Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapters I - XXVI

Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXX

Chapter XXXI

Chapter XXXII

Chapter XXXIII


CHAPTER XXVII.

LAWES AND GILBERT’S EXPERIMENTS ON WHEAT.

I hardly know how to commence an account of the wonderful experiments made at Rothamsted, England, by John Bennett Lawes, Esq., and Dr. Joseph H. Gilbert. Mr. Lawes’ first systematic experiment on wheat, commenced in the autumn of 1843. A field of 14 acres of rather heavy clay soil, resting on chalk, was selected for the purpose. Nineteen plots were accurately measured and staked off. The plots ran the long way of the field, and up a slight ascent. On each side of the field, alongside the plots, there was some land not included, the first year, in the experiment proper. This land was either left without manure, or a mixture 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 in what was called “Liebig’s Mineral Manure Theory.” Liebig had said that “The crops on a field, diminish or increase in exact proportion to the diminution or increase of the mineral substances conveyed to it in manure.” And enthusiastic gentlemen have been known to tell farmers who were engaged in drawing out farm-yard manure to their land, that they were wasting their strength; all they needed was the mineral elements of the manure. “And you might,” they said, “burn your manure, and sow the ashes, and thus save much time and labor. The ashes will do just as much good as the manure itself.”

Whether Mr. Lawes did, or did not entertain such an opinion, I do not know. It looks as though the experiments the first year or two, were made 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 per acre, 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 and chaff per acre.

171

The following eight tables are shown in “thumbnail” form. The full-width versions are collected in a separate file.

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 Produce

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
  Dressed corn.
FM FMA SiP PhP PhS PhM SPL SA RC Quantity5 Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP C100
  Tons. Cwts. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
  0 Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. 19   3¾ 58.5 61 1228 1436 2664 305 316 621 85.5
  1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 700 .. 154 16   3    59.0 52 1040 1203 2243 117   83 200 86.4
  2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20   1¾ 59.3 64 1276 1476 2752 353 356 709 86.4
  3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15   0    58.5 46   923 1120 2043 .. .. .. 82.4
  4 .. 321 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14   2¼ 58.0 44   888 1104 1992 -35 -16 -51 80.4
  5 .. .. .. .. .. .. 700 .. .. 15   2¼ 58.3 48   956 1116 2072   33   -4   29 85.6
  6 .. .. .. .. .. 420 350 .. .. 15   1    60.0 48   964 1100 2064   41 -20   21 87.6
  7 .. .. .. .. 325   .. 350 .. .. 15   2    60.3 49   984 1172 2156   61   52 113 84.0
  8 .. .. .. 375   .. .. 350 .. .. 15   0¾ 61.3 49   980 1160 2140   57   40   97 84.5
  9 .. .. .. .. .. .. 630 .. .. 19   2¼ 62.3 54 1280 1368 2048 357 248 605 93.5
10 .. .. 220 .. .. .. 560 .. .. 15   1¾ 62.0 50 1008 1112 2120   85   -8   77 90.6
11 .. .. .. .. .. .. 350 .. 308 17   0¾ 61.8 56 1116 1200 2316 193   80 273 93.0
12 .. .. .. .. 162½ 210 350 .. .. 15   2    61.5 50 1004 1116 2120   81   -4   77 90.0
13 .. .. .. 187½ .. 210 350 .. .. 16   1¼ 62.5 54 1072 1204 2276 149   84 233 89.0
14 .. .. 275 .. .. 210 350 .. .. 15   3    61.3 51 1016 1176 2192   93   56 149 86.4
15 .. .. 110 150   .. 168 350 .. .. 16   3¼ 62.0 58 1096 1240 2336 173 120 293 88.4
16 .. .. 110 .. .. .. 350 .. .. 19   3¼ 62.5 65 1304 1480 2784 381 360 741 88.1
17 .. .. 110 .. .. .. 3504 .. .. 18   3¾ 62.3 62 1240 1422 2662 317 302 619 87.2
18 .. .. 110 .. .. .. 350 .. 154 20   3¾ 62.0 63 1368 1768 3136 415 618 1093 77.4
19 .. .. 110 .. .. 105 350 .. .. 24   1¼ 61.8 79 1580 1772 3352 657 652 1309 89.2
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
21 Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22 .. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

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.

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.

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.

4. Made with unburnt bones.

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.

172 These were the results of the harvest of 1844. The first year of these since celebrated experiments.

If Mr. Lawes expected that the crops would be in proportion to the minerals 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 only 38 lbs. or about half a bushel more grain per acre, and 4 lbs. less straw than was obtained without manure. 640 lbs. of superphosphate, and 65 lbs. of commercial sulphate of ammonia (equal to about 14 lbs. of ammonia), gave a little over 19½ bushels of dressed wheat per acre. As compared with the plot having 700 lbs. of superphosphate per acre, this 14 lbs. of available ammonia per acre, or, say 11½ lbs. nitrogen, gave an increase of 324 lbs. of grain, and 252 lbs. of straw, or a total increase of 576 lbs. of grain and straw.

On plot No. 19, 81 lbs. of sulphate ammonia, with minerals, produces 24¼ bushels per acre. This yield is clearly due to the ammonia.

The rape-cake contains about 5 per cent of nitrogen, and is also rich in minerals and carbonaceous matter. It gives an increase, but not as large in proportion to the nitrogen furnished, as the sulphate of ammonia. And the same remarks apply to the 14 tons of farm-yard manure.

