprise that, at the close of themanure season of 1876, there were 40, 000 tons of nitrate of soda in ourdocks, which could not find purchasers, although the price did notexceed £12 or £13 per ton. ’” “He evidently thinks, ” said the Doctor, “that available nitrogen ischeaper now than it will be in years to come. ” “Nitrate of soda, ” said I, “at the prices named, is only 2½ to 2¾ centsper lb. , and the nitrogen it contains would cost less than 18 cents perlb. , instead of 24 cents, as given by Prof. Johnson. ” “No. 1 Peruvian Guano, ‘guaranteed, ’ is now sold, ” said the Doctor, “ata price per ton, to be determined by its composition, at the followingrates: _Value per pound. _ Nitrogen (ammonia, 17½ c. ) 21¾ c. Soluble phosphoric acid 10 c. Reverted ” ” 8 c. Insoluble ” ” 2 c. Potash, as sulphate and phosphate 7½ c. “The first cargo of Peruvian guano, sold under this guarantee, contained: _Value per ton_. Ammonia 6. 8 per cent $23. 80 Soluble phosphoric acid 3. 8 ” ” 7. 60 Reverted ” ” 11. 5 ” ” 18. 40 Insoluble ” ” 3. 0 ” ” 1. 20 Potash 3. 7 ” ” 5. 55 ------ Estimated retail price per ton of 2, 000 lbs. $56. 55 Marked on bags for sale $56. 00 The second cargo, sold under this guarantee, contained: _Value per ton_. Ammonia 11. 5 per cent $40. 50 Soluble phosphoric acid 5. 4 ” ” 10. 80 Reverted ” ” 10. 0 ” ” 16. 00 Insoluble ” ” 1. 7 ” ” . 68 Potash 2. 3 ” ” 3. 45 ------ $71. 43 Selling price marked on bags $70. 00 “It is interesting, ” said I, “to compare these analyses of Peruvianguano of to-day, with Peruvian guano brought to England twenty-nine orthirty years ago. I saw at Rothamsted thirty years ago a bag of guanothat contained 22 per cent of ammonia. And farmers could then buy guanoguaranteed by the dealers (not by the agents of the PeruvianGovernment), to contain 16 per cent of ammonia, and 10 per cent ofphosphoric acid. Price, £9 5s. Per ton of 2, 240 lbs. --say $40 per ton of2, 000 lbs. The average composition of thirty-two cargoes of guano imported intoEngland in 1849 was as follows: Ammonia 17. 41 per cent. Phosphoric acid 9. 75 ” ” Alkaline salts 8. 75 ” ” At the present valuation, adopted by the Agents of the Peruvian guano inNew York, and estimating that 5 per cent of the phosphoric acid wassoluble, and 4 per cent reverted, and that there was 2 lbs. Of potash inthe alkaline salts, this guano would be worth: Value per ton of 2, 000 lbs. Ammonia 17. 41 per cent $60. 93 Soluble phosphoric acid 5. 00 ” ” 10. 00 Reverted ” ” 4. 00 ” ” 6. 40 Insoluble ” ” . 75 ” ” . 30 Potash 2. 00 ” ” 3. 00 ------- $80. 63 Selling price per ton of 2, 000 lbs. $40. 00 Ichaboe guano, which was largely imported into England in 1844-5, andused extensively as a manure for turnips, contained, on the average, 7½per cent of ammonia, and 14 per cent of phosphoric acid. Its value atthe present rates we may estimate as follows: Ammonia, 7½ per cent $26. 25 Soluble Phosphoric acid, 4 per cent 8. 00 Reverted ” ” 10 ” 16. 00 ------ $50. 25 Selling price per ton of 2, 000 lbs. $21. 80 The potash is not given, or this would probably add four or five dollarsto its estimated value. “All of which goes to show, ” said the Deacon, “that the PeruvianGovernment is asking, in proportion to value, from two to two and a halftimes as much for guano as was charged twenty-five or thirty years ago. That first cargo of guano, sold in New York under the new guarantee, in1877, for $56 per ton, is worth no more than the Ichaboe guano sold inEngland in 1845, for less than $22 per ton! “And furthermore, ” continued the Deacon, “from all that I can learn, theguano of the present day is not only far poorer in nitrogen than it wasformerly, but the nitrogen is not as soluble, and consequently not sovaluable, pound for pound. Much of the guano of the present day bearsabout the same relation to genuine old-fashioned guano, as leached ashesdo to unleached, or as a ton of manure that has been leached in thebarn-yard does to a ton that has been kept under cover. ” “True, to a certain extent, ” said the Doctor, “but you must recollectthat this ‘guaranteed’ guano is now sold by analysis. You pay for whatyou get and no more. ” “Exactly, ” said the Deacon, “but what you get is not so good. A pound ofnitrogen in the leached guano is not as available or as valuable as apound of nitrogen in the unleached guano. And this fact ought to beunderstood. ” “One thing, ” said I, “seems clear. The Peruvian Government is charging aconsiderably higher price for guano, in proportion to its actual value, than was charged 20 or 25 years ago. It may be, that the guano is stillthe cheapest manure in the market, but at any rate the price is higherthan formerly--while there has been no corresponding advance in theprice of produce in the markets of the world. ” POTASH AS A MANURE. On land where fish, fish-scrap, or guano, has been used freely for someyears, and the crops exported from the farm, we may expect a relativedeficiency of potash in the soil. In such a case, an application ofunleached ashes or potash-salts will be likely to produce a decidedbenefit. Clay or loamy land is usually richer in potash than soils of a moresandy or gravelly character. And on poor sandy land, the use of fish orof guano, if the crops are all sold, will be soon likely to prove oflittle benefit owing to a deficiency of potash in the soil. They mayproduce good crops for a few years, but the larger the crops produced_and sold_, the more would the soil become deficient in potash. We have given the particulars of Lawes and Gilbert’s experiments onbarley. Mr. Lawes at a late meeting in London, stated that “he had grown25 crops of barley one after the other with nitrogen, either as ammoniaor nitrate of soda, but without potash, and that by the use of potashthey had produced practically no better result. This year (1877), forthe first time, the potash had failed a little, and they had nowproduced 10 or 12 bushels more per acre with potash than without, showing that they were coming to the end of the available potash in thesoil. This year (1877), they obtained 54 bushels of barley with potash, and 42 bushels without it. Of course, this was to be expected, and theyhad expected it much sooner. The same with wheat; he expected the endwould come in a few years, but they had now gone on between 30 and 40years. When the end came they would not be sorry, because then theywould have the knowledge they were seeking for. ” Dr. Vœlcker, at the same meeting remarked: “Many soils contained from 1½to 2 per cent of available potash, and a still larger quantity lockedup, in the shape of minerals, which only gradually came into play; butthe quantity of potash carried off in crops did not exceed 2 cwt. Peracre, if so much. Now 0. 1 per cent of any constituent, calculated on adepth of six inches, was equivalent to one ton per acre. Therefore, if asoil contained only 0. 1 per cent of potash, a ton of potash might becarried off from a depth of 6 inches. But you had not only 0. 1 per cent, but something like 1½ per cent and upwards in many soils. It is quitetrue there were many soils from which you could not continuously takecrops without restoring the potash. ” “In all of which, ” said the Doctor, “there is nothing new. It does nothelp us to determine whether potash is or is not deficient in our soil. ” “That, ” said I, “can be ascertained only by actual experiment. Put alittle hen-manure on a row of corn, and on another row a littlehen-manure and ashes, and on another row, ashes alone, and leave one rowwithout anything. On my farm I am satisfied that we need not buypotash-salts for manure. I do not say they would do no good, for theymay do good on land not deficient in available potash, just as lime willdo good on land containing large quantities of lime. But potash is notwhat my land needs to make it produce maximum crops. It needs availablenitrogen, and possibly soluble phosphoric acid. ” The system of farming adopted in this section, is much more likely toimpoverish the soil of nitrogen and phosphoric acid than of potash. If a soil is deficient in potash, the crop which will first indicate thedeficiency, will probably be clover, or beans. Farmers who can growlarge crops of red-clover, need not buy potash for manure. On farms where grain is largely raised and sold, and where the straw, and corn-stalks, and hay, and the hay from clover-seed are retained onthe farm, and this strawy manure returned to the land, the soil willbecome poor from the lack of nitrogen and phosphoric acid long beforethere would be any need of an artificial supply of potash. On the other hand, if farmers should use fish, or guano, orsuperphosphate, or nitrate of soda, and sell all the hay, and straw, andpotatoes, and root-crops, they could raise, many of our sandy soilswould soon become poor in available potash. But even in this case theclover and beans would show the deficiency sooner than wheat or evenpotatoes. “And yet we are told, ” said the Deacon, “that potatoes contain no end ofpotash. ” “And the same is true, ” said I, “of root-crops, such as mangel-wurzel, turnips, etc. , but the fact has no other significance than this: If yougrow potatoes for many years on the same land and manure them withnitrogenous manures, the soil is likely to be speedily impoverished ofpotash. ” “But suppose, ” said the Deacon, “that you grow potatoes on the same landwithout manure of any kind, would not the soil become equally poor inpotash?” “No, ” said I, “because you would, in such a case, get very smallcrops--small, not from lack of potash, but from lack of nitrogen. If Ihad land which had grown corn, potatoes, wheat, oats, and hay, for manyyears without manure, or an occasional dressing of our commonbarnyard-manure, and wanted it to produce a good crop of potatoes, I should not expect to get it by simply applying potash. The soil mightbe poor in potash, but it is almost certain to be still poorer innitrogen and phosphoric acid. ” Land that has been manured with farm-yard or stable-manure for years, nomatter how it has been cropped, is not likely to need potash. The manureis richer in potash than in nitrogen and phosphoric acid. And the samemay be said of the soil. If a farmer uses nitrogenous and phosphatic manures on his clayey orloamy land that is usually relatively rich in potash, and will apply hiscommon manure to the sandy parts of the farm, he will rarely need topurchase manures containing potash. CHAPTER XL. RESTORING FERTILITY TO THE SOIL. By Sir J. B. Lawes, Bart. , LL. D. , F. R. S. , Rothamsted, Eng. A relation of mine, who already possessed a very considerable estate, consisting of light land, about twenty years ago purchased a largeproperty adjoining it at a very high price. These were days when farmerswere flourishing, and they no more anticipated what was in store forthem in the future, than the inhabitants of the earth in the days ofNoah. Times have changed since then, and bad seasons, low prices of wheat, andcattle-disease, have swept off the tenants from these two estates, sothat my relation finds himself now in the position of being the unhappyowner and occupier of five or six farms, extending over several thousandacres--one farm alone occupying an area of two thousand four hundredacres. Fortunately for the owner, he possesses town property in additionto his landed estates, so that the question with him is not, as it iswith many land owners, how to find the necessary capital to cultivatethe land, but, having found the capital, how to expend it in farming, soas to produce a proper return. It is not very surprising that, under these circumstances, my opinionshould have been asked. What, indeed, would have been the use of arelation, who not only spent all his time in agricultural experiments, but also pretended to teach our neighbors how to farm on the other sideof the Atlantic, if he could not bring his science to bear on the landof an adjoining county! Here is the land--my relation might naturallysay--here is the money, and I have so much confidence in your capacitythat I will give you _carte-blanche_ to spend as much as youplease--what am I to do? An inspection of the property brought out the following facts--that allthe land was very light, and that you might walk over the fresh plowedsurface in the wettest weather without any clay sticking to your boots:still a portion of the soil was dark in color, and therefore probablycontained a sufficient amount of fertility to make cultivationprofitable, provided the management could be conducted with that careand economy which are absolute essentials in a business where theexpenditure is always pressing closely upon the income. Upon land of this description meat-making is the backbone of the system, which must be adopted, and a large breeding flock of sheep the firstessential towards success. Science can make very little improvement upon the four-courserotation--roots, barley, clover, and wheat, unless, perhaps, it may beby keeping the land in clover, or mixed grass and clover, for two orthree years. A good deal of the land I was inspecting was so light, that, in fact, itwas hardly more than sand, and for some years it had been left to growanything that came up, undisturbed by the plow. To a practised eye, the character of the natural vegetation is a sureindication of the fertility of the soil. Where herds of buffaloes are tobe seen--their sides shaking with fat--it is quite evident that thepastures upon which they feed cannot be very bad; and in the same way, where a rank growth of weeds is found springing up upon land that hasbeen abandoned, it may be taken for certain that the elements of foodexist in the soil. This ground was covered with vegetation, but of themost impoverished description, even the “Quack” or “Couch-grass” couldnot form a regular carpet, but grew in small, detached bunches;everything, in fact, bore evidence of poverty. Possibly, the first idea which might occur to any one, on seeing land inthis state, might be: Why not grow the crops by the aid of artificialmanures? Let us look at the question from two points of view: first, in regard tothe cost of the ingredients; and, secondly, in regard to the growth ofthe crop. We will begin with wheat. A crop of wheat, machine-reaped, contains, ascarted to the stack, about six pounds of soil ingredients in every onehundred pounds; that is to say, each five pounds of mineral matter, andrather less than one pound of nitrogen, which the plant takes from thesoil, will enable it to obtain ninety-four pounds of other substancesfrom the atmosphere. To grow a crop of twenty bushels of grain and twothousand pounds of straw, would require one hundred and sixty pounds ofminerals, and about thirty-two pounds of nitrogen; of the one hundredand sixty pounds of minerals, one-half would be silica, of which thesoil possesses already more than enough; the remainder, consisting ofabout eighty pounds of potash and phosphate, could be furnished for fromthree to four dollars, and the thirty-two pounds of nitrogen could bepurchased in nitrate of soda for six or eight dollars. The actual costof the ingredients, therefore, in the crop of twenty bushels of wheat, would be about ten to twelve dollars. But as this manure would furnishthe ingredients for the growth of both straw and grain, and it iscustomary to return the straw to the land, after the first crop, fullyone-third