We should have expected a greater increase from such a liberal dressing of barn-yard manure. I think the explanation is this: 173 The manure had not been piled. It was probably taken out fresh from the yard (this, at any rate, was the case when I was at Rothamsted), and plowed under late in the season. And on this heavy land, manure will lie buried in the soil for months, or, if undisturbed, for years, without decomposition. In other words, while this 14 tons of barn-yard manure, contained at least 150 lbs. of nitrogen, and a large quantity of minerals and carbonaceous matter, it did not produce a bushel per acre more than a manure containing less than 12 lbs. of nitrogen. And on plot 19, a manure containing less than 15 lbs. of available nitrogen, produced nearly 4 bushels per acre more wheat than the barn-yard manure containing at least ten times as much nitrogen.

There can be but one explanation of this fact. The nitrogen in the manure 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 far greater effect from manure spread on the surface, where it decomposes rapidly, than when the manure is plowed under.

The Deacon was looking at the figures in the table, and not paying much attention 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 the ashes 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 the yield per acre:

174
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 Produce

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

OC   Offal Corn.5

C   Corn.

TC   Total Corn.

S&C   Straw and Chaff.

TP/C&S   Total Produce (Corn and Straw).

TP   Total Produce.

OC/100   Offal Corn to 100 Dressed.

C100   Corn to 100 Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
  Dressed corn.
FM SiP PhP SPL B-A MAc G SAm MAm CAm RC T Quantity5 Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
  0 Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. .. .. 32   0    56.5 159 1967 3977 5944   526 1265 1791 10.9 49.5
  1 .. 112 .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. 560 .. 26   1¼ 54.8 248 1689 3699 5388   248   987 1235 17.3 45.7
  2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32   0    56.8 151 1967 3915 5882   526 1203 1729   8.9 50.2
  3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23   0¾ 56.5 131 1441 2712 4153 .. .. ..   8.7 53.1
  4 .. .. .. .. 112 112 .. 112 .. .. .. .. 29   2½ 58.0 161 1879 3663 5542   438   951 1389   9.4 51.3
54{1 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22   2¼ 57.5 134 1431 2684 4115   -10   -28   -38 10.1 53.3
   {2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2523 .. .. 26   3¾ 57.3 190 1732 3599 5331   291   887 1178 14.2 48.1
  6 .. .. .. 112 .. .. .. 112 .. .. 560 .. 28   2¾ 57.8 214 1871 3644 5515   430   932 1362 14.1 57.3
  7 .. .. .. 112 .. .. .. 112 .. .. .. 560 26   2¾ 57.0 161 1682 3243 4925   241   531   772 11.3 51.9
  8 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112 .. .. 560 .. 27   0½ 56.3 164 1716 3663 5379   275   951 1226 14.0 46.9
  9 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1685 1665 .. .. .. 33   1½ 58.3 187 2131 4058 6189   690 1346 2036 10.2 52.5
10 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1686 1686 .. .. .. 31   3¼ 56.3 191 1980 4266 6216   539 1554 2093 12.3 46.4
11 .. .. .. 280 .. .. .. 224 .. .. 560 .. 30   3    56.0 158 1880 4101 5981   439 1392 1831 11.3 45.8
12 .. .. 280 .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. .. .. 28   2¼ 55.8 264 1842 4134 5976   401 1422 1823 17.8 44.5
13 .. .. .. .. .. .. 3367 .. .. .. .. .. 25   0    56.3 152 1558 3355 4913   117   643   760 12.0 46.4
14 .. .. .. .. .. .. 6728 .. .. .. .. .. 27   1    57.5 176 1743 3696 5439   302   981 1286 16.2 47.1
15 .. .. .. .. 224 224 .. 224 .. .. .. .. 32   3¾ 57.3 209 2103 4044 6147   662 1332 1994 11.8 52.0
16 .. .. .. 224 .. .. ..   56   56 .. 560 .. 32   2¼ 56.3 182 2028 4191 6219   587 1479 2066 11.1 48.4
17 .. .. .. 224 .. .. .. 112 112 .. 280 .. 32   0¾ 55.8 299 2093 3826 5919   652 1114 1766 15.2 54.7
18 .. .. .. 336 .. .. .. 112 112 .. .. .. 33   1¼ 56.5 180 2948 3819 3867   607 1107 1714 11.2 53.6
19 .. .. .. .. 112 112 .. 112 .. .. 390 .. 34   3    57.0 133 2114 4215 6329   673 1503 2176   9.1 50.2
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24   2¾ 56.0 113 1495 3104 4599   54   392   446   9.7 48.2
21}

Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures.

.. .. .. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22} .. .. .. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

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.

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.

3. The medicinal carbonate of ammonia; it was dissolved in water and top-dressed.

4. Plot 5, was 2 lands wide (in after years, respectively, 5a and 5b); 51 consisting of 2 alternate one-fourth lengths across both lands, and 52 of the 2 remaining one-fourth lengths.

5. Top-dressed at once.

6. Top-dressed at 4 intervals.

7. Peruvian.

8. Ichaboe.

175 The season of 1845 was more favorable for wheat, than that of 1844, and the crops on all the plots were better. On plot No. 3, which had no manure last year, or this, the yield is 23 bushels per acre, against 15 bushels last year.

Last year, the 14 tons of barn-yard manure gave an increase of only 5¼ bushels per acre. This year it gives an increase of nearly 9 bushels per acre.