of the cost of the manure might, in consequence, be deducted, which would make the ingredients of the twenty bushels amount to sixdollars. Twenty bushels of wheat in England would sell for twenty-eightdollars; therefore, there would be twenty-two dollars left for the costof cultivation and profit. A French writer on scientific agriculture has employed figures verysimilar to the above, to show how French farmers may grow wheat at lessthan one dollar per bushel. At this price they might certainly defy thecompetition of the United States. It is one thing, however, to growcrops in a lecture room, and quite another to grow them in a field. Indealing with artificial manures, furnishing phosphoric acid, potash, andnitrogen, we have substances which act upon the soil in very differentways. Phosphate of lime is a very insoluble substance, and requires anenormous amount of water to dissolve it. Salts of potash, on the otherhand, are very soluble in water, but form very insoluble compounds withthe soil. Salts of ammonia and nitrate of soda are perfectly soluble inwater. When applied to the land, the ammonia of the former substanceforms an insoluble compound with the soil, but in a very short time isconverted into nitrate of lime; and with this salt and nitrate of soda, remains in solution in the soil water until they are either taken up bythe plant or are washed away into the drains or rivers. Crops evaporate a very large amount of water, and with this water theyattract the soluble nitrate from all parts of the soil. Very favorableseasons are therefore those in which the soil is neither too dry nor toowet; as in one case the solution of nitrate becomes dried up in thesoil, in the other it is either washed away, or the soil remains so wetthat the plant cannot evaporate the water sufficiently to draw up thenitrates which it contains. The amount of potash and phosphoric acid dissolved in the water is fartoo small to supply the requirements of the plant, and it is probablethat what is required for this purpose is dissolved by some directaction of the roots of the plant on coming in contact with the insolublephosphoric acid and potash in the soil. In support of this view, I may mention that we have clear evidence insome of our experiments of the wheat crop taking up both phosphates andpotash that were applied to the land thirty years ago. To suppose, therefore, that, if the ingredients which exist in twentybushels of wheat and its straw, are simply applied to a barren soil, thecrop will be able to come in contact with, and take up these substances, is to assume what certainly will not take place. I have often expressed an opinion that arable land, could not becultivated profitably by means of artificial manures, unless the soilwas capable of producing, from its own resources, a considerable amountof produce; still the question had never up to this time come before mein a distinct form as one upon which I had to decide one way or theother. I had, however, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, thatgrain crops could never be grown at a profit upon my relation’s land, and that consequently, for some years, it would be better to give up theattempt, and try to improve the pasture. After what I have said about the insolubility of potash and phosphoricacid, it may possibly be asked--why not give a good dose of thesesubstances at once, as they do not wash out of the soil--say enough togrow sixty crops of grain, and apply the nitrate, or ammonia every yearin just sufficient amounts to supply the wants of the crop? The objections to this plan are as follows: assuming the most favorableconditions of climate, and the largest possible produce, the wheat couldcertainly not take up the whole of the thirty-two pounds of nitrogenapplied, and the crop which requires nearly one pound of nitrogen inevery one hundred pounds of gross produce, would be certainly less thanthree thousand two hundred pounds, if supplied with only thirty-twopounds of nitrogen. If we take the total produce of the best and worstwheat crop, grown during the forty years of our experiments, we shallarrive at a better understanding in the matter. The following are thefigures: Weight of Dry Produce of Wheat Per Acre. _Straw and Grain. _ 1863 9330 lbs. 1879 3859 ” In order to ascertain the increase due to the nitrogen of the salts ofammonia or nitrate of soda, we must deduct from the crop the produceobtained, where mineral manures without nitrogen were used. In 1863 thisamount was three thousand pounds, and in 1879 it was one thousand twohundred pounds. Deducting these amounts from the gross produce in eachcase, leaves six thousand three hundred and thirty as the produce due tothe nitrogen in the season of 1863, and two thousand six hundred andfifty-nine as the produce due to the nitrogen in 1879. But in each case we applied the same amount of nitrogen, eighty-sevenpounds; and as the amount of nitrogen in a wheat crop, as carted fromthe field, contains less than one per cent. Of nitrogen, it is evidentthat if all that was contained in the manure had been taken up by theplant, the increased crop should have weighed eight thousand sevenhundred pounds instead of six thousand three hundred and thirty. Thuseven in our best year, some of the nitrogen applied failed to producegrowth; and when we come to the bad year we find that only twenty-sixand a half pounds were taken up out of the eighty-seven pounds applied, thus leaving more than two-thirds of the whole unaccounted for. Seasons are only occasionally either very bad or very good. What we callan average season does not differ very much from the mean of the bestand worst years, which in this case would be represented by a crop offour thousand four hundred and ninety-four pounds, containing nearlyforty-five pounds of nitrogen. I may say that, although I have employedone per cent. To avoid fractions in my calculations, strictly speakingthree-quarters of a per cent. Would more nearly represent the realquantity. If, however, on the average, we only obtain about forty-fivepounds from an application of about eighty-seven pounds of nitrogen, itis evident that not more than one-half of the amount applied enters intothe crop. Now in dealing with a substance of so costly a nature as ammonia, ornitrate of soda--the nitrogen contained in which substances cannot costmuch less than twenty-five cents per pound by the time it is spread uponthe land, it becomes a question of importance to know what becomes ofthe other half, or the residue whatever it may be, which has not beentaken up by the crop. Part is undoubtedly taken up by the weeds whichgrow with the wheat, and after the wheat has been cut. Part sinks intothe sub-soil and is washed completely away during the winter. I, myself, am disposed to think that the very great difference in thesize of the Indian corn crops, as compared with the wheat crops in theStates, is partly accounted for by their greater freedom from weeds, which are large consumers of nitric acid, and, in the case of the wheatcrop, frequently reduce the yield by several bushels per acre. It must, however, be borne in mind that, though the wheat is robbed of its foodwhere there are weeds, still if there were no weeds, the amount ofnitric acid which the crop could not get hold of, would, in allprobability, be washed out of the soil during the ensuing winter. I cometo the conclusion, therefore, that the nitrogen alone, which would berequired to produce one bushel of wheat, would cost not much less thanfifty cents; and that, in consequence, wheat-growing by means ofartificial manures, will not pay upon very poor land. I have said that the land, about which I was consulted, had not beenplowed for several years, and that although nature had done all shecould to clothe the soil with vegetation, the most disheartening featurein the case was, the poverty of the weeds. A thistle may be a giant or adwarf, according to circumstances; here they were all dwarfs. Theplaintain, which I believe is sometimes sown in these districts forfood, has a very deep root; here the plants were abundant, but theleaves were very small and lay so close to the ground, that, as themanager informed me, “the sheep were often injured from the amount ofsand which they swallowed with the leaves when feeding. ” At Rothamsted, the analyses of the rain water passing through theordinary soil of one of my fields, which has been kept free fromvegetation, have shown that the amount of nitric acid liberated in asoil, and washed out each year, is very large. Taking the ten yearsduring which these special experiments have been in progress, I shouldthink that the loss of nitrogen would be equal to, or possibly exceed, the amount of that substance removed by the average crops grown in theUnited States. The results obtained by the rain gauges, are further completelyconfirmed by those in an adjoining field, where wheat and fallow havebeen grown alternately for twenty-seven years. The liberation of nitricacid, during the year of rest, produced for a time a large growth ofwheat, but it was done at a very great waste of the fertility of thesoil, and the produce is now, in proportion, considerably lower thanthat grown on the continuously unmanured land. These results, if they are to be accepted as correct, must bring about avery considerable change in the generally received views in regard tofertility. We not only see more clearly the connection between a formervegetation and the stored up fertility in our soil, but we also see theimportance of vegetation at the present day, as the only means by whichthe loss of nitric acid is prevented. The more completely the land iscovered with vegetation, and the more growth there is, the greater willbe the evaporation of water, and the less will be the loss of nitricacid by drainage. I was not at all surprised to find, that the surface soil of a wood onmy farm, was poorer in nitrogen than the soil of an old permanentpasture, to which no manure had been applied for twenty-five years, though during the whole period, the crop of hay had been removed everyyear from the land. The wood to which I refer is covered with oak, centuries old, and the foliage is so dense that but little underwood orother vegetation can grow beneath it. If both the wood and the pasturewere put into arable cultivation, I have no doubt that the pasture wouldprove much more fertile than the wood land. In our experiments on permanent pasture, it has been observed that thecharacter of the herbage is mainly dependent on the food supplied. Weeds, and inferior grasses, can hold their own as long as povertyexists, but with a liberal supply of manure, the superior grassesovergrow and drive out the bad grasses and weeds. In consequence of thelow price of wheat a good deal of land in England has been laid down topermanent pasture, and much money has been spent in cleaning the landpreparatory to sowing the grass-seeds. I have on more occasions thanone, suggested that the money employed in this process would be betterexpended in manure, by which the weeds would be “improved” off the faceof the land. While walking over the abandoned portion of these estates Iexplained my views upon this point to the manager. They were, however, received with the usual skepticism, and the rejoinder that “there wasonly one way of getting rid of the weeds, which was by the plow andfire. ” There is nothing that speaks to me so forcibly as color in vegetation;when travelling by rail, I do not require to be told that such a farmis, or is not, in high condition, or that we are passing through afertile or infertile district. There is a peculiar green color invegetation which is an unmistakable sign that it is living upon the fatof the land. I need hardly say that, in this case, the color of thevegetation gave unmistakable signs of the poverty of the soil; but inthe midst of the dingy yellowish-green of the herbage, I came upon onesquare of bright green grass. In answer to my enquiry I was told that, a “lambing-fold had been there last year, ” and my informant added hisopinion, “that the manure would be so strong that it would killanything!” It had certainly killed the weeds, but in their place, somegood grasses had taken possession of the soil. The plan I proposed to adopt was, to spend no more money on tillageoperations, but to endeavor to improve the pasture by giving to it thefood necessary to grow good grasses, sowing at the same time a smallquantity of the best seeds. I further suggested that a flock of sheepshould be allowed to run over the whole of the land by day, and befolded there every night--about one pound of cotton-seed cake per headbeing allowed daily. By this means, as the fold would be moved everyday, the amount of manure deposited on the soil could be estimated. If there were a hundred sheep, receiving one pound of decorticatedcotton-seed cake per head, daily, and the hurdles were arranged toenclose a space of twenty-five by twenty yards, in the course of tendays an acre of land would have received manure from one thousand poundsof cake; which amount would supply seventy-seven pounds of nitrogen, sixty-eight pounds of phosphate of lime, and thirty-two pounds ofpotash. This amount of cake would cost about sixteen dollars. As regards the value of the cake as a food, it is somewhat difficult toform an estimate; but it takes nine or ten pounds of dry food--sayroots, cake, and hay--to produce an increase of one pound of live weightin sheep. The cake has certainly a higher feeding value, than either hayor roots, but I will here give it only the same value, and consider thatone hundred and ten pounds of increase of the animal was obtained by theconsumption of the one thousand pounds of cake. The value of theincrease of the live weight would be in England fully eleven dollars, leaving five dollars as the cost of the manure. Now the cake furnishedseventy-seven pounds of nitrogen alone, which, if purchased in anartificial manure, would have cost nineteen dollars; and the othersubstances supplied by the cake, would have cost from four to fivedollars more. The manures required, therefore, would be obtained muchmore cheaply by this than by any other process. Labor would be saved by not cultivating the land. Manure would be savedby substituting vegetation which grows under or above ground, almost allthe year round. And, by feeding the stock with cake, the necessaryfertility would be obtained at the lowest possible cost. It is probable that the land would require this treatment to be repeatedfor several years, before there would be a fair growth of grass. Theland might then be broken up and one grain crop be taken, then it mightagain be laid down to grass. Hitherto, I have considered a case where fertility is almost absent fromthe land, this, however, is an exception, as agriculture generally iscarried on upon soils which contain large stores of fertility, thoughthey may be very unequally distributed. By analysis of the soil we canmeasure the total amount of fertility which it contains, but we are leftin ignorance in regard to the amount of the ingredients which are insuch a form that the crops we cultivate can make use of them. At Rothamsted, among my experiments on the growth of continuous wheat, at the end of forty years, the soil supplied with salts of ammonia hasyielded, during