“Do you mean,” said the Deacon, “that this plot, No. 2, had 14 tons of manure in 1844, and 14 tons of manure again in 1845?”

“Precisely that, Deacon,” said I, “and this same plot has received this amount of manure every year since, up to the present time—for these same experiments are still continued from year to year at Rothamsted.”

“It is poor farming,” said the Deacon, “and I should think the land would get too rich to grow wheat.”

“It is not so,” said I, “and the fact is an interesting one, and teaches a most important lesson, of which, more hereafter.”

Plot 5, last year, received 700 lbs. of superphosphate per acre. This year, this plot was divided; one half was left without manure, and the other dressed with 252 lbs. of pure carbonate of ammonia per acre. The half without manure, (5a), did not produce quite as much grain and straw as 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 than the other. Still it is sufficiently evident that superphosphate of lime did no good so far as increasing the growth was concerned, either the first year it was applied, or the year following.

The carbonate of ammonia was dissolved in water and sprinkled over the growing wheat at three different times during the spring. You see this manure, which contains no mineral matter at all, gives an increase of nearly 4 bushels of grain per acre, and an increase of 887 lbs. of straw.

“Wait a moment,” said the Deacon, “is not 887 lbs. of straw to 176 4 bushels of grain an unusually large proportion of straw to grain? I have heard you say that 100 lbs. of straw to each bushel of wheat is about the average. And according to this experiment, the carbonate of ammonia produced over 200 lbs. of straw to a bushel of grain. How do you account for this.”

“It is a general rule,” said I, “that the heavier the crop, the greater is 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 this as the standard, you will find that the increase from manures is proportionally greater in straw than in grain. Thus in the increase of barn-yard manure, this year, we have about 133 lbs. of straw to a bushel of grain. I do not believe there is any manure that will give us a large crop of grain without a still larger crop of straw. There is considerable difference, in this respect, between different varieties of wheat. Still, I like to see a good growth of straw.”


“It is curious,” said the Doctor, “that 3 cwt. of ammonia-salts alone on plots 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 in succession. I notice that on one plot, the ammonia-salts were applied at once, in the spring, while on the other plot they were sown at four different times—and that the former gave the best results.”

The only conclusion to be drawn from this, is, that it is desirable to apply the manure early in the spring—or better still, in the autumn.

“You are a great advocate of Peruvian guano,” said the Deacon, “and yet 3 cwt. of Peruvian guano on Plot 13, only produced an increase of two bushels and 643 lbs. of straw per acre. The guano at $60 per ton, would cost $9.00 per acre. This will not pay.”

This is an unusually small increase. The reason, probably, is to be found 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 act quickly; while the Peruvian guano has to decompose in the soil, and consequently needs to be applied earlier, especially on clay land.

“I do not want you,” said the Deacon, “to dodge the question why an application of 14 tons of farmyard-manure per acre, every year for over thirty years, does not make the land too rich for wheat.”

“Possibly,” said I, “on light, sandy soil, such an annual dressing of manure would in the course of a few years make the land too 177 rich for wheat. But on a clayey soil, such is evidently not the case. And the fact is a very important one. When we apply manure, our object should be to make it as available as possible. Nature preserves or conserves the food of plants. The object of agriculture is to use the food of plants for our own advantage.”

“Please be a little more definite,” said the Deacon, “for I must confess I do not quite see the significance of your remarks.”

“What he means,” said the Doctor, “is this: If you put a quantity of soluble and available manure on land, and do not sow any crop, the manure will not be wasted. The soil will retain it. It will change it from a soluble into a comparatively insoluble form. Had a crop been sown the first year, the manure would do far more good than it will the next year, and yet it may be that none of the manure is lost. It is merely locked up in the soil in such a form as will prevent it from running to waste. If it was not for this principle, our lands would have been long ago 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 plow under manure, in order to prevent the ammonia from escaping. You claim, I believe, that there is little danger of any loss from spreading manure on the surface, and I suppose you would have us conclude that we make a mistake 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 is undoubtedly true that our aim in all cases should be to apply manure in such a form and to such a crop as will give us the greatest immediate benefit. Plowing under fresh manure every year for wheat is evidently not the best way to get the greatest benefit from it. But this is not the place to discuss this matter. Let us look at the result of Mr. Lawes’ experiments on wheat the third year:”

178
179
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 Produce

FM   Farmyard Manure.

A3W   Ash from 3 loads (3,888 lbs.) Wheat-straw.

LWM   Liebig’s Wheat-manure.

PG   Peruvian Guano.

SiP   Silicate of Potass.1

P-A   Pearl-ash.

S-A   Soda-ash.

MLS   Magnesian Lime-stone.

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
  SPL Dressed corn.
FM A3W LWM PG SiP P-A S-A MLS B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm RC Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
  0 .. .. .. 336 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28   1¾ 62.3 134 1906 2561 4467   699 1048 1747 7.3 74.4
  1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. .. .. .. 22   0¾ 62.6 120 1509 1953 3462   302   440   742 8.1 77.3
  2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27   0¾ 63.0 113 1826 2454 4280   619   941 1560 6.6 74.4
  3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17   3¾ 63.8   64 1207 1513 2720 .. .. .. 7.4 79.7
  4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. 224 224 .. .. 25   3¾ 63.5 130 1777 2390 4167   570   877 1447 7.8 74.3
5a{1 ..} Straw
Ash.
{.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19   0½ 63.7   87 1305 1541 2846     98     28   126 .. 84.6
   {2 ..} {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2241 .. .. 27   0    63.0 126 1827 2309 4136   620   796 1416 .. 79.1
5b{1 ..} {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 448 23   2½ 63.4 100 1598 1721 3319   391   208   599 .. 92.8
   {2 ..} {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2241 .. 448 30   0¾ 63.3 165 2076 2901 4977   869 1388 2257 .. 71.6
6a .. .. 448 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20   1½ 63.7 102 1400 1676 3076   193   163   356 7.0 83.6
6b .. .. 448 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112 112 .. 29   0¾ 63.5 114 1967 2571 4538   760 1058 1818 5.3 76.5
7a .. .. 448 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 448 22   3¼ 63.0   97 1534 1968 3502   327   405   732 6.8 77.9
7b .. .. 448 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112 112 448 31   3    63.4 150 2163 3007 5170   956 1494 2450 7.5 72.6
8a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. .. .. 448 22   3¾ 63.5 101 1549 1963 3512   342   450   792 7.1 78.9
8b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. 112 112 .. 29   0¾ 63.6 132 1988 2575 4563   781 1062 1843 7.2 77.2
9a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 448 23   2¾ 63.0 122 1614 2033 3647   407   520   927 7.9 79.4
9b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. 448 28   3½ 63.3 114 1942 2603 4545   735 1090 1825 7.0 74.6
10a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. 27   1½ 63.6 109 1850 2244 4094   643   731 1374 6.4 82.4
10b Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17   2½ 63.8   92 1216 1455 2671       9   -58   -49 7.8 83.6
11a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 224 .. .. .. 448 23   1¾ 63.3 145 1628 2133 3761   421   620 1041 9.8 76.3
11b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 224 .. 112 112 .. 30   0¼ 63.2 155 2055 2715 4770   848 1202 2050 6.1 75.7
12a .. .. .. .. .. .. 180 .. 224 224 .. .. .. 448 24   1½ 63.0 125 1661 2163 3824   454   650 1104 7.9 76.8
12b .. .. .. .. .. .. 180 .. 224 224 .. 112 112 .. 28   2¾ 63.4 136 1955 2554 4509   748 1041 1789 7.4 76.5
13a .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. .. 224 224 .. .. .. 448 24   0    63.5 136 1660 2327 3987   453   814 1267 9.1 71.3
13b .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. .. 224 224 .. 112 112 .. 29   1¾ 63.2 138 1998 2755 4753   791 1242 2033 7.3 72.5
14a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 84 224 224 .. .. .. 448 23   2½ 63.0 117 1605 2031 3636   398   518   916 7.7 79.0
14b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 84 224 224 .. 112 112 .. 26   2½ 63.4 124 1812 2534 4356   605 1021 1626 7.4 71.5
15a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 224 .. 224 224 .. 448 31   1¾ 62.5 147 2112 2936 5048   905 1423 2328 7.5 71.9
15b .. .. .. .. 224 .. .. .. 224 .. 224 224 .. 448 27   2¾ 63.0 117 1861 2513 4374   654 1000 1654 5.9 74.0
16a .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. .. .. 448 23   3    62.5 108 1592 2967 3659   385   554   939 7.0 77.0
16b .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. 224 .. 448 30   1    62.7 122 2019 2836 4855   812 1323 2135 6.6 71.2
17a .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. 112 11 448 33   2¾ 62.8 129 2241 3278 5519 1034 1765 2799 5.8 68.3
17b .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. 224 .. .. 30   2    63.0 113 2034 2784 4818   827 1271 2098 5.9 73.0
18a .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. 112 11 .. 31   0    62.8 103 2048 2838 4886   841 1325 2166 5.1 72.2
18b .. .. .. .. .. 67 60 84 224 224 .. .. .. .. 21   1    62.0 157 1474 1893 3367   267   380   647 6.6 77.1
19 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112 .. 112 112 .. 448 28   3    62.0 107 1889 2425 4314   682   912 1594 5.8 77.9
20} Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
21} .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22} .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1. Top-dressed in the Spring.

180 This year, the seed and manures were sown in the autumn. And I want the Deacon to look at plot 0. 3 cwt. of Peruvian guano here gives an increase of 10½ bushels of wheat, and 1,948 lbs. of straw per acre. This will pay well, even on the wheat alone. But in addition to this, we may expect, in our ordinary rotation of crops, a far better crop of clover where the guano was used.

In regard to some of the results this year, Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert have the following concise and interesting remarks:

“At this third experimental harvest, we have on the continuously unmanured plot, namely, No. 3, not quite 18 bushels of dressed corn, as the normal produce of the season; and by its side we have on plot 10b—comprising one-half of the plot 10 of the previous years, and so highly manured by ammoniacal salts in 1845, but now unmanured—rather more than 17½ bushels. The near approach, again, to identity of result from the two unmanured plots, at once gives confidence in the accuracy of the experiments, and shows us how effectually the preceding crop had, in a practical point of view, reduced the plots, previously so differently circumstanced both as to manure and produce, to something like an uniform standard as regards their grain-producing qualities.

“Plot 2 has, as before, 14 tons of farm-yard manure, and the produce is 27¼ bushels, or between 9 and 10 bushels more than without manure of any kind.