the whole time, and still continues to yield, a largerproduce than is obtained by a liberal supply of phosphates and alkalinesalts without ammonia. When we consider that every one hundred pounds of wheat crop, as cartedto the stack, contains about five per cent. Of mineral matter, and oneper cent. Of nitrogen, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that mysoil has a large available balance of mineral substances which the cropcould not make use of for want of nitrogen. The crop which has receivedthese mineral manures now amounts to from twelve to thirteen bushels peracre, and removes from the land about sixteen pounds of nitrogen everyyear. Analyses of the soil show that, even after the removal of more thanthirty crops in succession, without any application of manure containingammonia, the soil still contains some thousands of pounds of nitrogen. This nitrogen is in combination with carbon; it is very insoluble inwater, and until it becomes separated from the carbon, and enters intocombination with oxygen, does not appear to be of any use to the crop. The combination of nitrogen with oxygen, is known as nitric acid. Thenitric acid enters into combination with the lime of the soil, and inthis form becomes the food of plants. From its great importance in regard to the growth of plants, nitric acidmight be called the main spring of agriculture, but being perfectlysoluble in water, it is constantly liable to be washed out of the soil. In the experiment to which I have referred above--where wheat is grownby mineral manures alone--we estimate that, of the amount of nitric acidliberated each year, not much more than one-half is taken up by thecrop. The wheat is ripe in July, at which time the land is tolerably free fromweeds; several months, therefore, occur during which there is novegetation to take up the nitric acid; and even when the wheat is sownat the end of October, much nitric acid is liable to be washed away, asthe power of the plant to take up food from the soil is very limiteduntil the spring. The formation of nitric acid, from the organic nitrogen in the soil, isdue to the action of a minute plant, and goes on quite independent ofthe growth of our crops. We get, however, in the fact an explanation ofthe extremely different results obtained by the use of differentmanures. One farmer applies lime, or even ground limestone to a soil, and obtains an increase in his crops; probably he has supplied the verysubstance which has enabled the nitrification of the organic nitrogen toincrease; another applies potash, a third phosphates; if either of theseare absent, the crops cannot make use of the nitric acid, however greatmay be the amount diffused through the soil. It may possibly be said that the use of mineral manures tends to exhaustthe soil of its nitrogen; this may, or may not, be true; but even if theminerals enable the crop to take up a larger amount of the nitric acidfound in the soil year by year, this does not increase the exhaustion, as the minerals only tend to arrest that which otherwise might be washedaway. We must look upon the organic nitrogen in the soil, as the main sourceof the nitrogen which grows our crops. Whatever may be the amountderived from the atmosphere, whether in rain, or dew; or fromcondensation by the soil, or plants, it is probable that, where the landis in arable cultivation, the nitrogen so obtained, is less than theamount washed out of the soil in nitric acid. Upon land which is neverstirred by the plow, there is much less waste and much less activity. The large increase in the area of land laid down to permanent pasture inEngland, is not due alone to the fall in the price of grain. Thereduction of fertility in many of the soils, which have been long underthe plow, is beginning to be apparent. Under these circumstances a lessexhausting course of treatment becomes necessary, and pasture, with theproduction of meat, milk, and butter, takes the place of grain fields. APPENDIX. Letter from Edward Jessop, York, Pa. YORK, PA. , March 16, 1876. _Joseph Harris, Esq. , Moreton Farm, Rochester, N. Y. :_ DEAR SIR--Your favor of the 22d of last month came safely to hand, and Iam truly obliged to you for the reply to my question. --You ask, can Ihelp you with facts or suggestions, on the subject of manure? I fear notmuch; but it may be useful to you to know what others need to know. I will look forward to the advent of “Talks on Manures” with muchinterest, hoping to get new light on a subject second to none inimportance to the farmer. I have done a little at composting for some years, and am now having apile of about forty cords, made up of stable-manure and earth taken fromthe wash of higher lands, turned and fined. The labor of digging andhauling the earth, composting in thin layers with manure, turning, andfining, is so great, I doubt whether it pays for most farm crops--thisto be used for mangel-wurzel and market-garden. The usual plan in this county is to keep the stable-manure made duringwinter, and the accumulation of the summer in the barn-yard, where it issoaked by rain, and trampled fine by cattle, and in August and Septemberis hauled upon ground to be seeded with wheat and grass-seeds. I do notthink there is much piling and turning done. My own conclusions, not based on accurate experiments, however, are, that the best manure I have ever applied was prepared in a covered piton which cattle were allowed to run, and so kept well tramped--somedrainage into a well, secured by pouring water upon it, when necessary, and the drainage pumped and distributed over the surface, at shortintervals, particularly the parts not well tramped, and allowed toremain until it became a homogeneous mass, which it will do withouthaving undergone so active a fermentation as to have thrown off aconsiderable amount of gas. The next best, composting it with earth, as above described, piled aboutfive or six feet high, turned as often as convenient, and kept moistenough to secure fermentation. Or, to throw all the manure as made into a covered pit, until it isthoroughly mixed and made fine, by allowing hogs to run upon it and rootat will; and when prepared for even spreading, apply it as atop-dressing on grass-land--at any convenient time. As to how many loads of fresh manure it takes to make one of well-rottedmanure, it may be answered approximately, _three to one_, but that woulddepend a good deal on the manner of doing it, and the amount of roughmaterial in it. If well trodden by cattle under cover, and sufficientdrainage poured over it, to prevent any violent fermentation, the lossof weight, I think, would not be very great, nor the bulk lessened overone-half. Many years ago an old and successful farmer said to me, “if you want toget the full benefit of manure, spread it as a top-dressing on some_growing crop_, ” and all my experience and observation since tend toconfirm the correctness of his advice. While on this subject, allow me to protest against the practice ofnaming the quantity of manure applied to a given space, as so many_loads_, as altogether too indefinite. The bushel or cord is a definitequantity, which all can understand. The average price of good livery stable horse-manure at this place hasbeen for several years four dollars a cord. With two and a half miles to haul, I am trying whether keeping a flockof 50 breeding ewes, and feeding liberally with wheat bran, in additionto hay and pasture, will not produce the needed manure more cheaply. Respectfully yours, EDWARD JESSOP. _P. S. _--You ask for the average weight of a cord of manure, such as wepay four dollars for. I had a cord of horse-stable manure from a livery stable in York whichhad been all the time under cover, with several pigs running upon it, and was moist, without any excess of wet, loaded into a wagon-boxholding an entire cord, or 128 cubic feet, tramped by the wagoner threetimes while loading. The wagon was weighed at our hay-scales before loading, and then thewagon and load together, with a net result for the manure of 4, 400 lbs. I considered this manure rather better than the average. I had anotherload, from a different place, which weighed over 5, 000 lbs. , but onexamination it was found to contain a good deal of coal ashes. We never_buy_ by the ton. Harrison Bros. & Co. , Manufacturing Chemists, Philadelphia, rate barnyard-manure as worth $5. 77 per ton, and say thatwould be about $7. 21 per cord, which would be less than 1½ tons to thecord. If thrown in loosely, and it happened to be _very dry_, that mightbe possible. Waring, in his “Handy Book of Husbandry, ” page 201, says, he caused acord of well-trodden livery stable manure containing the usualproportion of straw, to be carefully weighed, and that the cord weighed7, 080 lbs. The load I had weighed, weighing 4, 400 lbs. , was considered by thewagoner and by myself as a fair sample of good manure. In view of thesewide differences, further trials would be desirable. Dana, in his “MuckManual, ” says a cord of green cow-dung, pure, as dropped, weighs 9, 289lbs. Farmers here seldom draw manure with less than three, more generallywith four horses or mules; loading is done by the purchaser. From thebarn-yard, put on loose boards, from 40 to 60 bushels are about anaverage load. In hauling from town to a distance of three to five miles, farmersgenerally make two loads of a cord each, a day’s work. From thebarn-yard, a very variable number, per day. In my own case, two men withthree horses have been hauling six and seven loads of sixty bushels, fine compost, a distance of from one-half to three-fourths of a mile, upa long and rather steep hill, and spreading from the wagon, as hauled, upon grass-sod. Our larger farmers often have one driver and his team, two wagons, oneloading, while the other is drawn to the field; the driver slips off oneof the side-boards, and with his dung-hook draws off piles at nearlyequal distances, to be spread as convenient. EDWARD JESSOP. Letter from Dr. E. L. Sturtevant, South Framingham, Mass. SOUTH FRAMINGHAM, MASS. , April 2, 1876. FRIEND HARRIS--Manure about Boston is sold in various ways. First, according to the number of animals kept; price varying so much, that Ido not venture to name the figures. By the cord, to be trodden overwhile loading; never by weight, so far as I can learn--price from 0 to$12. 00 per cord, according to season, and various accidentalcircumstances. During the past winter, manure has been given away inBoston. Handling, hauling to the railroad, and freight costing $4 percord for carrying 30 miles out. Market-gardeners usually haul manure asa return freight on their journeys to and from market. About SouthFramingham, price stiff at $8 a cord in the cellar, and this may beconsidered the ruling suburban price. Very friendly yours, E. LEWIS STURTEVANT. Letter from M. C. Weld. NEW YORK, Nov. 9, 1876. MY DEAR HARRIS--I don’t know what I can write about manures, that wouldbe of use. I have strong faith in humus, in ashes, leached andunleached, in lime, gas-lime, plaster, bones, ammonia ready formed, nitrates ready formed, not much in meat and blood, unless they are_cheap_. Nevertheless, they often are cheap, and produce splendideffects. I believe in sulphuric acid, with organic nitrogenous manures;the composting of meat, blood, hair, etc. , with peat and muck, andwetting it down with dilute sulphuric acid. I believe in green-manuring, heartily, and in tillage, tillage, tillage. Little faith insuperphosphates and compounded manures, at selling prices. Habirshaw’sguano is good enough. So much for my creed. Truly yours, M. C. WELD. Letter from Peter Henderson. NEW YORK, Oct. 26, 1876. _Mr. Joseph Harris_: DEAR SIR--If you will refer to my work “Gardening for Profit, ” NewEdition, page 34, you will get about all the information I possess onManures, except that I do not say anything about price. In a general wayit might be safe to advise that whenever _a ton_ (it is always best tospeak of manures by weight) of either cow, horse, hog, or otherstable-manure can be laid on the ground for $3, it is cheaper thancommercial fertilizers of any kind at their usual market rates. This $3per ton, I think, would be about the average cost in New York, Boston, or Philadelphia. We never haul it on the ground until we are ready toplow it in. If it has to be taken from the hog or cattle yards, we drawit out into large heaps, convenient to where it is to be put on theland, turning it, to keep it from burning or “fire-fanging, ” ifnecessary. None of our farmers or market-gardeners here keep it undercover. The expense of such covering and the greater difficulties ingetting at it, for the immense quantities we use, would be greater thanthe benefits to be derived from keeping it under cover--benefits, infact, which, I think, may be greatly overrated. Very truly yours, PETER HENDERSON. Letter from J. M. B. Anderson, Ed. “Canada Farmer, ” Toronto. “CANADA FARMER” OFFICE, TORONTO, March 29, 1876. _J. Harris, Esq. _: DEAR SIR--Yours of the 25th inst. Is to hand, and I shall be most happyto render you any assistance in my power. The work you undertake is inable hands, and I have every confidence that, when completed, it willform an invaluable acquisition to the agricultural literature of theday. Manure in this city is usually sold by the two-horse load--about 1½tons--at the rate of $1 per load, or 66 cents per ton. The load containsjust about a cord of manure, consequently a cord will weigh about 1½tons. With reference to the general management of manure in Canada, I may saythat the system followed differs in no material respect from that of NewYork and the other Eastern States. It is usually kept over winter in theopen barn yard (rarely under cover, I am sorry to say), laid out on theland about the time of disappearance of last snow, and plowed in. Insome cases it is not carted out until the land is ready for immediateplowing. With some of our more advanced farmers, the system has latelybeen adopted of keeping manure under cover and sprinkling it thoroughlyat intervals with plaster and other substances. Tanks are also becomingmore common than formerly, for the preservation of liquid manure, whichis usually applied by means of large, perforated hogs-heads, after themanner of street-watering. You ask, how the manure is managed at Bow Park, Brantford. That madeduring fall and winter is carefully kept in as small bulk as possible, to prevent exposure to the weather. In February and March it is drawnout and put in heaps 8 feet square, and well packed, to prevent theescape of ammonia. In spring, as soon as practicable, it is spread, andplowed under immediately. Manure made in spring and summer is spread onthe field at once, and plowed under with a good, deep furrow. Very truly yours, J. M. B. ANDERSON, Ed. _Canada Farmer_. MANURE STATISTICS OF LONG ISLAND. The Manure Trade of Long Island--Letter from J. H. Rushmore. OLD WESTBURY, Long Island, April 6, 1876. _Joseph Harris, Esq. _: DEAR SIR--The great number of dealers in manure in New York precludesaccuracy, yet Mr. Skidmore (who has been testifying voluminously beforethe New York Board of Health in relation to manure and street dirt), assures me that the accompanying figures are nearly correct. I enclosestatement, from two roads, taken from their books, and the amountshipped over the other road I obtained verbally from the General FreightAgent, and embody it in the sheet of statistics. The Ash report I _know_ is correct, as I had access to the books showingthe business, for over ten years. I have made numerous applications, verbally, and by letter, to our largest market gardeners, but thereseems to exist a general and strong disinclination to communicateanything worth knowing. I enclose the best of the replies received. Speaking for some of our largest gardeners, I may say that theycultivate over one hundred acres, and use land sufficiently near to thecity to enable them to dispense with railroad transportation in bringingmanure to their places and marketing crops. I have noticed that one ofthe shrewdest gardeners invariably composts horn-shavings and bone-mealwith horse-manure several months before expecting to use it. A safeaverage of manure used per acre by gardeners, may be stated at ninety(90) tubs, and from two hundred to twenty hundred pounds of fertilizerin addition, according to its strength, and the kind of crop. The following railroad manure statistics will give a generally correctidea of the age of manure, when used: Statement of Manure Sent from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1875. _Over F. N. S. &C. R. R. _ _Over Southern R. R. _ January 1, 531 tubs. 5, 815 tubs. February 4, 357 ” March 740 ” 12, 217 ” April 12, 122 ” 7, 055 ” May 7, 383 ” 3, 049 ” June 5, 725 ” 1, 365 ” July 6, 473½ ” 685 ” August 6, 370½ ” 2, 911 ” September 3, 197 ” 14, 702 ” October 880 ” 660 ” November 512 ” 840 ” December 1, 406 ” 4, 923 ” -------------- ------------ 46, 340 tubs. 57, 679 tubs. A tub is equal to 14 bushels. Hobson, Hurtado & Co. Report the amount of Peruvian guano sold in thiscountry last year at thirty thousand tons. Estimated number of horses in New York city, 100, 000. Estimated product of manure per horse. Four cords. Estimated proportion of straw to pure excrement. One-half. Amount shipped direct from stables. Nearly all. Amount shipped on vessels. One-half. Length of time the unshipped manure remains in heaps. From three to fourmonths. Average cost per horse, annually. $3. Greatest distance of shipment. Virginia. Average amount shipped via L. I. R. R. 60, 000 tubs. Price of manure per tub delivered on cars or vessel. 