“On plot 10a, which in the previous year gave by ammoniacal salts alone, a produce equal to that of the farm-yard manure, we have again a similar result: for two cwts. of sulphate of ammonia has now given 1,850 lbs. of total corn, instead of 1,826 lbs., which is the produce on plot 2. The straw of the latter, is, however, slightly heavier than that by the ammoniacal salt.

“Again, plot 5a, which was in the previous season unmanured, was now subdivided: on one-half of it (namely, 5a1) we have the ashes of wheat-straw alone, by which there is an increase of rather more than one bushel per acre of dressed corn; on the other half (or 5a2) we have, besides the straw-ashes, two cwts. of sulphate of ammonia put on as a top-dressing: two cwts. of sulphate of ammonia have, in this case, only increased the produce beyond that of 5a1 by 7⅞ bushels of corn and 768 lbs. of straw, instead of by 9¾ bushels of corn and 789 lbs. of straw, which was the increase obtained by the same amount of ammoniacal salt on 10a, as compared with 10b.

“It will be observed, however, that in the former case the ammoniacal salts were top-dressed, but in the latter they were drilled at the time of sowing the seed; and it will be remembered that in 181 1845 the result was 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. We have had several direct instances of this kind in our experience, and we would give it as a suggestion, in most cases applicable, that manures for wheat, and especially ammoniacal ones, should be applied before or at the time the seed is sown; for, although the apparent luxuriance of the crop is greater, and the produce of straw really heavier, by spring rather than autumn sowings of Peruvian guano and other ammoniacal manures, yet we believe that that of the corn will not be increased in an equivalent degree. Indeed, the success of the crop undoubtedly depends very materially on the progress of the underground growth during the winter months; and this again, other things being equal, upon the quantity of available nitrogenous constituents within the soil, without a liberal provision of which, the range of the fibrous feeders of the plant will not be such, as to take up the minerals which the soil is competent to supply, and in such quantity as will be required during the after 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, “is that obtained on plot 6, now also divided into two equal portions designated respectively 6a and 6b. Plot No. 6 had for the crop of 1844, superphosphate of lime and the phosphate of magnesia manure, and for that of 1845, superphosphate of lime, rape-cake, and ammoniacal salts. For this, the third season, it was devoted to the trial of the wheat-manure manufactured under the sanction of Professor Liebig, and patented in this country.

“Upon plots 6a, four cwts. per acre of the patent wheat-manure were used, which gave 20¼ bushels, or rather more than two bushels beyond the produce of the unmanured plot; but as the manure contained, besides the minerals peculiar to it, some nitrogenous compounds, giving off a very perceptible odor of ammonia, some, at least, of the increase would be due to that substance. On plot 6b, however, the further addition of one cwt. each of sulphate and muriate of ammonia to this so-called ‘Mineral Manure,’ gives a produce of 29¼ bushels. In other words, the addition of ammoniacal salt, to Liebig’s mineral manure has increased the produce by very nearly 9 bushels per acre beyond that of the mineral manure alone, whilst the increase obtained over the unmanured plot, by 14 tons of farm-yard manure, was only 9¼ bushels!

The following table gives the results of the experiments the fourth year, 1846-7.

182
183
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 Produce

FM   Farm-yard Manure.

PG   Peruvian Guano.

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.

R   Rice.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
SPL Dressed corn.
FM PG B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm R Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
  0 .. 500 .. .. .. .. .. .. 30   2¾ 61.1 156 2031 3277 5308   908 1375 2283 8.2 61.9
  1 .. .. 200 .. 200 350 50 .. 32   1    61.2 147 2119 3735 5854   996 1833 2829 7.2 56.7
  2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29   3¾ 62.3 117 1981 3628 5609   858 1726 2584 6.2 54.6
  3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16   3½ 61.0   95 1123 1902 3025 .. .. .. 8.9 59.0
  4 .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 27   1¾ 61.9   82 1780 2948 4728   657 1046 1703 4.7 60.3
5a .. .. 200 200 .. 150 150 .. 29   0    61.8 130 1921 3412 5333   798 1510 2309 7.1 56.3
5b .. .. 200 200 .. 150 150   500 32   2    61.4 136 2132 3721 5853 1009 1819 2827 6.6 57.2
6a .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 24   3¼ 62.1 122 1663 2786 4449   540   884 1124 7.8 59.6
6b .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 24   1¾ 61.6 127 1632 2803 4435   509   901 1410 8.2 58.2
7a .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 27   3¼ 61.7 118 1834 3151 4985   711 1249 1960 6.8 58.2
7b .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 25   1¼ 61.5 125 1682 2953 4635   559 1051 1610 7.9 56.9
8a .. .. 200 200 .. 150 150   500 32   1¾ 62.1 102 2115 3683 5798   992 1781 2773 5.5 57.4
8b .. .. 200 200 .. 200 200 .. 30   3    61.7 123 2020 3720 5740   897 1818 2715 6.5 54.3
9a{1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2240 22   3    62.5 .. 1477 2506 3983   228   604 .. .. 53.9
    {2 .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 26   2    61.0 .. 1755 3052 4807   632 1150 .. .. 57.5
9b .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 26   0    61.3 123 1717 2858 4575   594   956 1550 .. 60.1
10a .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 25   3    61.5 118 1702 2891 4593   579   989 1568 7.3 58.8
10b .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 25   2¾ 61.2 133 1705 2874 4579   582   972 1554 8.2 59.3
11a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 30   3½ 61.6 142 2044 3517 5561   921 1615 2536 6.3 59.5
11b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 29   1¾ 61.8 123 1941 3203 5144   818 1301 2119 6.7 60.6
12a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 29   2    62.0 124 1953 3452 5405   830 1550 2380 6.6 57.1
12b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 27   0½ 61.8 121 1796 3124 4920   673 1222 1895 7.1 57.4
13a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 20   2½ 62.5 108 1959 3306 5265   836 1404 2240 5.5 57.3
13b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 27   1¼ 62.3   96 1801 3171 4972   678 1269 1947 5.3 56.7
14a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 28   0¾ 62.8 175 1944 3362 5306   821 1460 2281 9.7 59.5
14b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 26   3¾ 62.8 166 1856 3006 4862   733 1104 1837 9.8 61.7
15a .. .. 200 .. 200 300 ..   500 32   3    63.0 151 2214 3876 6090 1091 1974 3065 7.2 57.1
15b .. .. 200 .. 200 300 ..   500 32   0    62.6 137 2140 3617 5757 1017 1715 2732 6.6 59.1
16a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 29   1¼ 62.3 132 1959 3417 5376   836 1515 2351 6.9 57.3
16b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 34   2¼ 62.6 119 2283 4012 6295 1160 2110 3270 5.2 56.9
17a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 33   3    62.3 119 2222 4027 6249 1099 2125 3224 5.6 55.1
17b .. .. 100 100 .. 200 200 .. 35   1¼ 62.0 117 2314 4261 6575 1191 2359 3550 6.4 54.3
18a .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 32   0¾ 62.7 142 2160 3852 6012 1037 1950 2987 6.9 56.0
18b .. .. 100 100 .. 150 150 .. 29   1½ 62.9 181 2029 4164 6193   906 2262 3168 9.7 48.7
19 .. .. 100 .. 100 300 ..   500 32   3    62.8 140 2195 4202 6397 1072 2300 3372 6.7 52.2
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20   0¾ 62.5   70 1332 2074 3406   209   172   381 4.9 64.2
21} Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22}

184 Here again, I want the Deacon to look at plot 0, where 500 lbs. Peruvian guano, sown in October, gives an increase of nearly 14 bushels of dressed wheat and 1,375 lbs. of straw per acre. On plot 2, where 14 tons of barn-yard manure have now been applied four years in succession (56 tons 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, as would be the case in this section, we should get considerable benefit, probably, from the guano. If wheat was sown after the wheat, the guano applied the previous season would do little good on the second crop of wheat. And yet it is a matter of fact that there would be a considerable proportion 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 of clover, plowing it under, or feeding it out on the land, or making it into hay and saving the manure obtained from it, we shall thus be enabled 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.’ Here we have had 56 tons of manure on an acre of land in four years, and yet an acre dressed with 500 lbs. of guano produces just as good a crop. The manure contains far more plant-food, of all kinds, than the guano, but it is so ‘lasting’ that it does not do half as much good as its composition would lead us to expect. Its ‘lasting’ properties are a decided objection, rather than an advantage. If we could make it less lasting—in other words, if we could make it act quicker, it would produce a greater effect, and possess a greater value. In proportion to its constituents, the barn-yard manure is far cheaper than the guano, but it has a less beneficial effect, because these constituents are not more completely decomposed and rendered available.”

“That,” said I, “opens up a very important question. We have more real value in manure than most of us are as yet able to bring out and turn to good account. The sandy-land farmer has an advantage over the clay-land farmer in this respect. The latter has a naturally richer soil, but it costs him more to work it, and manure does not act so rapidly. The clay-land farmer should use his best endeavors to decompose his manure.”

“Yes,” said the Doctor, “and, like John Johnston, he will probably find it to his advantage to use it largely as a top-dressing on the surface. Exposing manure to the atmosphere, spread out on 185 the land for several months, and harrowing it occasionally, will do much to render its constituents available. But let us return to Mr. Lawes’ wonderful experiments.”

“On eight plots,” said I, “300 lbs. of ammonia-salts were used without any other manures, and the average yield on these eight plots was nearly 26 bushels per acre, or an average increase of 9 bushels per acre. The same amount of ammonia-salts, with the addition of superphosphate of lime, gave an increase of 13 bushels per acre. 400 lbs. ammonia salts, with superphosphate of lime, gave an increase of nearly 16 bushels per acre, or three bushels per acre more than where 14 tons of barn-yard manure had been used four years in succession.

“I hope, after this, the Deacon will forgive me for dwelling on the value of available nitrogen or ammonia as a manure for wheat.”

“I see,” said the Deacon, “that ground rice was used this year for manure; and in 1845, tapioca was also used as a manure. The Connecticut Tobacco growers a few years since used corn-meal for manure, and you thought it a great waste of good food.”

I think so still. But we will not discuss the matter now. Mr. Lawes wanted to ascertain whether carbonaceous matter was needed by the growing wheat-plants, or whether they could get all they needed from the soil and the atmosphere. The enormous quantities of carbonaceous matter supplied by the barn-yard manure, it is quite evident, are of little value as a manure for wheat. And the rice seems to have done very little more good than we should expect from the 22 lbs. of nitrogen which it contained. The large quantity of carbonaceous matter evidently did little good. Available carbonaceous matter, such as starch, sugar, and oil, was intended as food for man and beast—not as food for wheat or tobacco.