80 cents. Average amount put on car. 40 tubs. Statistics of Ash Trade. --Time when ashes are delivered. From middle ofJune to middle of October. Places from which they are mostly shipped. Montreal, Belleville, andToronto (Canada). Method of transportation. Canal boats. Average load per boat. About 8, 000 bushels. Average amount annually sold. 360, 000 bushels. Average cost delivered to farmers. 20½ cents per bushel. _Per Acre, about. _ Amount used by farmers for potatoes 60 tubs. ” ” ” ” ” cabbage (late) 50 ” ” ” ” ” ” corn 12 ” Amount of guano used on Long Island, as represented by the books ofChapman & Vanwyck, and their estimate of sales by other firms, 5, 000tons. The fertilizers used on the Island are bought almost exclusively bymarket gardeners or farmers, who do a little market gardening, as it isthe general conviction that ordinary farm-crops will not give acompensating return for their application. Most market gardeners keep solittle stock that the manure made on the place is very inconsiderable. Our dairy farmers either compost home-made manures with that from thecity, spread it on the land for corn in the spring, or rot it separate, to use in the fall for wheat, on land that has been cropped with oatsthe same year. The manure put on for potatoes is generally estimated toenrich the land sufficient for it to produce one crop of winter grain, and from five to seven crops of grass, when it is again plowed andcultivated in rotation with, first, corn, second, potatoes or oats, andis reseeded in autumn of the same year. Fish and fish guano are largely used on land bordering the water, andadjacent to the oil-works. The average price for guano in bulk atoil-works is $12 per ton. The average price for fish on wharf is $1. 50per thousand, and it is estimated that, as a general average, 6, 000 fishmake a ton of guano. The fish, when applied to corn, are placed two ateach hill, and plowed under at any time after the corn is large enoughto cultivate. Seaweed is highly prized by all who use it, and it willproduce a good crop of corn when spread thickly on the land previous toplowing. Very respectfully, J. H. RUSHMORE. Letter from John E. Backus. NEWTOWN, Long Island, N. Y. , March 2nd, 1876. _Mr. G. H. Rushmore_: DEAR SIR. --Some farmers and market-gardeners use more, and some less, manure, according to crops to be raised. I use about 30 good two-horsewagon-loads to the acre, to be applied in rows or broad-casted, as bestfor certain crops. I prefer old horse-dung for most all purposes. Guano, as a fertilizer, phosphate of bone and blood are very good; they act asa stimulant on plants and vegetation, and are highly beneficial to somevegetation--more valuable on poor soil than elsewhere, except to producea thrifty growth in plants, and to insure a large crop. By giving you these few items they vary considerably on different partsof the Island; judgment must be used in all cases and all business. Hoping these few lines may be of some avail to Mr. Harris and yourself, I remain, yours, etc. , JOHN E. BACKUS. MANURE IN PHILADELPHIA. Letter from Joseph Heacock. JENKINTOWN, Montgomery Co. , Pa. , April 18th, 1876. MY DEAR FRIEND HARRIS. --Stable-manure in Philadelphia, costs by thesingle four-horse-load, about $9 or $10. Mostly, the farmers who haulmuch of it, have it engaged by the year, and then it can be had for from$7 to $8 per load. Mostly, four horses are used, though we frequentlysee two and three-horse teams, and occasionally, five or six horses areused. I have never seen any kind of dung hauled but that of horses. Cow-manure would be thought too heavy to haul so long a distance. Sugar-house waste, spent hops, glue waste, etc, are hauled to a smallextent. We live about 9 miles from the center of the city, and the roadis very hilly, though otherwise a good one, being made of stone. The loads vary from 2½ to 3½ or 4 tons for four horses, according to thedryness of the manure. The wagons are made very strong, and weigh from1, 600 lbs. To 2, 300 or 2, 400 lbs. , according to the number of horsesthat are to be used to them. I cannot say how many cords there are in anaverage load, but probably not less than two cords to four horses. Oneof my neighbors has a stable engaged by the year. He pays $2. 50 per ton, and averages about three tons per load, and the distance from the stablein the city to his place, can not be less than 12 miles. His team goesempty one way and of course can not haul more than a load a day. Infact, can not average that, as it would be too hard on his horses. Thehorses used for the purpose are large and strong. Fifteen or twentyyears ago, there was kept on most farms of 75 to 100 acres, a teampurposely for hauling manure from the city. But it is different now, many of the farmers using artificial manures, as it costs so much less;and others are keeping more stock, and so making their own manure. Still, there is a great deal hauled yet. And some of it to a distance of20 miles. Though when hauled to this distance, the teams are loaded bothways. For instance, they will start to the city with a load of hay (35to 50 cwt. ), on Monday afternoon (Tuesday is the day of the Hay Market);and when they have their load of hay off on Tuesday, they load theirmanure and drive out five or six miles and put up for the night. Nextmorning they start about 3 o’clock, arriving home before noon, havingbeen away two days. On Thursday afternoon, they start again. You can seethat manuring in this way is very expensive. But farmers about here wellknow that if they do not manure well they raise but little. Probablyabout four loads are used per acre on the average. Each load isgenerally thrown off the wagon in one large heap near where wanted, andis allowed to lie until they use it. I can not tell how much it loses inbulk by lying in the heap. As to what crops it is used on, farmers do not think that they could goamiss in applying it to anything except oats. But it is probably usedmore for top-dressing mowing land, and for potatoes, than for anythingelse. The usual rotation is corn, potatoes, or oats, wheat seeded to cloverand timothy, and then kept in grass from two to four years. Those whohaul stable-manure, usually use bone-dust or superphosphate to a greateror less extent. Last December I built a pig-pen, 20 ft. × 40 ft. , 1½ stories high. Theupper story to be used for litter, etc. There is a four feet entry onthe north side, running the length of the building. The remainder isdivided into five pens, each 8 ft. × 16 ft. It is made so that in coldweather it can be closed up tight, while in warmer weather it can bemade as open as an out-shed. I am very much pleased with it. The pigsmake a great deal of manure, and I believe that it can be made muchcheaper than it can be bought and hauled from Philadelphia. JOSEPH HEACOCK, Jr. Letter from Herman L. Routzahn. MIDDLETOWN, Md. , May 11th, 1876. _Joseph Harris, Esq. _: I herewith proceed to answer questions asked. Wheat and corn are principal crops. Corn is fed now altogether to stockfor the manure. There is but little soiling done. The principal method of making manureis: Feeding all the corn raised, as well as hay, oats, and roots, tocattle; using wheat straw, weeds, etc. , as bedding, throwing the manurein the yard (uncovered), and to cover the pile with plaster (by sowingbroadcast), at least once a week. To this pile is added the manure fromthe hog-pens, hen-house, etc. , and worked over thoroughly at least twicebefore using. It is then applied to corn by plowing _under_; to wheat, as a top-dressing. For corn it is usually hauled to the field, thrownoff in heaps 25 feet each way, a cart-load making two heaps. Spread justbefore the plow. For wheat, spread on directly after plowing, andthoroughly harrowed in. Applied broadcast for potatoes. Composts ofdifferent kinds are made and used same as in other localities, I presume. Artificial manures are going into disrepute (justly too). This is the plan now adopted by the farmers in this county (Frederick). Where woods are accessible, leaves and mould are hauled in and added tothe manure-heap; in fact, every substance that can be worked into themanure-heap is freely used. Well-rotted stable-manure is worth from$1. 50 to $2. 50 per cord, according to condition and locality. Very Respectfully Yours, HERMAN L. ROUTZAHN. Letter from Prof. E. M. Shelton, Prof. Of Agriculture, Kansas StateAgricultural College. KANSAS STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, MANHATTAN, Kansas, May 5, 1876. DEAR SIR. --In reply to your first question, I would say thatstable-manure in this vicinity, is held in very light estimation. Indeed, by the householders of this city, and quite generally by thefarmers, manure is regarded as one of those things--like drouth andgrasshoppers--with which a mysterious Providence sees fit to clog theoperations of the husband-man. The great bulk of the stable-manure madein this city is, every spring, carted into ravines and vacantlots--wherever, in short, with least expense it can be put out of reachof the senses. It must not be understood by this that manure has little influence onthe growing crops in Kansas. Nowhere have I seen such excellent resultsfrom application of home-made fertilizers, as in Kansas. For thosesterile wastes known as “Alkali lands, ” and “Buffalo wallows, ” manure isa speedy and certain cure. During two years of severe drouth, I havenoticed that wherever manure had been supplied, the crop withstood theeffects of dry weather much better than where no application had beenmade. Four years ago, a strip across one of our fields was heavilymanured; this year this field is into wheat, and a dark band that may beseen half a mile shows where this application was made. These facts the better class of our farmers are beginning to appreciate. A few days ago, a neighbor, a very intelligent farmer, assured me thatfrom manuring eight to ten acres every year, his farm was now in bettercondition than when be broke up the prairie fifteen years ago. I know of no analysis of stable or farmyard-manure made in Kansas. Concerning the _weight_ of manures, I can give you a few facts, havinghad occasion during the past winter to weigh several loads used forexperimental purposes. This manure was wheeled into the barnyard, chiefly from the cattle stalls, during the winter of 1874-5. It lay inthe open yard until February last, when it was weighed and hauled to thefields. I found that a wagon-box, 1½ × 3 × 9 feet, into which the manurewas pitched, without treading, held with slight variations, when levelfull, one ton. At this rate a cord would weigh very close to three tons. The greatest difficulty that we have to encounter in the management ofmanure grows out of our dry summers. During our summer months, unlesssufficient moisture is obtained, the manure dries out rapidly, becomesfire-fanged and practically worthless. My practice upon the College farmhas been to give the bottom of the barn-yard a “dishing” form, so thatit holds all the water that falls upon it. The manure I keep as flat aspossible, taking pains to place it where the animals will keep it troddown solid. I have adopted this plan after having tried composting andpiling the manure in the yards, and am satisfied that it is the only_practical_ way to manage manures in this climate. There is no particular crop to which manure is generally applied in thisState, unless, perhaps, wheat. The practice of applying manure as atop-dressing to winter-wheat, is rapidly gaining ground here. It isfound that the manure thus applied, acting as a mulch, mitigates theeffects of drouth, besides improving the quality of the grain. Very Respectfully Yours, E. M. SHELTON. Letter from Prof. W. H. Brewer, Professor of Agriculture in SheffieldScientific School of Yale College. SHEFFIELD SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF YALE COLLEGE, NEW HAVEN, Conn. , April 14th, 1876. _Joseph Harris, Esq. , Rochester, N. Y. _: MY DEAR SIR. --I have made inquiries relating to “the price ofstable-manure in New Haven, and how far the farmers and gardeners haulit, etc. ” I have not been to the horse-car stables, but I have toseveral _livery_ stables, and they are all essentially the same. They say that but little is sold by the _cord_ or _ton_, or by anyweight or measure. It is sold either “in the lump, ” “by the month, ” “bythe year, ” or “per horse. ” Some sell it at a given sum per month for alltheir horses, on a general estimate of their horses--thus, one man says, “I get, this year, $25 per month for all my manure, he to remove it asfast as it accumulates; say one, two, or three times per week. He haulsit about five miles and composts it all before using. ” Another says, he sells _per horse_. “I get, this year, $13 per horse, they to haul it. ” The price per horse ranges from $10 to $15 per year, the latter sum being high. From the small or private stables, the manure is generally “lumped”by private contract, and is largely used about the city. It is hauledsometimes as much as 10 miles, but usually much less. But the larger stables often sell per shipment--it is sent by cars upthe Connecticut Valley to Westfield, etc. , where it is often hauledseveral miles from the railroad or river. Much manure is sent by boat from New York to the Connecticut Valleytobacco lands. Boats (“barges”) are even loaded in Albany, go down theHudson, up the Sound to Connecticut, to various places near Hartford, I am told. Two or three years ago, a man came here and exhibited to uspressed masses of manure--a patent had been taken out for pressing it, to send by R. R. (stable manure). I never heard anything more aboutit--and he was confident and enthusiastic about it. Yours truly, WM. H. BREWER. FOOD, INCREASE, MANURE, ETC. , OF FATTENING ANIMALS. The following table is given by Mr. J. B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, showing the relation of the increase, manure, and loss by respiration, to the food consumed by different animals: [Transcriber’s Note: The table headers as printed are difficult to interpret. I have given my best guess about what the author intended. ] 250/600/3500 (Oxen): 250 lbs. Oil-cake } 600 lbs. Clover-chaff } 3500 lbs. Swede turnips } Produce 100 lbs. Increase and supply:250/300/4000 (Sheep) 250 lbs. Oil-cake } 300 lbs. Clover-chaff } 4000 lbs. Swede turnips } Produce 100 lbs. Increase and supply:500 lbs. Barley meal (Pigs) produce 100 lbs. Increase and supply: (In) Food. 100 I: In 100 lbs. Increase. (In) Man(ure). (In) Resp(iration, etc). 100 Total Dry (Substance of Food supply. ) (In) Inc(rease). Amount (of each constituent) stored (up for 100 of it consumed). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OXEN. ---------------------+-----------------------++----------------++----- | 250/600/3500 || 100 Total Dry || A S +----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++ m t |Food|100 I| Man. |Resp. || Inc. |Man. |Resp. || t d. ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | | ||Nitrogenous substance| 218| 9. 0}| | { || 0. 8}| | {|| 4. 1Non-Nitrogenous | | }|323. 0| 636{ || }|29. 1|57. 3{|| substance | 808|58. 0}| | { || 5. 2}| | {|| 7. 2Mineral Matter | 83| 1. 6 | 81. 4| . . || 0. 2 | 7. 4| . . || 1. 9Total dry substance |1109|68. 6 |404. 4| 636 || 6. 2 |36. 5|57. 3 || . . ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- SHEEP. ---------------------+-----------------------++----------------++----- | 250/300/4000 || 100 Total Dry || A S +----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++ m t |Food|100 I| Man. |Resp. || Inc. |Man. |Resp. || t d. ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | | ||Nitrogenous substance|177 | 7. 5}| {| {|| 0. 8}| | {|| 4. 2Non-Nitrogenous | | }| 229{|548. 5{|| }|25. 1|60. 1{|| substance |671 |63. 0}| {| {|| 7. 0}| | {|| 9. 4Mineral Matter | 64 | 2. 0 | 62 | . . || 0. 2 | 6. 8| . . || 3. 1Total dry substance |912 |72. 5 | 291 |548. 5 || 8. 0 |31. 9|60. 1 || . . ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- PIGS. ---------------------+-----------------------++----------------++----- | 500 lbs. Barley meal || 100 Total Dry || A S +----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++ m t |Food|100 I| Man. |Resp. || Inc. |Man. |Resp. || t d. ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- |lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. || | | ||Nitrogenous substance| 52| 7. 0}| {| {|| 1. 7}| | {||13. 5Non-Nitrogenous | | }|59. 8{|276. 2{|| }|14. 3|65. 7{|| substance | 357|66. 0}| {| {||15. 7}| | {||18. 5Mineral Matter | 11| 0. 8 |10. 2 | . . || 0. 2 | 2. 4| . . || 7. 3Total dry substance | 420|73. 8 |70. 0 |276. 2 ||17. 6 |16. 7|65. 7 || . . ---------------------+----+-----+-----+------++-----+----+-----++----- In the last edition of his book on Manure, “Praktische Düngerlehre, ”Dr. Emil Wolff, gives the following tables: Of 100 lbs. Of _dry substance_ in the food, there is found in theexcrements: --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Dry Substance. | _Cow_ | _Ox_ | _Sheep_ | _Horse_ | _Mean_ --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- In the Dung |38. 0 lbs. |45. 6 lbs. |46. 9 lbs. |42. 0 lbs. |43. 1 lbs. In the Urine | 9. 1 ” | 5. 8 ” | 6. 6 ” | 3. 6 ” | 6. 3 ” Total dry substance | | | | | in the Manure |47. 1 ” |51. 4 ” |53. 5 ” |45. 6 ” |49. 4 ” --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Of 100 lbs. Of _organic substance_ in the food, there is found in theexcrements: ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Organic | _Cow_ | _Ox_ | _Sheep_ | _Horse_ | _Mean_ Substance. | | | | | ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- In the Dung |36. 5 lbs. |43. 9 lbs. |45. 6 lbs. |38. 2 lbs. |41. 0 lbs. In the Urine | 6. 0 ” | 3. 2 ” | 3. 9 ” | 2. 5 ” | 3. 9 ” Total organic | | | | | substance | | | | | in Manure |42. 5 ” |47. 1 ” |49. 5 ” |40. 7 ” |44. 9 ” ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Of 100 lbs. Of _nitrogen_ in the food, there is found in the excrements: ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Nitrogen. | _Cow_ | _Ox_ | _Sheep_ | _Horse_ | _Mean_ ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- In the Dung |45. 5 lbs. |51. 0 lbs. |43. 7 lbs. |56. 1 lbs. |49. 1 lbs. In the Urine |18. 3 ” |38. 6 ” |51. 8 ” |27. 3 ” |34. 0 ” Total Nitrogen | | | | | in Manure |63. 8 ” |89. 6 ” |95. 5 ” |83. 4 ” |83. 1 ” ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Of 100 lbs. _mineral matter_ in the food, there is found in theexcrements: --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- Mineral Matter. | _Cow_ | _Ox_ | _Sheep_ | _Horse_ | _Mean_ --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- In the Dung |53. 9 lbs. |70. 8 lbs. |63. 2 lbs. |85. 6 lbs. |68. 4 lbs. In the Urine |43. 1 ” |46. 7 ” |40. 3 ” |16. 3 ” |35. 1 ” Total mineral | | | | | matter in Manure |97. 0 ” |117. 5 ” |103. 5 ” |101. 9 ” |103. 5 ” --------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- The excess of mineral matter is due to the mineral matter in the waterdrank by the animals. The following tables of analyses are copied in full from the lastedition (1875), of Dr. Emil Wolff’s _Praktische Düngerlehre_. The figures differ materially in many cases from those previouslypublished. They represent the average results of numerous reliableanalyses, and are sufficiently accurate for all practical purposesconnected with the subject of manures. In special cases, it will bewell to consult actual analyses of the articles to be used. I. --TABLES FOR CALCULATING THE EXHAUSTION AND ENRICHING OF SOILS. A. --HARVEST PRODUCTS AND VARIOUS MANUFACTURED ARTICLES. Average quantityof water, nitrogen, and total ash, and the different ingredients of theash in 1000 lbs. Of fresh or air-dried substance. W Water. N Nitrogen. A Ash. P Potash. S Soda. L Lime. M Magnesia. PhA Phosphoric Acid. SA Sulphuric Acid. S&S Silica and Sand. ------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----- Substance. | W | N | A | P | S | L | M |PhA | SA | S&S------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----- I. --HAY. Meadow Hay |143 |15. 5| 51. 5|13. 2| 2. 3| 8. 6| 3. 3| 4. 1| 2. 4| 13. 9Rye Grass |143 |16. 3| 58. 2|20. 2| 2. 0| 4. 3| 1. 3| 6. 2| 2. 3| 18. 5Timothy |143 |15. 5| 62. 1|20. 4| 1. 5| 4. 5| 1. 9| 7. 2| 1. 8| 22. 1Moharhay |134 |17. 3| 58. 4|21. 2| 1. 2| 6. 1| 5. 4| 3. 4| 2. 1| 16. 3Red Clover |160 |19. 7| 56. 9|18. 3| 1. 2|20. 0| 6. 1| 5. 6| 1. 7| 1. 4Red Clover, ripe |150 |12. 5| 44. 0| 9. 8| 1. 4|15. 6| 6. 8| 4. 3| 1. 3| 3. 0White Clover |165 |23. 2| 59. 8|10. 1| 4. 5|19. 3| 6. 0| 8. 4| 4. 9| 2. 5Alsike Clover |160 |24. 0| 39. 7|11. 0| 1. 2|13. 5| 5. 0| 4. 0| 1. 6| 1. 6Crimson Clover |167 |19. 5| 50. 7|11. 7| 4. 3|16. 0| 3. 1| 3. 6| 1. 3| 8. 2Lucern |160 |23. 0| 62. 1|15. 3| 1. 3|26. 2| 3. 3| 5. 5| 3. 7| 3. 8Esparsette |167 |21. 3| 45. 8|13. 0| 1. 5|16. 8| 3. 0| 4. 6| 1. 4| 3. 7Yellow Clover |167 |22. 1| 55. 7|11. 9| 1. 3|32. 6| 2. 1| 4. 3| 1. 0| 1. 5Green Vetch Hay |167 |22. 7| 83. 7|28. 3| 5. 6|22. 8| 5. 4|10. 7| 2. 8| 4. 9Green Pea Hay |167 |22. 9| 62. 4|23. 2| 2. 3|15. 6| 6. 3| 6. 8| 5. 1| 0. 9Spurry |167 |19. 2| 56. 8|19. 9| 4. 6|10. 9| 6. 9| 8. 4| 2. 0| 0. 8 II. --GREEN FODDER. Meadow Grass |700 | 5. 4| 18. 1| 4. 6| 0. 8| 3. 0| 1. 1| 1. 5| 0. 8| 4. 9 in bloom | | | | | | | | | |Young Grass |800 | 5. 6| 20. 7|11. 6| 0. 4| 2. 2| 0. 6| 2. 2| 0. 8| 2. 1Rye Grass |734 | 5. 7| 20. 4| 7. 2| 0. 7| 1. 5| 0. 4| 2. 2| 0. 8| 6. 5Timothy Grass |700 | 5. 4| 21. 6| 7. 4| 0. 5| 1. 6| 0. 7| 2. 5| 0. 6| 7. 7Rye-Fodder |760 | 5. 3| 16. 3| 6. 3| 0. 1| 1. 2| 0. 5| 2. 4| 0. 2| 5. 2Green Oats |810 | 3. 7| 18. 8| 7. 5| 0. 6| 1. 2| 0. 6| 1. 7| 0. 6| 5. 7Green Corn-Fodder |822 | 1. 9| 12. 0| 4. 3| 0. 5| 1. 6| 1. 4| 1. 3| 0. 4| 1. 7Sorghum |773 | 4. 0| 13. 0| 3. 6| 1. 8| 1. 2| 0. 5| 0. 8| 0. 4| 3. 7Moharhay |700 | 5. 9| 13. 9| 5. 0| 0. 3| 1. 4| 1. 3| 0. 8| 0. 5| 3. 9Red Clover |780 | 5. 1| 13. 7| 4. 4| 0. 3| 4. 8| 1. 5| 1. 4| 0. 4| 0. 3 in blossom | | | | | | | | | | ” ” | | | | | | | | | | before ” |830 | 5. 3| 14. 5| 5. 3| 0. 3| 4. 2| 1. 5| 1. 7| 0. 3| 0. 4White Clover |805 | 5. 6| 13. 6| 2. 3| 1. 0| 4. 4| 1. 4| 1. 9| 1. 1| 0. 6Alsike Clover |820 | 5. 3| 8. 8| 2. 4| 0. 3| 3. 0| 1. 1| 0. 9| 0. 4| 0. 4Crimson Clover |815 | 4. 3| 12. 2| 2. 8| 1. 0| 3. 8| 0. 7| 0. 9| 0. 3| 2. 0Lucern |740 | 7. 2| 18. 7| 4. 6| 0. 4| 7. 9| 1. 0| 1. 6| 1. 1| 1. 1Esparsette |800 | 5. 1| 12. 1| 3. 4| 0. 4| 4. 4| 0. 8| 1. 2| 0. 4| 1. 0Yellow Clover |830 | 4. 5| 14. 7| 3. 2| 0. 3| 8. 6| 0. 6| 1. 1| 0. 3| 0. 4Green Vetch |820 | 5. 6| 18. 1| 6. 1| 1. 2| 4. 9| 1. 2| 2. 3| 0. 6| 1. 1Green Peas |815 | 5. 1| 13. 9| 5. 1| 0. 5| 3. 5| 1. 4| 1. 5| 1. 1| 0. 2Green Rape |870 | 4. 6| 12. 2| 4. 0| 0. 4| 2. 7| 0. 5| 1. 4| 1. 7| 0. 6Spurry |800 | 3. 7| 12. 2| 4. 3| 1. 0| 2. 3| 1. 5| 1. 8| 0. 4| 0. 2 III. --ROOT CROPS. Potatoes |750 | 3. 4| 9. 4| 5. 7| 0. 2| 0. 2| 0. 4| 1. 6| 0. 6| 0. 2Jerusalem |800 | 3. 2| 9. 8| 4. 7| 1. 0| 0. 3| 0. 3| 1. 4| 0. 5| 1. 0 Artichoke | | | | | | | | | |Mangel-wurzel |880 | 1. 8| 7. 5| 4. 1| 1. 2| 0. 3| 0. 3| 0. 6| 0. 2| 0. 2Sugar Beets |815 | 1. 6| 7. 1| 3. 9| 0. 7| 0. 4| 0. 5| 0. 8| 0. 3| 0. 1Turnips |920 | 1. 8| 7. 3| 3. 3| 0. 7| 0. 8| 0. 3| 0. 9| 0. 8| 0. 1Carrots |850 | 2. 2| 7. 8| 2. 8| 1. 7| 0. 9| 0. 4| 1. 0| 0. 5| 0. 2Russia Turnips |870 | 2. 1| 11. 6| 4. 7| 1. 2| 1. 3| 0. 3| 1. 7| 1. 5| 0. 1Succory |800 | 2. 5| 6. 7| 2. 6| 1. 1| 0. 5| 0. 3| 0. 8| 0. 5| 0. 3Sugar Beet, upper | | | | | | | | | | part of root |840 | 2. 0| 9. 6| 2. 8| 2. 3| 0. 9| 1. 1| 1. 2| 0. 7| 0. 2 IV. --LEAVES & STEMS OF ROOT CROPS. Potato Vines, |770 | 4. 9| 19. 7| 4. 3| 0. 4| 6. 4| 3. 3| 1. 6| 1. 3| 0. 9 nearly ripe | | | | | | | | | |Potato Vines, | | | | | | | | | | unripe |825 | 6. 3| 16. 5| 4. 4| 0. 3| 5. 1| 2. 4| 1. 2| 0. 8| 1. 2Jerusalem | | | | | | | | | | Artichoke |800 | 5. 3| 14. 5| 3. 1| 0. 2| 5. 0| 1. 3| 0. 7| 0. 2| 3. 6Mangel-wurzel |905 | 3. 0| 14. 1| 4. 1| 2. 9| 1. 6| 1. 3| 0. 8| 0. 8| 0. 5Sugar Beets |897 | 3. 0| 8. 1| 6. 5| 2. 7| 2. 7| 2. 7| 1. 3| 0. 9| 0. 7Turnips |898 | 3. 0| 11. 9| 2. 8| 1. 1| 3. 9| 0. 5| 0. 9| 1. 1| 0. 5Carrots |822 | 5. 1| 26. 0| 2. 9| 5. 2| 8. 5| 0. 9| 1. 2| 2. 0| 2. 9Succory |850 | 3. 5| 16. 5| 4. 3| 2. 9| 3. 2| 0. 4| 1. 0| 1. 4| 0. 6Russia Turnips |850 | 4. 6| 25. 3| 3. 7| 1. 0| 8. 4| 1. 0| 2. 6| 3. 0| 2. 6Cabbage, white |890 | 2. 4| 16. 0| 6. 3| 0. 9| 3. 1| 0. 6| 1. 4| 2. 4| 0. 2Cabbage Stems |820 | 1. 8| 11. 6| 5. 1| 0. 6| 1. 3| 0. 5| 2. 4| 0. 9| 0. 2 V. --MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS & REFUSE. Wheat Bran |131 |22. 4| 53. 5|14. 3| 0. 2| 1. 7| 8. 8|27. 3| 0. 1| 0. 5Rye Bran |125 |23. 2| 71. 4|19. 3| 1. 0| 2. 5|11. 3|34. 3| . . | 1. 4Barley Bran |120 |23. 7| 48. 4| 8. 1| 0. 7| 1. 8| 3. 0| 8. 9| 0. 9| 23. 6Oat Hulls |140 | . . | 34. 7| 4. 9| 0. 3| 1. 4| 1. 0| 1. 6| 1. 3| 23. 3Pea Bran |140 | . . | 22. 7|10. 3| 0. 2| 4. 1| 2. 2| 3. 1| 0. 9| 0. 9Buckwheat Bran |140 |27. 2| 34. 6|11. 2| 0. 7| 3. 4| 4. 6|12. 5| 1. 0| 0. 7Wheat Flour |136 |18. 9| 7. 2| 2. 6| 0. 1| 0. 2| 0. 4| 3. 7| . . | . . Rye Flour |142 |16. 8| 16. 9| 6. 5| 0. 3| 0. 2| 1. 4| 8. 5| . . | . . Barley Meal |140 |16. 0| 20. 0| 5. 8| 0. 5| 0. 6| 2. 7| 9. 5| 0. 6| . . Corn Meal |140 |16. 0| 5. 9| 1. 7| 0. 2| 0. 4| 0. 9| 2. 6| . . | . . Green Malt |475 |10. 4| 14. 6| 2. 5| . . | 9. 5| 1. 2| 5. 3| . . | 4. 8Dry Malt | 75 |16. 0| 26. 6| 4. 6| . . | 1. 0| 2. 2| 9. 7| . . | 8. 8Brewer’s Grains |766 | 7. 8| 11. 7| 0. 5| 0. 1| 1. 3| 1. 0| 4. 1| . . | 4. 6Beer |900 | . . | 6. 2| 2. 1| 0. 6| 0. 2| 0. 4| 2. 0| 0. 2| 0. 6Malt-sprouts | 80 |36. 8| 66. 7|20. 6| 1. 2| 1. 9| 1. 8|18. 0| 2. 9| 14. 7Potato Fibre |850 | 1. 3| 1. 8| 0. 3| . . | 0. 9| 0. 1| 0. 4| . . | 0. 1Potato Slump |948 | 1. 6| 5. 0| 2. 2| 0. 4| 0. 3| 0. 4| 1. 0| 0. 4| 0. 2Sugar-beet Pomace |700 | 2. 9| 11. 4| 3. 9| 0. 9| 2. 6| 0. 7| 1. 1| 0. 4| 0. 9Clarifying Refuse |948 | 0. 8| 3. 3| 0. 3| 0. 1| 1. 1| 0. 2| 0. 2| 0. 1| 0. 7Sugar-beet | | | | | | | | | | Molasses |172 |12. 8| 82. 3|57. 5|10. 0| 4. 7| 0. 3| 0. 5| 1. 7| 0. 3Molasses Slump |920 | 3. 2| 14. 0|11. 0| 1. 5| 0. 2| . . | 0. 1| 0. 2| . . Rape-cake |150 |48. 5| 54. 6|12. 4| 1. 8| 6. 8| 7. 0|19. 2| 3. 2| 2. 8Linseed Oil-cake |115 |45. 3| 50. 8|12. 4| 0. 7| 4. 3| 8. 1|16. 1| 1. 6| 6. 4Poppy-cake |100 |52. 0| 76. 9| 2. 3| 2. 3|27. 0| 6. 2|31. 2| 1. 9| 4. 5Beech-nut-cake |100 |38. 1| 43. 3| 6. 5| 4. 6|13. 2| 3. 6| 9. 7| 0. 6| 0. 8Walnut-cake |137 |55. 3| 46. 2|14. 3| . . | 3. 1| 5. 6|20. 2| 0. 6| 0. 7Cotton-seed-cake |115 |39. 0| 58. 4|14. 6| . . | 2. 7| 8. 9|28. 1| 0. 7| 2. 3Cocoanut-cake |127 |37. 4| 55. 1|22. 4| 1. 3| 2. 6| 1. 6|14. 9| 2. 1| 1. 9Palm-oil-cake |100 |25. 9| 26. 1| 5. 0| 0. 2| 3. 1| 4. 5|11. 0| 0. 5| 0. 8 VI. STRAW. Winter Wheat |143 | 4. 8| 46. 1| 6. 3| 0. 6| 2. 7| 1. 1| 2. 2| 1. 1| 31. 2Winter Spelt |143 | 4. 0| 50. 1| 5. 2| 0. 3| 2. 9| 1. 2| 2. 6| 1. 2| 36. 0Winter Rye |143 | 4. 0| 40. 5| 7. 8| 0. 9| 3. 5| 1. 1| 2. 1| 1. 1| 22. 9Spring Wheat |143 | 5. 6| 38. 1|11. 0| 1. 0| 2. 6| 0. 9| 2. 0| 1. 2| 18. 2Spring Rye |143 | 5. 6| 46. 6|11. 2| . . | 4. 2| 1. 8| 3. 0| 1. 2| 26. 1Barley |143 | 6. 4| 41. 3| 9. 4| 1. 7| 3. 2| 1. 1| 1. 9| 1. 5| 21. 5Oats |143 | 5. 6| 40. 4| 8. 9| 1. 2| 3. 6| 1. 6| 1. 9| 1. 3| 19. 6Indian Corn-stalks|150 | 4. 8| 41. 9| 9. 6| 6. 1| 4. 0| 2. 6| 5. 3| 1. 2| 11. 7Buckwheat Straw |160 |13. 0| 51. 7|24. 2| 1. 1| 9. 5| 1. 9| 6. 1| 2. 7| 2. 9Pea Straw |160 |10. 4| 44. 0|10. 1| 1. 8|16. 2| 3. 5| 3. 5| 2. 7| 3. 0Field Bean |160 |16. 3| 43. 9|18. 5| 1. 1| 9. 8| 3. 3| 3. 2| 1. 6| 3. 2Garden Bean |160 | . . | 40. 0|12. 8| 3. 2|11. 1| 2. 5| 3. 9| 1. 7| 1. 9Common Vetch |160 |12. 0| 44. 1| 6. 3| 6. 9|15. 6| 3. 7| 2. 7| 3. 3| 3. 6Lupine |160 | 9. 4| 41. 4| 8. 0| 2. 6|14. 8| 3. 6| 3. 7| 3. 0| 2. 1Rape |160 | 5. 6| 40. 8|11. 1| 3. 8|11. 6| 2. 5| 2. 4| 3. 1| 2. 6Poppy |160 | . . | 48. 7|18. 4| 0. 6|14. 7| 3. 1| 1. 6| 2. 5| 5. 5 VII. CHAFF. Winter Wheat |143 | 7. 2| 92. 5| 8. 5| 1. 7| 1. 8| 1. 2| 4. 0| . . | 75. 1Spring Wheat |143 | 7. 5|121. 4| 4. 8| 1. 0| 4. 0| 1. 5| 3. 1| 0. 7|105. 3Winter Spelt |143 | 5. 6| 82. 7| 7. 9| 0. 2| 2. 0| 2. 1| 6. 1| 1. 9| 61. 3Winter Rye |143 | 5. 8| 84. 0| 5. 3| 0. 3| 3. 5| 1. 2| 5. 6| 0. 1| 69. 2Barley Awns |143 | 4. 8|120. 0| 9. 4| 1. 2|12. 7| 1. 6| 2. 4| 3. 7| 86. 6Oats |143 | 6. 4| 71. 2| 4. 6| 2. 9| 4. 0| 1. 5| 1. 3| 3. 5| 50. 4Indian Corn-cobs |140 | 2. 3| 4. 6| 2. 4| 0. 1| 0. 2| 0. 2| 0. 2| 0. 1| 1. 3Field Beans |150 |16. 8| 54. 5|35. 3| 1. 3| 6. 8| 5. 9| 2. 7| 1. 2| 0. 3Lupine |143 | 7. 2| 18. 1| 8. 7| 0. 7| 3. 6| 1. 5| 1. 1| 0. 5| 0. 9Rape |140 | 6. 4| 73. 2|11. 8| 4. 