The following table gives the results of the experiments the fifth year, 1847-8.

186
187
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 Produce

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
SPL Dressed corn.
FM P-A S-A SMg SPL B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm RC Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
  0 .. .. .. .. 2240 .. .. .. .. .. .. 19   0¾ 53.4 138 1259 2074 3333   307   362   669 13.4 60.7
  1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16   0¾ 59.6 160 1124 1735 2859   172     23   195 16.3 64.7
  2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23   2¾ 58.2 210 1705 3041 4746   753 1329 2082 13.8 56.0
  3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14   3    57.3 106   952 1712 2664 .. .. .. 12.1 55.6
  4 .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 24   0½ 58.5 172 1583 2713 4296   631 1001 1632 12.0 58.3
5a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 250 250 .. 29   3½ 59.2 144 1911 3266 5177   959 1554 2513 7.9 58.5
5b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 200 200 500 39   3½ 59.1 107 1932 3533 5465   980 1821 2801 5.8 57.5
6a .. .. .. .. .. 400 300 .. 200 200 .. 24   3¼ 58.8 214 1672 2878 4550   720 1166 1886 14.6 58.0
6b .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 26   3    56.9 216 1737 2968 4705   785 1256 2041 14.0 58.5
7a .. .. .. .. .. 400 300 .. 150 150 500 30   3¼ 59.4 106 1936 3088 5024   984 1376 2360 5.7 62.6
7b .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 29   3¼ 59.6 187 1963 3413 5376 1011 1701 2712 10.3 57.5
8a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. .. .. .. 19   3    56.2 154 1263 2317 3580   311   605   916 13.6 54.5
8b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. .. .. .. 19   0¾ 59.4 127 1267 2148 3415   315   436   751 11.1 58.8
9a .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. .. .. .. 18   2½ 56.7 125 1181 1945 3126   229   233   462 11.6 60.7
9b .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 .. 25   0¼ 53.3 208 1669 2918 4587   717 1206 1923 13.9 57.1
10a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 150 150 .. 19   1    58.1 215 1334 2367 3701   382   655 1037 19.0 56.3
10b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 150 150 .. 25   0¼ 57.8 155 1604 2926 4530   652 1214 1866 10.6 54.8
11a .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 29   1½ 59.6 233 1984 3274 5258 1032 1562 2594 13.1 60.6
11b .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 24   3    57.9 207 1641 2898 4539   689 1186 1875 14.1 56.4
12a .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 29   3    59.3 174 1938 3390 5328   986 1678 2664 9.3 57.2
12b .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 26   0¾ 59.2 167 1717 2880 4597   765 1168 1933 10.7 59.6
13a .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 29   1½ 57.9 253 1955 3290 5245 1003 1578 2581 14.7 59.4
13b .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 25   3¼ 58.4 224 1730 3072 4802   778 1360 2138 14.6 56.3
14a .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 28   0¼ 58.8 184 1834 3257 5091   882 1545 2427 11.1 56.3
14b .. 300 .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 25   2½ 58.5 227 1726 2897 4623   774 1185 1959 15.1 59.5
15a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 22   3½ 58.1 242 1571 2937 4508   619 1225 1844 18.1 53.4
15b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 24   2¾ 56.9 202 1607 3016 4623   655 1304 1959 14.1 53.2
16a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 29   3¼ 60.0 184 1973 3115 5088 1021 1403 2424 10.2 63.3
16b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 150 150 500 30   1¾ 58.4 171 1948 3380 5328   996 1668 2664 9.4 57.6
17a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 27   2½ 59.7 285 1933 3296 5229   981 1584 2565 17.0 58.6
17b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 28   3½ 59.7 222 1946 3324 5270   994 1612 2606 12.6 58.5
18a .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 150 150 .. 26   3    59.2 150 1734 2935 4669   782 1223 2005 9.2 59.0
18b .. 300 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 150 150 .. 26   2¾ 59.6 215 1804 3056 4860   852 1344 2196 13.3 58.7
19 .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 29   1¾ 56.2 185 1838 3295 5133   886 1583 2469 10.4 55.7
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16   0½ 58.3 111 1050 1721 2771     98       9   107 11.3 61.0
21} ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22}

188 This season was considered unfavorable for wheat. The continuously unmanured plot produced 14¾ bushels, and the plot receiving 14 tons of barn yard manure, 25¾ bushels per acre nearly.

300 lbs. of ammonia-salts alone on plot 10a, gave 19¼ bushels per acre, while the same quantity of ammonia, with superphosphate in addition, gave, on plot 9b, 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 10b, gave precisely the same yield per acre as the ammonia and the superphosphate alone. The potash, soda, and magnesia, therefore, did no good.

400 lbs. of ammonia-salts, with superphosphate, potash, etc., gave, on plot 17b, nearly 29 bushels per acre, or 3½ bushels more than the plot which has now received 70 tons of barn-yard manure in five successive years.

“I see that, on plot 0,” said the Deacon, “one ton of superphosphate was used per acre, and it gave only half a bushel per acre more than 350 lbs. on 9a.”

“This proves,” said I, “that an excessive dose of superphosphate will do no harm. I am not sure that 100 lbs. of a good superphosphate drilled in with the seed, would not have done as much good as a ton per acre.”

“You say,” remarked the Deacon, “that the season was unfavorable for wheat. And yet the no-manure plot produced nearly 15 bushels of wheat per acre.”