4|36. 3| 4. 2| 3. 4| 7. 3| 1. 0Flax-seed hulls |120 | . . | 54. 7|15. 4| 3. 0|15. 4| 3. 3| 4. 5| 3. 4| 5. 0 VIII. COMMERCIAL PLANTS, ETC. Flax Stems |140 | . . | 30. 4| 9. 4| 2. 5| 6. 8| 2. 0| 4. 0| 2. 0| 1. 7Rotted Flax Stems |100 | . . | 7. 0| 0. 3| 0. 2| 3. 6| 0. 2| 0. 8| 0. 2| 1. 3Flax Fibre |100 | . . | 6. 8| 0. 3| 0. 3| 3. 6| 0. 3| 0. 7| 0. 3| 0. 8Hemp Stems |150 | . . | 33. 2| 4. 6| 0. 7|20. 3| 2. 4| 2. 3| 0. 7| 3. 5Hops, entire plant|140 | . . | 81. 4|20. 1| 2. 8|18. 1| 6. 4| 7. 5| 3. 7| 16. 4Hops |120 | . . | 66. 8|23. 0| 1. 4|11. 1| 3. 7|11. 2| 2. 4| 11. 1Hop Stems |160 | . . | 40. 7|11. 4| 1. 7|12. 6| 2. 7| 4. 4| 1. 3| 3. 4Tobacco Leaves |180 | . . |151. 0|30. 3| 5. 1|62. 8|17. 7| 4. 8| 5. 8| 13. 5Wine and Must |866 | . . | 2. 1| 1. 3| . . | 0. 1| 0. 1| 0. 4| 0. 1| . . Wine-grounds |650 | . . | 13. 9| 6. 1| 0. 2| 2. 9| 0. 7| 2. 5| 0. 6| 0. 2Grape Stems, etc. |550 | . . | 13. 0| 4. 0| 1. 4| 4. 5| 0. 7| 1. 6| 0. 3| 0. 2Mulberry Leaves |850 | . . | 16. 3| 3. 9| 0. 2| 5. 4| 1. 0| 1. 3| 0. 3| 4. 1 IX. MATERIALS FOR BEDDING. Reed |180 | . . | 36. 7| 6. 8| 0. 2| 3. 3| 1. 1| 2. 3| 0. 6| 20. 0Sedge Grass |140 | . . | 61. 2|17. 7| 4. 9| 4. 2| 2. 9| 4. 6| 2. 3| 20. 3Rush |140 | . . | 48. 1|19. 0| 3. 1| 3. 6| 3. 1| 4. 3| 1. 3| 6. 8Beech Leaves, | | | | | | | | | | August |560 | . . | 19. 0| 3. 7| 0. 4| 6. 4| 1. 4| 1. 8| 0. 4| 3. 8 ” ” | | | | | | | | | | Autumn |150 | 8. 0| 58. 5| 2. 3| 0. 4|26. 4| 3. 5| 2. 4| 2. 1| 19. 7Oak Leaves, | | | | | | | | | | August |550 | . . | 15. 8| 5. 4| . . | 4. 1| 2. 1| 1. 9| 0. 4| 0. 7 ” ” | | | | | | | | | | Autumn |150 | 8. 0| 41. 7| 1. 4| 0. 3|20. 3| 1. 7| 3. 5| 1. 8| 12. 9Fir Needles |475 | 5. 0| 18. 4| 1. 0| 0. 3| 6. 1| 1. 1| 1. 0| 0. 4| 6. 3Pine ” |450 | . . | 32. 0| 0. 6| 0. 1| 4. 3| 0. 5| 1. 4| 0. 6| 22. 6Moss |250 | . . | 19. 2| 2. 6| 1. 6| 2. 2| 1. 1| 0. 9| 1. 0| 5. 5Fern |250 | . . | 50. 7|18. 0| 2. 1| 6. 2| 3. 5| 4. 2| 1. 8| 10. 3Heath |200 |10. 0| 16. 6| 2. 1| 1. 1| 3. 6| 1. 6| 1. 1| 0. 7| 4. 9Broom |250 | . . | 13. 6| 4. 8| 0. 3| 2. 2| 1. 6| 1. 1| 0. 4| 1. 3Sea-Weed |150 |14. 0|122. 3|15. 9|28. 1|16. 7|10. 0| 3. 8|26. 3| 2. 5 X. GRAINS AND SEEDS. Winter Wheat |144 |20. 8| 16. 9| 5. 3| 0. 4| 0. 6| 2. 0| 7. 9| 0. 1| 0. 4Spring Wheat |143 |20. 5| 18. 3| 5. 5| 0. 4| 0. 5| 2. 2| 8. 9| 0. 3| 0. 3Spelt, | | | | | | | | | | without husk |143 |22. 0| 14. 2| 5. 1| 0. 5| 0. 4| 1. 7| 6. 0| . . | 0. 2Spelt, with husk |148 |16. 0| 36. 6| 5. 7| 0. 4| 1. 0| 2. 4| 7. 6| 1. 1| 17. 1Winter Rye |143 |17. 6| 17. 9| 5. 6| 0. 3| 0. 5| 2. 1| 8. 4| 0. 2| 0. 4Winter Barley |145 |16. 0| 17. 0| 2. 6| 0. 7| 0. 2| 2. 1| 5. 6| 0. 5| 4. 9Spring Barley |143 |16. 0| 22. 2| 4. 5| 0. 6| 0. 6| 1. 9| 7. 7| 0. 4| 6. 1Oats |143 |19. 2| 27. 0| 4. 4| 0. 6| 1. 0| 1. 9| 6. 2| 0. 4| 12. 8Millet |140 |20. 3| 29. 8| 3. 4| 0. 4| 0. 2| 2. 9| 5. 9| 0. 1| 15. 8Indian Corn |144 |16. 0| 13. 0| 3. 7| 0. 2| 0. 3| 2. 0 5. 9| 0. 2| 0. 2Sorghum |140 | . . | 16. 0| 3. 3| 0. 5| 0. 2| 2. 4| 8. 1| . . | 1. 2Buckwheat |140 |14. 4| 11. 8| 2. 7| 0. 7| 0. 5| 1. 5| 5. 7| 0. 2| 0. 1Peas |143 |35. 8| 23. 5| 9. 8| 0. 2| 1. 2| 1. 9| 8. 6| 0. 8| 0. 2Field Beans |145 |40. 8| 30. 7|13. 1| 0. 4| 1. 5| 2. 2|11. 9| 0. 8| 0. 2Garden Beans |150 |39. 0| 27. 4|12. 0| 0. 4| 1. 8| 2. 0| 9. 7| 1. 1| 0. 2Vetch |143 |44. 0| 26. 8| 8. 1| 2. 1| 2. 1| 2. 4|10. 0| 1. 0| 0. 3Lupine |130 |56. 6| 34. 1|10. 2| 0. 1| 3. 0| 4. 0|14. 3| 1. 5| 0. 2Red Clover |150 |30. 5| 38. 3|13. 5| 0. 4| 2. 5| 4. 9|14. 5| 0. 9| 0. 5White Clover |150 | . . | 33. 8|12. 3| 0. 2| 2. 5| 3. 9|11. 6| 1. 6| 0. 8Esparsette |160 | . . | 38. 4|11. 0| 1. 1|12. 3| 2. 6| 9. 2| 1. 2| 0. 3Ruta-bagas |140 | . . | 48. 8| 9. 1| 8. 5| 7. 6| 8. 6| 7. 6| 2. 1| 1. 1Sugar-Beet |146 | . . | 45. 3|11. 1| 4. 2|10. 2| 7. 3| 7. 5| 2. 0| 0. 8Carrots |120 | . . | 74. 8|14. 3| 3. 5|29. 1| 5. 0|11. 8| 4. 2| 4. 0Succory |130 | . . | 54. 6| 6. 5| 4. 6|17. 3| 5. 9|16. 5| 2. 4| 0. 6Turnips |125 | . . | 34. 6| 7. 6| 0. 4| 6. 1| 3. 1|14. 0| 2. 5| 0. 2Rape |118 |31. 2| 39. 1| 9. 6| 0. 6| 5. 5| 4. 6|16. 5| 0. 9| 0. 5Summer-Rape |120 | . . | 34. 9| 7. 7| . . | 5. 2| 4. 7|14. 9| 2. 3| . . Mustard |130 | . . | 36. 5| 5. 9| 2. 0| 7. 0| 3. 7|14. 6| 1. 8| 0. 9Poppy |147 |28. 0| 52. 9| 7. 2| 0. 5|18. 7| 5. 0|16. 6| 1. 0| 1. 7Linseed |118 |32. 8| 32. 6|10. 0| 0. 7| 2. 6| 4. 7|13. 5| 0. 8| 0. 4Hemp |122 |26. 1| 45. 3| 9. 4| 0. 4|10. 9| 2. 6|16. 9| 0. 1| 5. 5Grape-Seeds |110 | . . | 25. 0| 7. 2| . . | 8. 4| 2. 1| 6. 0| 0. 6| 0. 3Horse-chestnuts, |492 |10. 2| 12. 0| 7. 1| . . | 1. 4| 0. 1| 2. 7| 0. 3| 0. 3 fresh | | | | | | | | | |Acorns, fresh |560 | . . | 9. 6| 6. 2| 0. 1| 0. 7| 0. 5| 1. 4| 0. 4| 0. 1 XI. VARIOUS ANIMAL PRODUCTSCows’ Milk |875 | 5. 1| 6. 2| 1. 5| 0. 6| 1. 3| 0. 2| 1. 7| . . | . . Sheep |860 | 5. 5| 8. 4| 1. 8| 0. 3| 2. 5| 0. 1| 3. 0| 0. 1| 0. 2Cheese |450 |45. 3| 67. 4| 2. 5|26. 6| 6. 9| 0. 2|11. 5| . . | . . Ox-blood |790 |32. 0| 7. 5| 0. 6| 3. 4| 0. 1| 0. 1| 0. 4| 0. 2| 0. 1Calf-blood |800 |29. 0| 7. 1| 0. 8| 2. 9| 0. 1| 0. 1| 0. 6| 0. 1| . . Sheep-blood |790 |32. 0| 7. 5| 0. 5| 3. 3| 0. 1| 0. 1| 0. 4| 0. 1| . . Swine-blood |800 |29. 0| 7. 1| 1. 5| 2. 2| 0. 1| 0. 1| 0. 9| 0. 1| . . Ox-flesh |770 |36. 0| 12. 6| 5. 2| . . | 0. 2| 0. 4| 4. 3| 0. 4| 0. 3Calf flesh |780 |34. 9| 12. 0| 4. 1| 1. 0| 0. 2| 0. 2| 5. 8| . . | 0. 1Swine-flesh |740 |34. 7| 10. 4| 3. 9| 0. 5| 0. 8| 0. 5| 4. 6| . . | . . Living Ox |597 |26. 6| 46. 6| 1. 7| 1. 4|20. 8| 0. 6|18. 6| . . | 0. 1Living Calf |662 |25. 0| 38. 0| 2. 4| 0. 6|16. 3| 0. 5|13. 8| . . | 0. 1Living Sheep |591 |22. 4| 31. 7| 1. 5| 1. 4|13. 2| 0. 4|12. 8| . . | 0. 2Living Swine |528 |20. 0| 21. 6| 1. 8| 0. 2| 9. 2| 0. 4| 8. 8| . . | . . Eggs |672 |21. 8| 61. 8| 1. 5| 1. 4|54. 0| 1. 0| 3. 7| 0. 1| 0. 1Wool, washed |120 |94. 4| 9. 7| 1. 8| 0. 3| 2. 4| 0. 6| 0. 3| . . | 2. 5Wool, unwashed |150 |54. 0| 98. 8|74. 6| 1. 9| 4. 2| 1. 6| 1. 1| 4. 0| 3. 0------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----- B. --AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF VARIOUS MANURES. W Water. OS Organic Substance. A Ash. N Nitrogen. P Potash. S Soda. L Lime. M Magnesia. PhA Phosphoric Acid. SA Sulphuric Acid. S&S Silica and Sand. C&F Chlorine and Florine. ------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----Name of | | | | | | | | | | | |Fertilizer. | W | OS | A | N | P | S | L | M | PhA| SA |S&S |C&F------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----I. --Animal Excrements. | | | | | | | | |(In 1000 parts of Manure. ) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fresh Fæces:| | | | | | | | | | | | Horse |757 |211 | 31. 6| 4. 4| 3. 5| 0. 6| 1. 5|1. 2| 3. 5| 0. 6|19. 6| 0. 2 Cattle |838 |145 | 17. 2| 2. 9| 1. 0| 0. 2| 3. 4|1. 3| 1. 7| 0. 4| 7. 2| 0. 2 Sheep |655 |314 | 31. 1| 5. 5| 1. 5| 1. 0| 4. 6|1. 5| 3. 1| 1. 4|17. 5| 0. 3 Swine |820 |150 | 30. 0| 6. 0| 2. 6| 2. 5| 0. 9|1. 0| 4. 1| 0. 4|15. 0| 0. 3Fresh Urine: | | | | | | | | | | | Horse |901 | 71 | 28. 0|15. 5|15. 0| 2. 5| 4. 5|2. 4| . . | 0. 6| 0. 8| 1. 5 Cattle |938 | 35 | 27. 4| 5. 8| 4. 9| 6. 4| 0. 1|0. 4| . . | 1. 3| 0. 3| 3. 8 Sheep |872 | 83 | 45. 2|19. 5|22. 6| 5. 4| 1. 6|3. 4| 0. 1| 3. 0| 0. 1| 6. 5 Swine |967 | 28 | 15. 0| 4. 3| 8. 3| 2. 1| . . |0. 8| 0. 7| 0. 8| . . | 2. 3Fresh Dung (with straw:)* | | | | | | | | | Horse |713 |254 | 32. 6| 5. 8| 5. 3| 1. 0| 2. 1|1. 4| 2. 8| 0. 7|17. 7| 0. 4 Cattle |775 |203 | 21. 8| 3. 4| 4. 0| 1. 4| 3. 1|1. 1| 1. 6| 0. 6| 8. 5| 1. 0 Sheep |646 |318 | 35. 6| 8. 3| 6. 7| 2. 2| 3. 3|1. 8| 2. 3| 1. 5|14. 7| 1. 7 Swine |724 |250 | 25. 6| 4. 5| 6. 0| 2. 0| 0. 8|0. 9| 1. 9| 0. 8|10. 8| 1. 7Common Barn-yard Manure: | | | | | | | | | Fresh |710 |246 | 44. 1| 4. 5| 5. 2| 1. 5| 5. 7|1. 4| 2. 1| 1. 2|12. 5| 1. 5 Moderately| | | | | | | | | | | | rotted |750 |192 | 58. 0| 5. 0| 6. 3| 1. 9| 7. 0|1. 8| 2. 6| 1. 6|16. 8| 1. 9 Thoroughly| | | | | | | | | | | | rotted |790 |145 | 65. 0| 5. 8| 5. 0| 1. 3| 8. 8|1. 8| 3. 0| 1. 3|17. 0| 1. 6Drainage from Barn-yard | | | | | | | | | Manure |982 | 7 | 10. 7| 1. 5| 4. 9| 1. 0| 0. 3|0. 4| 0. 1| 0. 7| 0. 2| 1. 2Human Fæces, | | | | | | | | | | | | fresh |772 |198 | 29. 9|10. 0| 2. 5| 1. 6| 6. 2|3. 6|10. 9| 0. 8| 1. 9| 0. 4 ” Urine, | | | | | | | | | | | | ” |963 | 24 | 13. 5| 6. 0| 2. 0| 4. 6| 0. 2|0. 2| 1. 7| 0. 4| . . | 5. 0Mixed human excrements, | | | | | | | | | fresh |933 | 51 | 16. 0| 7. 0| 2. 1| 3. 8| 0. 9|0. 6| 2. 6| 0. 5| 0. 2| 4. 0Mixed human excrements, mostly | | | | | | | | liquid |955 | 30 | 15. 0| 3. 5| 2. 0| 3. 0| 1. 0|0. 6| 2. 8| 0. 4| 0. 2| 4. 3Dove Manure, | | | | | | | | | | | | fresh |519 |308 |173. 0|17. 6|10. 0| 0. 7|16. 0|5. 0|17. 8| 3. 3|20. 2| . . Hen ” ” |560 |255 |185. 0|16. 3| 8. 5| 1. 0|24. 0|7. 4|15. 4| 4. 5|35. 2| . . Duck ” ” |566 |262 |172. 0|10. 0| 6. 2| 0. 5|17. 0|3. 5|14. 0| 3. 5|28. 0| . . Geese ” ” |771 |134 | 95. 0| 5. 5| 9. 5| 1. 3| 8. 4|2. 0| 5. 4| 1. 4|14. 0| . . | | | | | | | | | | | |II. --Commercial Manures. | | | | | | | | |(In 100 parts of Fertilizer. ) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Peruvian | | | | | | | | | | | | Guano |14. 8|51. 4| 33. 8|13. 0| 2. 3| 1. 4|11. 0|1. 2|13. 0| 1. 0| 1. 7| 1. 3Norway | | | | | | | | | | | | Fish-Guano|12. 6|53. 4| 34. 0| 9. 0| 0. 3| 0. 9|15. 4|0. 6|13. 5| 0. 3| 1. 6| 1. 1Poudrette |24. 0|27. 0| 49. 0| 2. 0| 0. 9| 1. 0|18. 6|0. 5| 2. 1| 1. 0| 5. 4| 1. 5Pulverized Dead | | | | | | | | | | | Animals | 5. 7|56. 9| 37. 4| 6. 5| 0. 3| 0. 8|18. 2|0. 4|13. 9| 1. 0| 1. 7| 0. 2Flesh-Meal |27. 8|56. 6| 15. 6| 9. 7| . . | . . | 7. 0|0. 3| 6. 3| 0. 1| 1. 1| . . Dried Blood |14. 0|79. 0| 7. 0|11. 7| 0. 7| 0. 6| 0. 7|0. 1| 1. 0| 0. 4| 2. 1| 0. 4Horn-Meal and | | | | | | | | | | | Shavings| 8. 5|68. 5| 25. 0|10. 2| . . | . . | 6. 6|0. 3| 5. 5| 0. 9|11. 0| . . Bone-Meal | 6. 0|33. 3| 60. 7| 3. 8| 0. 2| 0. 3|31. 3|1. 0|23. 2| 0. 1| 3. 5| 0. 3Bone-Meal from solid | | | | | | | | | | parts | 5. 0|31. 5| 63. 5| 3. 5| 0. 1| 0. 2|33. 0|1. 0|25. 2| 0. 1| 3. 0| 0. 2Bone-Meal from soft | | | | | | | | | | parts | 7. 0|37. 3| 55. 7| 4. 0| 0. 2| 0. 3|29. 0|1. 0|20. 0| 0. 1| 3. 5| 0. 2Bone-black, before | | | | | | | | | | used | 6. 0|10. 0| 84. 0| 1. 0| 0. 1| 0. 3|43. 0|1. 1|32. 0| 0. 4| 5. 0| . . Bone-black, | | | | | | | | | | | | spent |10. 0| 6. 0| 84. 0| 0. 5| 0. 1| 0. 2|37. 0|1. 1|26. 0| 0. 4|15. 0| . . Bone ash | 6. 0| 3. 0| 91. 0| . . | 0. 3| 0. 6|46. 0|1. 2|35. 4| 0. 4| 6. 5| . . Baker Guano |10. 0| 9. 2| 81. 0| 0. 5| 0. 2| 1. 2|41. 5|1. 5|34. 8| 1. 5| 0. 8| 0. 3Jarvis Guano|11. 8| 8. 2| 80. 0| 0. 4| 0. 4| 0. 3|39. 1|0. 5|20. 6|18. 0| 0. 5| 0. 2Estremadura | | | | | | | | | | | | Apatite | 0. 6| . . | . . | . . | 0. 7| 0. 3|48. 1|0. 1|37. 6| 0. 2| 9. 0| 1. 5Sombrero | | | | | | | | | | | | Phosphate | 8. 5| . . | 91. 5| 0. 1| . . | 0. 8|43. 5|0. 6|35. 0| 0. 5| 1. 0| 0. 6Navassa | | | | | | | | | | | | Phosphate | 2. 6| 5. 4| 92. 0| 0. 1| . . | . . |37. 5|0. 6|33. 2| 0. 5| 5. 0| 0. 1Nassau Phosphorite, | | | | | | | | | | rich | 2. 6| . . | 97. 4| . . | 0. 8| 0. 4|45. 1|0. 2|33. 0| 0. 3| 5. 5| 3. 1Nassau Phosphorite, | | | | | | | | | | medium | 2. 5| . . | 97. 5| . . | 0. 7| 0. 4|40. 1|0. 2|24. 1| . . |20. 8| 1. 5Westphalian Phos-| | | | | | | | | | | phorite | 6. 5| 1. 6| 91. 8| . . | . . | . . |21. 8|0. 9|19. 7| 1. 0|22. 0| 1. 6Hanover Phos- | | | | | | | | | | | phorite | 2. 0| 3. 5| 94. 5| . . | . . | . . |37. 2|0. 2|29. 2| 0. 5| 3. 3| 1. 5Coprolites | 4. 3| . . | 95. 7| . . | 1. 0| 0. 5|45. 4|1. 0|26. 4| 0. 8| 7. 5| 0. 1Sulphate of | | | | | | | | | | | | Ammonia | 4. 0| . . | . . |20. 0| . . | . . | 0. 5| . . | . . |58. 0| 3. 0| 1. 4Nitrate of | | | | | | | | | | | | Soda | 2. 6| . . | . . |15. 5| . . |35. 0| 0. 2| . . | . . | 0. 7| 1. 5| 1. 7Wool-dust and | | | | | | | | | | | offal |10. 0|56. 0| 34. 0| 5. 2| 0. 3| 0. 1| 1. 4|0. 3| 1. 3| 0. 5|29. 0| 0. 2Lime-cake | 6. 5|47. 0| 46. 5| 3. 1| . . | . . |20. 5|2. 4| 3. 0| . . | 8. 0| . . Whale-oil | | | | | | | | | | | | refuse |23. 0|68. 4| 8. 6| 5. 7| . . | . . | 3. 0|0. 2| 2. 3| . . | 3. 0| . . Common Salt | 5. 0| . . | 95. 0| . . | . . |44. 3| 1. 2|0. 2| . . | 1. 4| 2. 0|48. 2Gypsum or | | | | | | | | | | | | Plaster |20. 0| . . | 80. 8| . . | . . | . . |31. 0|0. 1| . . |44. 0| 4. 0| . . Gas-lime | 7. 0| 1. 3| 91. 7| 0. 4| 0. 2| . . |64. 5|1. 5| . . |12. 5| 3. 0| . . Sugar-House | | | | | | | | | | | | Scum |34. 5|24. 5| 41. 0| 1. 2| 0. 2| 0. 6|20. 7|0. 3| 1. 5| 0. 3| 9. 1| 0. 1Leached wood| | | | | | | | | | | | ashes |20. 0| 5. 0| 75. 0| . . | 2. 5| 1. 3|24. 5|2. 5| 6. 0| 0. 3|20. 0| . . Wood-soot | 5. 0|71. 8| 23. 2| 1. 3| 2. 4| 0. 5|10. 0|1. 5| 0. 4| 0. 3| 4. 0| . . Coal-soot | 5. 0|70. 2| 24. 8| 2. 5| 0. 1| . . | 4. 0|1. 5| . . | 1. 7|16. 0| . . Ashes from Deciduous | | | | | | | | | | trees | 5. 0| 5. 0| 90. 0| . . |10. 0| 2. 5|30. 0|5. 0| 6. 5| 1. 6|18. 0| 0. 3Ashes from Evergreen | | | | | | | | | | trees | 5. 0| 5. 0| 90. 0| . . | 6. 0| 2. 0|35. 0|6. 0| 4. 5| 1. 6|18. 0| 0. 3Peat-ashes | 5. 0| . . | 95. 0| . . | 1. 5| 0. 8| ? |1. 5| 0. 6| 1. 3| ? | 0. 2Bituminous | | | | | | | | | | | | coal-ashes| 5. 0| . . | 95. 0| . . | 0. 5| 0. 4| ? |3. 2| 0. 2| 3. 5| ? | . . Anthracite | | | | | | | | | | | | coal-ashes| 5. 0| 5. 0| 90. 0| . . | 0. 1| 0. 1| ? |3. 0| 0. 1| 5. 0| ? | . . | | | | | | | | | | | |III. Superphosphate, from | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Peruvian | | | | | | | | | | | | Guano |16. 0|41. 9| 42. 1|10. 0| 2. 0| 1. 2| 9. 5|1. 0|10. 5|15. 0| 1. 5| 1. 1Baker Guano |15. 0| 6. 2| 78. 8| 0. 3| 0. 1| 0. 8|25. 9|0. 9|21. 8|28. 5| 0. 9| 0. 2Estremadura | | | | | | | | | | | | Apatite |15. 0| . . | 85. 0| . . | 0. 4| 0. 2|28. 2|0. 1|22. 1|28. 5| 5. 3| 0. 9Sombrero | | | | | | | | | | | | Phosphate |15. 0| . . | 85. 0| . . | . . | 0. 5|26. 4|0. 4|20. 2|25. 5| 0. 6| 0. 4Navassa | | | | | | | | | | | | Phosphate |15. 0| 2. 5| 82. 5| . . | . . | ? |17. 0|0. 3|15. 4|19. 5| 2. 3| ?Nassau Phosphorite, | | | | | | | | | | rich |15. 0| . . |85. 0 | . . | 0. 5| 0. 2|26. 5|0. 1|19. 4|25. 5| 3. 2| 1. 8Nassau Phosphorite, | | | | | | | | | | medium |12. 0| . . |88. 0 | . . | 0. 3| 0. 1|24. 2|0. 1|16. 6|19. 5|13. 5| 1. 3Bone-black |15. 0| 8. 0|77. 0 | 0. 3| . . | 0. 1|25. 0|0. 7|16. 2|21. 0| 9. 3| . . Bone-Meal |13. 0|23. 8|63. 2 | 2. 0| 0. 1| 0. 2|22. 4|0. 7|16. 6|19. 5| 2. 5| 0. 2Phospho-guano (manu- | | | | | | | | | | factured. )|15. 5|13. 0|80. 3 | 3. 3| 0. 3| 0. 4|24. 0| . . |20. 5|28. 8| 3. 0| 0. 9------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+---- * It is estimated that in the case of horses, cattle, and swine, one-third of the urine drains away. The following is the amount of wheat-straw used daily as bedding for each animal. Horse, 6 lbs. ; Cattle, 8 lbs. ; Swine, 4 lbs. , and sheep, 0. 6 lbs. 2. --TABLE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF INGREDIENTS IN SOME MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. DS Dry Substance. N Nitrogen. A Ash. P Potash. L Lime. M Magnesia. PhA Phosphoric Acid. ----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Name of Material. | DS | N | A | P | L | M | PhA----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 1. --Brewing. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. 1000 lbs. Barley, contain |855 | 15. 2|22. 23|4. 48 |0. 58 |1. 92 |7. 71 15 ” Hops ” | 13. 2| . . | 1. 00|0. 345|0. 167|0. 056|0. 168 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |Water | . . | . . | 1. 23|0. 852|0. 039|0. 045|0. 234Malt-Sprouts | 33 | 1. 38| 2. 43|0. 749|0. 069|0. 066|0. 653Brewers’ Grains |269 | 8. 74|13. 08|0. 580|1. 474|1. 134|3. 631Spent Hops | 9 | . . | 0. 54|0. 032|0. 160|0. 055|0. 062Yeast | 30 | 2. 94| 2. 27|0. 643|0. 097|0. 185|1. 349Beer | . . | 2. 14| 3. 65|1. 998| . . |0. 484|0. 939 | | | | | | | 2. --Distillery. | | | | | | |a. 1000 lbs. Potatoes, | | | | | | | contain |250 | 3. 2 | 9. 43|5. 69 | 0. 24|0. 44 |1. 63 40 ” Kiln-Malt | 37 | 0. 56| 1. 06|0. 184|0. 040|0. 088|0. 388 20 ” Yeast-Malt | 18. 5| 0. 28| 0. 53|0. 092|0. 020|0. 044|0. 194The Slump, contains |125 | 4. 04|11. 02|5. 966|0. 300|0. 572|2. 212 (b. ) Grain Spirits. | | | | | | |800 lbs. Rye, contain |684 |14. 08|14. 32|4. 501|0. 376|1. 648|6. 710200 ” Kiln-Malt, contain |184 | 2. 82| 5. 12|0. 883|0. 195|0. 429|1. 526 50 ” Yeast-Malt, ” | 46 | 0. 71| 1. 28|0. 221|0. 049|0. 107|0. 382The Slump, contains |443 |17. 61|20. 72|5. 605|0. 620|2. 184|8. 618 | | | | | | | 3. --Yeast Manufacture. | | | | | | |700 lbs. Bruised Rye, | | | | | | | contain |599 |12. 32|12. 53|3. 941|0. 329|1. 444|5. 876300 ” Barley-Malt, ” |276 | 4. 23| 7. 67|1. 325|0. 293|0. 643|2. 801 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |Yeast | 45 | 4. 60| 3. 41|1. 273|0. 192|0. 367|2. 672Grains and Slump |325 |11. 95|16. 79|3. 993|0. 430|1. 720|6. 005 | | | | | | | 4. --Starch Manufacture. | | | | | | |1000 lbs. Potatoes, contain |250 | 3. 20| 9. 43|5. 69 |0. 24 |0. 44 |1. 63The remains in the Fibre | 75 | 0. 60| 0. 51|0. 086|0. 266|0. 042|0. 133 ” ” ” Water | 45 | 2. 60| 8. 89|5. 604| . . |0. 398|1. 497 | | | | | | | 5. --Milling. | | | | | | |1000 lbs. Wheat, contain |857 |20. 80|16. 88|5. 26 |0. 57 |2. 02 |7. 94 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |Flour (77. 5 per cent) |664 |14. 65| 5. 50|1. 980|0. 154|0. 458|2. 862Mill-feed ( 6. 5 ” ) | 58 | 1. 64| 1. 80|0. 648|0. 050|0. 148|0. 936Bran (16. 0 ” ) |135 | 4. 51| 9. 60|2. 762|0. 396|1. 394|4. 102 | | | | | | | 6. --Cheese-Making. | | | | | | |1000 lbs. Milk, contain |125 | 4. 80| 6. 10|1. 505|1. 333|0. 186|1. 735 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |Cheese | 65 | 4. 53| 2. 84|0. 247|0. 687|0. 028|1. 515Whey | 60 | 0. 27| 3. 26|1. 258|0. 646|0. 158|0. 584 | | | | | | | 7. --Beet-Sugar Manufacture. | | | | | |1000 lbs. Roots, contain |184 | 1. 60| 7. 10|3. 914|0. 379|0. 536|0. 780 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |Tops and Tails (12 per cent | | | | | | | of roots) | 19 | 0. 24| 1. 15|0. 336|0. 108|0. 132|0. 144Pomace (15 per cent | | | | | | | of roots) | 46 | 0. 44| 1. 71|0. 585|0. 390|0. 105|0. 165Skimmings (4 per cent | | | | | | | of roots) | 24 | 0. 60| 1. 20|0. 380|8. 640|0. 240|0. 384Molasses (3 per cent | | | | | | | of roots) | 25 | 0. 32| 2. 47|1. 741|0. 141|0. 009|0. 015Sugar and loss | 85 | . . | 0. 57|0. 872| . . |0. 040|0. 072 | | | | | | | 8. Flax Dressing. | | | | | | |1000 lbs. Flax-Stalks, | | | | | | | contain |860 | . . |30. 36|9. 426|6. 751|1. 995|3. 990 Distribution of the Ingredients: | | | | |In the Water |215 | . . |25. 15|9. 175|4. 100|1. 850|3. 400Stems or Husks |460 | . . | 4. 03|0. 171|2. 052|0. 096|0. 474Flax and Tow |155 | . . | 1. 22|0. 054|0. 648|0. 054|0. 126----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- INDEX. Absorptive Powers of Soils, 217Ammonia Absorbed by Soil from the Atmosphere, 219Ammonia and Superphosphate, 242 ” and Weeds, 254 ” Converted into Nitric Acid in the Soil, 313 ” for Oats, 253-254 ” for Potatoes, 261 ” for Wheat, 192-213 ” in Fresh Horse-dung, 96 ” in Limed and Unlimed Soils, 220 ” in the Soil Liberated by Lime, 221 ” Locked Up in the Soil, 221 ” Loss of by Fermenting Manure, 98 ” on Grass Land, 273 ” Potential, 31 ” Quantity of to Produce One Bushel of Wheat, 211-212 ” Required to Produce a Bushel of Barley, 240-242 ” Retained by the Soil, 218 ” Salts, Composition of, 312 ” ” How to Apply, 286-312 ” ” for Private Gardens, 297Anderson, J. M. B. , Letter from, 345Animals, Composition of Manure from Different, 306 ” What They Remove from the Food, 301Apple Trees, Nitrate of Soda for, 314Artificial Manures, Will They Pay, 214Ashes, Burnt Earth, 72 ” Coal, 72 ” for Barley, 241 ” for Indian Corn, 279 ” for Oats, 253 ” for Potatoes, 259 ” of Manure for Wheat, 173 ” on Long Island, 346 ” Plaster and Hen-dung for Potatoes, 255 ” Wood, 104 Barley After Ten Crops of Turnips, 250 ” a Large Yield of, 242 ” and Clover after a heavily-manured Root-crop, 287 ” Best Soil for, 227 ” Cost of Raising With and Without Manure, 245 ” Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, 227 ” Potash Increases the Crop of at Rothamsted, 329 ” Profits of Raising in Poor Seasons, 243 ” Quality and Price of, 242 ” Yield Per Acre, 11Barn-yard Manure, Difference in Quality of, 246Bean-straw for Manure, 48Beets, Sugar, Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, 288 ” ” Manure for, 286Blood, 32Bone-dust, 314 ” ” Composition of Compared with Stable Manure, 316 ” ” Fermented with Manure, 316 ” ” Made into Superphosphate, 319 ” ” on Dairy Farms, 315Bones as Manure, 102Bran, 26 ” for Manure, 102 ” Richer in Plant-food than Wheat, 301Brewer, Prof. W. H. , Letter from, 341 Cabbage and Barn-yard Manure, Composition of, 292 ” Composition of, 290-292 ” Hog and Cow Manure for, 302 ” Lime for, 292 ” Manure for, 275-290 ” Manure for Early and Late, 291 ” Needs a Large Supply of Nitrogen in the Soil. Though it Removes but Little, 293 ” Potash for, 292 ” Special Manure for, 323 ” Yield of per Acre, 291Cattle vs. Sheep as Manure-makers, 303Cheese, from a Ton of Hay, 111 ” Plant-food in, 101 ” versus Beef, 110Clay Retains Ammonia, 219Clover and Indian Corn, 275 ” as a Renovating and Exhausting Crop, 277 ” as Manure, 119-122 ” as Manure for Wheat, 158 ” Does it Get Nitrogen from the Atmosphere, 133-138 ” Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments on, 135 ” for Wheat, 126 ” Gathers Up Manure from the Sub-soil, 287 ” Hay, Composition of, 129-137 ” Hay, English and German, for Manure, 47 ” How to Make a Farm Rich by Growing, 133-163 ” Letting it Rot on the Surface as Manure, 134 ” Nitrogen as a Manure for, 141 ” Pasturing by Sheep versus Mowing for Hay, 137 ” Plowing Under versus Feeding Out, 123 ” Roots, Amount of per Acre, 143-144-155 ” Roots, Composition of, 145-147 ” Seed, Amount of Roots per Acre, 162 ” Water Evaporated by, 132 ” Why it Enriches Land, 131Coal-ashes to Mix with Artificial Manures, 312Composting Cow-manure with Muck, Leaves, etc, 302Compost of Stable-manure and Earth, 342Corn, as a Renovating Crop, 275 ” Ashes for, 279 ” Barn-yard Manure for, 284 ” Cost of Raising, 9 ” Crop, Composition of, 25 ” Experiments on, 279 ” Guano for, 279-284 ” Manure for, 275 ” Meal for Manure, 185 ” Superphosphate for, 279-284 ” Fodder, 275 ” ” vs. Mangel-wurzels, 288 ” ” Plaster for, 277 ” ” vs. Wheat, Yield per acre, 276Cotton-seed Cake, 46-339Cow-manure, 86-100 ” ” and How to Use it, 302 ” ” Composition of, 306Cows, Feeding Grain to, 110-113 ” Feeding in Winter for Manure, 256Crops Best to Apply Manure to, 265 ” How to Get Larger, 28-36 ” Raised and Sold from the Farm, 27 ” Rotation of, 116-168 ” We Must Raise Larger per Acre, 266 ” Why so Poor, 28 Dairy Farms, Bone-dust on, 315Drainage from Barn-yard, 306Dry Earth for Pig Pens, 304 Earth-closet Manure, 310 ” ” ” on Grass, 225 Fallow, Fall, 12 ” for Wheat, How to--Mr. Lawes’ Experiments, 35 ” Summer, for Wheat, 15-34Farm Dairy, Receipts and Expenses of, 109 ” Hon. George Geddes’, 119 ” Hon. Joseph Shull’s, 109 ” John Johnston’s, 76-81-120 ” Mr. Dewey’s, 39 ” Mr. Joseph O. Sheldon’s, 15 ” to Restore a Worn Out, 37Farming, a Poor Business, 9 ” Difference Between High and Good, 11 ” Faith in Good, 14 ” Good Does Not Lead to Over Production, 14 ” Slow Work, 17Fermenting Manure to Kill Weed-Seeds, 97Fish as Manure, 347Food, Nothing Added to it by the Animal, 42 Gardens, Manure for Private, 296Geddes, Hon. George, 17-117Grains, Malt, English and German, 47Grass a Saving’s Bank, 41 ” Importance of Rich, 113 ” Manure for, 120Guano as a Top-dressing for Wheat, 270 ” for Barley, 240 ” for Oats, 253 ” for Peas, 17 ” for Potatoes, 255-258 ” on Wheat, 120-180-184 ” Peruvian, Composition of, 311 ” ” for Onions, 294 ” ” Price and Composition of Now and 30 Y’rs Ago, 327 ” ” Rectified for Turnips, 286 ” ” What it is, 311Gypsum, 104-116-126 ” for Oats, 254 ” for Peas, 17 ” for Potatoes, 255-259 Harison, T. L. , Letter from, 115Hay, Best Manure for, 274 ” Plant-food in, 101Heacock, Joseph, Letter from, 348Henderson, Peter, Letter from, 344Hen Manure, 43-104-301 ” ” for Potatoes, 255High Farming, 12 ” ” versus Good Farming, 11Hops, Manure for, 274Horse-manure, Composition of, 306Hot-beds, Manure for, 297Human Excrements, Composition of, 308 Indian Corn. See Corn. Irrigation on Market Gardens, 295 Jessup, Edward, Letter from, 342Johnson, Prof. S. W. , on the Value of Fertilizers, 324 Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Barley, 227Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Oats, 252Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Permanent Meadows, 271Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on the Amount of Excrements Voided by Man, 309Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Sugar beets and Mangel-wurzels, 288Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Wheat, 170Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments, Potash Beneficial for Barley, 329Lawes’ Table, Showing Composition and Value of Foods, 45Lettuce, Manure for, 289 ” Superphosphate for, 290-293Lewis, Hon. Harris, Letter from, 103Liebig’s Special Manures, 321Lime as Manure, 215 ” Beneficial Effect of for Thirty Years, 216 ” Changes the Chemical and Physical Character of the Soil, 224 ” Composting with Old Sods, 224 ” for Cabbage, 292 ” Hastens the Maturity of the Crop, 222 ” Impoverishes the Soil, 222 ” in Connecticut, 224 ” in Delaware, 223 ” in New Jersey, 223 ” in Pennsylvania, 224 ” Mixed with Barn-yard Manure, 222 ” on Grass Land, 223 ” on Lime-stone Land, 217 ” Quantity per Acre, 216 ” Sets Free Ammonia in the Soil, 221 ” Silicate Absorbs Ammonia from Atmosphere, 219 ” When to Apply, 223 ” Why Beneficial, 220Liquid Manure, 306Lowland, Draining, 30 Malt-combs, 46Mangel-wurzels for Manure, 48 ” ” Manure for, 103-286-288 ” ” Yield per Acre, 11Manure Absorbing Liquid, 115 ” Amount from Feed and Bedding, 78 ” Amount Made by a Horse, 50-346 ” ” Made by Horses, Cows, Sheep, and Pigs, 51 ” Amount Made on a 250-acre Farm, 257 ” Amount of Rain Required to Dissolve, 267 ” Amount of Straw in Horse, 346 ” and Rotation of Crops, 246 ” Applying Artificial, 312 ” Applying Near the Surface, 267 ” Applying on the Surface, 173 ” as Top-dressing, 269 ” Barn-yard for Barley, 240 ” Barn-yard vs. Artificial for Indian Corn, 284 ” Basin for, 92 ” Best for Hay, 274 ” Bone-dust, 314-316 ” Brings in Red Clover, 82 ” Buying, 306 ” Buying by Measure or Weight, 305 ” Buying by the Load or Ton, 306 ” Cellar, 114 ” Cheapest a Farmer Can Use, 127 ” Clover as, 119-122 ” Clover-seed as, 127 ” Comes from the Land, 42 ” Common Salt as, 200 ” Composition of Fresh Barnyard, 51 ” Composition of from Different Animals, 306 ” Composition of Heap at Different Periods, 57 ” Corn-meal for, 185 ” Cost of Hauling, 342 ” Cost of Loading and Drawing, 77 ” Cow, 87-100 ” Dairy-farm, How to Save and Apply, 114 ” Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments on, 51 ” Drawing Out to the Field, 89 ” English Plan of Keeping, 69 ” Equivalent to Water, 296 ” Farm-yard for Potatoes, 261 ” Fermenting in Winter, 85-92-93 ” Fermenting, Shrinkage in, 116 ” Fire-fang, 84-98 ” Fish, as, on Long Island, 347 ” Foods which Make Rich, 45 ” for Cabbage, Parsnips, Onions, Carrots, Lettuce, etc, 289 ” for Corn, 80 ” for Grass, 82 ” for Hops, 274 ” for Hot-beds, 297 ” for Indian Corn, 275 ” for Mangel-wurzels and Sugar-beets, 287 ” for Market Gardens, 294 ” for Oats, 252 ” for Potatoes, 255 ” for Seed-growing Farms, 296 ” for Sorghum or Chinese Sugar-cane, 283 ” for Tobacco, 275 ” for Turnips, 285-322 ” for Wheat, 167 ” from Cows, 302 ” from Earth-closet, 310 ” from Oxen, 303 ” from Pigs, Mr. Lawes’ Experiments, 301 ” from Sheep, 303 ” Grain Farms, Management of, 117 ” Guano, Price of Now and Thirty Years Ago, 328 ” Guano, Rectified Peruvian, 319 ” Gypsum and Clover as, 125 ” Heap, Changes in, 67 ” ” Fermenting, 38 ” ” in Winter, 84 ” ” Piling in Field, 88-89-90 ” ” Turning, 88 ” Hen, 43-104-301 ” Horse, 32-86 ” Horse and Farm-yard, 50 ” How and When it Should be Applied, 267 ” How John Johnston Manages it, 76 ” How Made and Used in Maryland, 349 ” How the Deacon Makes it, 74 ” How to Make, 41 ” How to Make More, 256 ” How to Make More and Better on Dairy Farms, 105 ” How to Make Poor, Rich, 274-293 ” How to Make Richer, 257 ” How Much it Shrinks by Fermentation, 342 ” How Much Nitrogen in a Load of, 306 ” in Kansas, 340 ” in Philadelphia, Interesting Facts, 338 ” Keeping Under Cover, 59 ” Lime as, 215 ” Liquid, 306 ” Management of in Canada, 335 ” Mr. Lawes’ Experiments with, 95 ” Loss from Leaching, 99 ” Management of, 94 ” Market Value of, 104 ” Mixed with Lime, 222 ” Natural, 23 ” Night soil as, 308 ” Nitrate of Soda as, 134 ” Not Available, 95 ” on Dairy Farm, 101 ” on Permanent Meadows and Pastures, 271 ” Preserved by the Soil, 177 ” Pigs’, 86 ” Piling, 116 ” Potash as, 329 ” Price of in Boston, 344 ” ” ” Maryland, 339 ” ” ” New Haven, 341 ” ” ” New York, 334 ” ” per Horse in New York, 336 ” Quantity Made on a Farm, 12 ” Quantity of Used on Long Island. Interesting Statistics, 336 ” Reduced by Fermentation, 297 ” Richer in Plant-food than the Food from which it is Derived, 301 ” Sea-weed as, 337 ” Sheep, 86 ” Should be Broken Up Fine, 268 ” Soluble Phosphates in, 72 ” Special, 140-320 ” Specific Gravity of from Different Animals, 305 ” Spread in Open Yard, 63 ” Stable, Management, 333 ” Straw and Chaff as, 200 ” Superphosphate, How Made, 317 ” Swamp-Muck as, 29 ” Tank, 115 ” the Author’s Plan of Managing, 83 ” Tillage as, 32-121-225 ” Top-dressing for Wheat in Kansas, 350 ” ” ” on Growing Crops, 343 ” to What Crops Should it be Applied, 265 ” Value of, 78 ” Value of Depends on the Food, Not on the Animal, 43 ” Value of Straw as, 123 ” Water in, 124 ” Weeds as, 24 ” Weight of, 343-350 ” Well-rotted, Composition of, 65 ” Well-rotted, Loss from Leaching, 65 ” What is it?, 19-22 ” Why Do We Ferment?, 94Market Gardens, Irrigation in, 295 ” ” Manure for, 294 ” ” Pig-manure on, 295Meadows, Manure for, 271 Night soil, 225-308Nitrate of Potash, 312Nitrate of Soda, 134 ” ” Acts Quicker than Ammonia, 313 ” ” as a Top-dressing for Wheat, 270 ” ” Composition of, 312 ” ” for Apple Trees, 314 ” ” for Barley, 243 ” ” for Oats, 252 ” ” for Onions, 294 ” ” for Sugar-Beets, 289 ” ” for Wheat, 159 ” ” How to Apply, 312Nitric Acid, 341Nitrogen, Amount per Acre in the Soil, 28-162 ” as Manure, 28 ” in Soils, 106-226-336-341 ” Makes Poor Manure Rich, 246Nurserymen, Manure for, 297 Oats, Experiments on in Virginia, 253 ” Experiments on at Moreton Farm, 254 ” Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, 252 ” Manures for, 252Oil-cake for Sheep, 76Onions, Manure for, 294 Peas for Pigs, 17Pea-straw for Manure, 48Peat, Composition of, 31Phosphates, 27 ” Exhaustion of on Dairy Farms, 101 ” Soluble in Barn-yard Manure, 72Phosphoric Acid in Soils, 106-226 ” ” per Acre in Soils, 162 ” ” Retained by the Soil, 219 ” ” Removed from the Farm by Hay, and by Milch Cows, 316Pig Manure, 43-86 ” ” Composition of, 306 ” ” for Cabbage, 302Pigs as Manure-Makers for Market Gardeners, 295Pigs’ Bedding, 31 ” for Enriching Pasture-Land, 304 ” How to Save Manure from, 304 ” Manure from, 301-304Piling Manure, 97Plant-food, 21-105 ” ” Amount of in an Acre, 24-39 ” ” in New and Cultivated Land, 39Plaster for Indian Corn, 277Plowing in the Fall, 17Potash, Amount of in the Soil, 25-329 ” as Manure, 329 ” as Manure for Wheat, 215 ” for Cabbages, 292 ” for Potatoes, 255-260 ” for Potatoes and Root-Crops, 330 ” How to Ascertain when the Soil Needs, 330 ” in Nitrate of Potash, 314 ” Not a Special Manure for Turnips, 322 ” on Grass Land, 273 ” our Soils not so likely to be Deficient in, as of Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid, 330 ” Retained by the Soil, 219 ” Value of in Artificial Manures, 326Potatoes, after Root-Crops, 287 ” Ammonia for, 261 ” Cost of Raising, 10 ” Experiments on at Moreton Farm, 259 ” for Manure, 48 ” How to Raise a Large Crop, 255 ” Manures for, 255 ” Mr. Hunter’s Experiments on in England, 260 ” on Rich Land, 263 ” Profits of Using Artificial Manures on, 263 ” Will Manure Injure, Quality of, 264 Rape-cake, 46 ” ” as Manure for Hops, 274Roots, Amount of Left in Soil by Different Crops, 164Root-crops, 17Rotation of Crops and Manures, 246Rushmore, J. H. , Letter from, 345Routzahn, H. L. , Letter from, 349 Salt as a Manure for Wheat, 270 ” Common as Manure for Wheat, 200 ” for Mangel-wurzels, 104Saw-dust for Bedding, 103Season, a Poor, Profitable for Good Farmers, 213 ” and Manure for Oats, 253 ” Influence of on the Growth of Wheat, 210 ” Profit in Raising Oats in a Poor, 253 ” Profit in Raising Barley in a Poor, 243Seasons, Influence on Crops, 21Seed Growers, Manures for, 296Sewage, 308Sheep-Manure, 303-333-339 ” ” Composition of, 306 ” vs. Oxen as Manure Makers, 303Shelton, Prof. E. M. , Letter from, 350Soil, Composition of, 144-150 ” Exhaustion of, 23-27-332 ” from Earth-closet, 225 ” Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid in, 226 ” Plant-food in, 105 ” Weight of per Acre, 221Soils Absorb Ammonia from Atmosphere, 219 ” Absorptive Powers of, 217Sorghum, Manures for, 283Special Manures, 320Straw, 26 ” Amount of Manure from, 124 ” and Chaff for Manure, 200 ” for Manures, 48 ” on Grain Farms, 118 ” Selling, 123Sturtevant, Dr. E. L. , Letter from, 344Superphosphate, 116 ” for Barley, 241 ” for Indian Corn, 279 ” for Potatoes, 259 ” for Private Gardens, 296 ” for Turnips, 285-322 ” for Wheat, 168-169 ” from Bones, Composition of, 319 ” from Mineral Phosphates, 320 ” How Applied, 320 ” on Dairy Farms, 315 ” on Grass Land, 273 ” Value of as Compared with Bone-Dust, 319 ” What Crops Best for, 243Superphospate of Lime, Doctor Tells How it is Made, 317Superphosphate of Lime, When First Made in the United States, 324Surface Application of Manure, 70-268Swamp-muck, 29 ” ” Composition of, 31Swine, see Pigs. Thomas, J. J. , Remarks on the Application of Manures, 269Tillage is Manure, 32-121-163-225Tobacco, Manure for, 275Top dressing with Manure, 269Turnips, Do They Absorb Nitrogen from the Atmosphere, 250 ” Impoverish the Soil More than Grain, 250 ” Manure for, 285 ” and Wheat, Special Manures for, 321 Urine from Farm Animals Richer than Human, 309 ” vs. Solid Manure, 294 Valuation of Fertilizers, 324 Water, Amount Given Off by Plants During Their Growth, 131Water Equivalent to Manure, 296Weeds, 15-41-189Weed-seeds in Manure, 97Weld, Col. M. C. , Letter from, 344Wheat, Ammonia for, 192 ” Artificial Manures for Should be Drilled in with Seed, 168-169 ” Common Salt as Manure for, 200 ” Crop, Composition of, 26-129-138-340 ” Effect of Manure on, in Poor Season, 213 ” Influence of Season on, 210 ” is it Deteriorating? 189 ” Larger Crops per Acre, 122 ” Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, 140-170-333 ” Manures for, 167 ” Mr. Lawes’ Experiments on, 122 ” Nitrogen as Manure for, 141 ” Plant-food in, 101 ” Potash as Manure for, 215 ” Straw and Chaff as a Manure for, 200 ” Summer Fallowing for, 35-168 ” the 20th Crop on Same Land, 213 ” Top-dressing for, 270 ” vs. Corn, Comparative Yield of, 276 ” Well-rotted Manure for, 267 ” Why Our Crops are so Poor, 214 ” Yield per Acre, 11 * * * * * Sent Free on Application Descriptive Catalog _of_ Rural Books _Containing 128 8vo Pages, Profusely Illustrated, and Giving Full Descriptions of the Best Works on the Following Subjects_ : : : : Farm and Garden Fruits, Flowers, etc. Cattle, Sheep and Swine Dogs, Horses, Riding, etc. Poultry, Pigeons and Bees Angling and Fishing Boating, Canoeing and Sailing Field Sports and Natural History Hunting, Shooting, etc. Architecture and Building Landscape Gardening Household and Miscellaneous Publishers and Importers Orange Judd Company 315-321 Fourth Avenue NEW YORK Books will be Forwarded, Postpaid, on Receipt of Price +Feeding Farm Animals+ By Professor THOMAS SHAW. This book is intended alike for the student and the farmer. The author has succeeded in giving in regular and orderly sequence, and in language so simple that a child can understand it, the principles that govern the science and practice of feeding farm animals. Professor Shaw is certainly to be congratulated on the successful manner in which he has accomplished a most difficult task. His book is unquestionably the most practical work which has appeared on the subject of feeding farm animals. Illustrated. 5½ × 8 inches. Upward of 500 pages. Cloth. $2. 00 +Profitable Dairying+ By C. L. PECK. A practical guide to successful dairy management. The treatment of the entire subject is thoroughly practical, being principally a description of the methods practiced by the author. A specially valuable part of this book consists of a minute description of the far-famed model dairy farm of Rev. J. D. Detrich, near Philadelphia, Pa. On the farm of fifteen acres, which twenty years ago could not maintain one horse and two cows, there are now kept twenty-seven dairy cattle, in addition to two horses. All the roughage, litter, bedding, etc. , necessary for these animals are grown on these fifteen acres, more than most farmers could accomplish on one hundred acres. Illustrated. 5 × 7 inches. 200 pages. Cloth. $0. 75 +Practical Dairy Bacteriology+ By Dr. H. W. CONN, of Wesleyan University. A complete exposition of important facts concerning the relation of bacteria to various problems related to milk. A book for the classroom, laboratory, factory and farm. Equally useful to the teacher, student, factory man and practical dairyman. Fully illustrated with 83 original pictures. 340 pages. Cloth. 5½ × 8 inches. $1. 25 +Modern Methods of Testing Milk and Milk Products+ By L. L. VanSLYKE. This is a clear and concise discussion of the approved methods of testing milk and milk products. All the questions involved in the various methods of testing milk and cream are handled with rare skill and yet in so plain a manner that they can be fully understood by all. The book should be in the hands of every dairyman, teacher or student. Illustrated. 214 pages. 5 × 7 inches. $0. 75 +Animal Breeding+ By THOMAS SHAW. This book is the most complete and comprehensive work ever published on the subject of which it treats. It is the first book which has systematized the subject of animal breeding. The leading laws which govern this most intricate question the author has boldly defined and authoritatively arranged. The chapters which he has written on the more involved features of the subject, as sex and the relative influence of parents, should go far toward setting at rest the wildly speculative views cherished with reference to these questions. The striking originality in the treatment of the subject is no less conspicuous than the superb order and regular sequence of thought from the beginning to the end of the book. The book is intended to meet the needs of all persons interested in the breeding and rearing of live stock. Illustrated. 405 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 50 +Forage Crops Other Than Grasses+ By THOMAS SHAW. How to cultivate, harvest and use them. Indian corn, sorghum, clover, leguminous plants, crops of the brassica genus, the cereals, millet, field roots, etc. Intensely practical and reliable. Illustrated. 287 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 00 +Soiling Crops and the Silo+ By THOMAS SHAW. The growing and feeding of all kinds of soiling crops, conditions to which they are adapted, their plan in the rotation, etc. Not a line is repeated from the Forage Crops book. Best methods of building the silo, filling it and feeding ensilage. Illustrated. 364 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 50 +The Study of Breeds+ By THOMAS SHAW. Origin, history, distribution, characteristics, adaptability, uses, and standards of excellence of all pedigreed breeds of cattle, sheep and swine in America. The accepted text book in colleges, and the authority for farmers and breeders. Illustrated. 371 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 50 +Clovers and How to Grow Them+ By THOMAS SHAW. This is the first book published which treats on the growth, cultivation and treatment of clovers as applicable to all parts of the United States and Canada, and which takes up the entire subject in a systematic way and consecutive sequence. The importance of clover in the economy of the farm is so great that an exhaustive work on this subject will no doubt be welcomed by students in agriculture, as well as by all who are interested in the tilling of the soil. Illustrated. 5 × 7 inches. 337 pages. Cloth. Net. $1. 00 +Land Draining+ A handbook for farmers on the principles and practice of draining, by MANLY MILES, giving the results of his extended experience in laying tile drains. The directions for the laying out and the construction of tile drains will enable the farmer to avoid the errors of imperfect construction, and the disappointment that must necessarily follow. This manual for practical farmers will also be found convenient for reference in regard to many questions that may arise in crop growing, aside from the special subjects of drainage of which it treats. Illustrated. 200 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 00 +Barn Plans and Outbuildings+ Two hundred and fifty-seven illustrations. A most valuable work, full of ideas, hints, suggestions, plans, etc. , for the construction of barns and outbuildings, by practical writers. Chapters are devoted to the economic erection and use of barns, grain barns, horse barns, cattle barns, sheep barns, cornhouses, smokehouses, icehouses, pig pens, granaries, etc. There are likewise chapters on birdhouses, doghouses, tool sheds, ventilators, roofs and roofing, doors and fastenings, workshops, poultry houses, manure sheds, barnyards, root pits, etc. 235 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 00 +Irrigation Farming+ By LUTE WILCOX. A handbook for the practical application of water in the production of crops. A complete treatise on water supply, canal construction, reservoirs and ponds, pipes for irrigation purposes, flumes and their structure, methods of applying water, irrigation of field crops, the garden, the orchard and vineyard, windmills and pumps, appliances and contrivances. New edition, revised, enlarged and rewritten. Profusely illustrated. Over 500 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $2. 00 +Forest Planting+ By H. NICHOLAS JARCHOW, LL. D. A treatise on the care of woodlands and the restoration of the denuded timberlands on plains and mountains. The author has fully described those European methods which have proved to be most useful in maintaining the superb forests of the old world. This experience has been adapted to the different climates and trees of America, full instructions being given for forest planting of our various kinds of soil and subsoil, whether on mountain or valley. Illustrated. 250 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1. 50 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Errors and Anomalies noted by transcriber: Close quotes have been supplied or deleted where unambiguous, andparagraph-ending full stops (periods) have been silently supplied. Noother attempt was made to regularize quotation format or punctuation. The Deacon, the Doctor, the Squire, Charlie _the name is spelled “Charley” everywhere else_it would seem desirable to apply the superphosphate _text reads “superhosphate”_wherever agri-_culture_ is practised. _so in original_Turning over, and fining a manure-heap _word “fining” probably technical term, not error_said the Doctor, “but value. ” “Suppose, Deacon, ” said he _quotation marks as in original (same speaker)_carbonaceous matter and water, of little or no value?” _text has question mark after close quote_It would be a very exceptional case. _word “It” illegible_“7. In the insoluble organic matters _number 7 missing from original; adjacent paragraphs have 6 and 8_would be reduced to 49. 6-10 tons _numeral format as in original: 49-6/10 or 49. 6, though computed total is 49. 508_Dr. Vœlcker draws the following conclusions _text reads “Voelcker” with separate vowels_It is high, rolling land, but needed underdraining. _text reads “under / draining” at line break without hyphen_“Why so?” asked the Deacon. _text has question mark after close quote_and consequently will ferment or putrefy much more rapidly _text reads “putrify”_crenic and apocrenic acids are produced _text reads “aprocrenic”_100 tons of hay lying dormant _text reads “dorment”_endeavor to persuade them to eat more _text reads “persaude”_when we draw deductions from the facts of the case _text reads “the the case”_and I think the mechanical condition of the land _text reads “mechancial”_”In 672 lbs. Of clover-ash, we find: _open quote missing_Organic matter* . .. 64. 76 _text reads “Oganic”_“Now, ” said the Doctor, “. .. In the soil_. ”“There was more clover-roots per acre. .. _unclear whether speaker is the same for both paragraphs (delete close quote) or changes (from the Doctor to Harris)_For the superphosphate of lime, _text reads “superphoshate”_Table VII. --Manures and Produce; 7th Season, 1849-50. 6b | . . | *00 | 200 _first digit of number is missing: probably “300”_Even gold may be bought too dear. _text reads “to dear”_The value of quick-lime as a manure _anomalous hyphen in original_Table IV. --Offal Corn per Acre--lbs. 1 N. |}(94){|283 ‖109 . .. 2 N. |} {|228 ‖286 . .. _double lines as printed: should be one year earlier?_ ]cotton-seed-cake _hyphenation as in original (two occurrences); similarly “Beech-nut-cake”, “Palm-oil-cake” etc. _fish-scrap, woollen-rags, Peruvian guano _hyphens as in original_the plants / came up first, and exhibited a healthy, dark-green _text reads “exhibted”_for sugar-making purposes, or for fodder _text reads “foddder”_ruta-bagas _hyphenation is standard for this text_Isn’t it paying a little too much for the whistle? _text reads “Is’nt”_And this fact ought to be understood _text reads “An this fact” with invisible “d”_The plaintain, which I believe is sometimes sown _spelling “plaintain” as in original_. .. His book on Manure, “Praktische Düngerlehre, ” Dr. Emil Wolff _text reads “Wollf”_ [Index] _Note that the Index uses short dashes where commas would be expected_Crops Best to Apply Manure to _“Crops” entries printed out of sequence, between “Corn” and “Cotton”_Farm Dairy // Mr. Joseph O. Sheldon’s _name in body text is James O. Sheldon_