“That is all true,” said I, “and yet the season was undoubtedly an unfavorable one. This is shown not only in the less yield, but in the inferior quality of the grain. The ‘dressed corn’ on the no-manure plot this year only weighed 57⅓ lbs. per bushel, while last year it weighed 61 lbs. per bushel.”

“By the way,” said the Doctor, “what do Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert mean by ‘dressed corn’?”

“By ‘corn,’” said I, “they mean wheat; and by ‘dressed corn’ they mean wheat that has been run through a fanning-mill until all the light and shrunken grain is blown or sieved out. In other words, ‘dressed corn’ is wheat carefully cleaned for market. The English farmers take more pains in cleaning their grain than we do. And this ‘dressed corn’ was as clean as a good fanning-mill could make it. You will observe that there was more ‘offal corn’ this year than last. This also indicates an unfavorable season.”

“It would have been very interesting,” said the Doctor, “if Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert had analyzed the wheat produced by the different manures, so that we might have known something in regard 189 to the quality of the flour as influenced by the use of different fertilizers.”

“They did that very thing,” said I, “and not only that, but they made the wheat grown on different plots, into flour, and ascertained the yield of flour from a given weight of wheat, and the amount of bran, middlings, etc., etc. They obtained some very interesting and important results. I was there at the time. But this is not the place to discuss the question. I am often amused, however, at the remarks we often hear in regard to the inferior quality of our wheat as compared to what it was when the country was new. Many seem to think that ‘there is something lacking in the soil’—some say potash, and some phosphates, and some this, and some that. I believe nothing of the kind. Depend upon it, the variety of the wheat and the soil and season have much more to do with the quality or strength of the flour, than the chemical composition of the manures applied to the land.”

“At any rate,” said the Doctor, “we may be satisfied that anything that will produce a vigorous, healthy growth of wheat is favorable to quality. We may use manures in excess, and thus produce over-luxuriance and an unhealthy growth, and have poor, shrunken grain. In this case, it is not the use, but the abuse of the manure that does the mischief. We must not manure higher than the season will bear. As yet, this question rarely troubles us. Hitherto, as a rule, our seasons are better than our farming. It may not always be so. We may find the liberal use of manure so profitable that we shall occasionally use it in excess. At present, however, the tendency is all the other way. We have more grain of inferior quality from lack of fertility than from an excess of plant-food.”

“That may be true,” said I, “but we have more poor, inferior wheat from lack of draining and good culture, than from lack of plant-food. Red-root, thistles, cockle, and chess, have done more to injure the reputation of ‘Genesee Flour,’ than any other one thing, and I should like to hear more said about thorough cultivation, and the destruction of weeds, and less about soil exhaustion.”

The following table shows the results of the experiments the sixth year, 1848-9.

190
191
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 Produce

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
SPL Dressed corn.
FM P-A S-A SMg B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm RC Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
0 .. .. .. .. 600 450 .. .. .. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1 .. 600 400 200 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31   0    63.8 107 2068 3029 5097   839 1415 2254 4.7 68.3
3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19   1    61.4   47 1229 1614 2843 .. .. .. 3.9 76.1
4 .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 30   0    63.0 110 2063 2645 4708   834 1031 1865 5.6 78.0
5a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 250 250 .. 37   1¼ 63.1   89 2446 3589 6035 1217 1975 3192 3.7 68.1
5b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 500 39   3½ 63.4   97 2651 3824 6475 1422 2210 3632 5.0 69.3
6a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 36   1½ 63.0 117 2410 3072 5482 1181 1458 2639 5.1 78.4
6b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 37   3¾ 63.0   94 2484 3516 6000 1255 1902 3157 3.9 70.6
7a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 38   2¼ 63.1 137 2576 3584 6160 1347 1970 3317 5.6 71.9
7b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 37   3¾ 62.9 141 2531 3396 5927 1302 1782 3084 5.9 74.5
8a Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22   3    61.7   76 1481 1815 3296   252   201   453 5.3 81.6
8b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2000 31   2½ 63.0   85 2080 3166 5246   851 1552 2403 4.3 65.7
9a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2000 30   2¾ 62.8 111 2035 2683 4718   806 1069 1875 5.8 75.8
9b Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22   1½ 62.3   80 1475 1810 3285   246   196   432 5.7 81.5
10a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 32   2¼ 62.3 112 2141 2851 4992   912 1237 2149 5.5 75.1
10b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 32   1¼ 63.3 110 2157 2960 5117   928 1346 2274 5.3 72.9
11a .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 35   0½ 62.6 121 2317 2892 5209 1088 1278 2366 5.6 80.1
11b .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 32   1¼ 63.0 112 2149 2942 5091   920 1328 2248 5.5 73.0
12a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 35   3¼ 64.3   93 2396 3371 5767 1167 1757 2924 4.1 71.1
12b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 34   1¼ 64.3   71 2277 3300 5577 1048 1687 2735 3.2 69.0
13a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 34   3¾ 64.1 101 2340 3236 5576 1111 1622 2733 4.5 72.3
13b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 34   2¼ 64.1 129 2346 3246 5592 1117 1632 2749 5.8 72.3
14a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 34   1½ 64.3   56 2266 3211 5477 1037 1597 2634 2.5 70.6
14b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   1¼ 64.3 112 2123 3218 5341   894 1604 2498 5.5 66.0
15a .. 300 200 100 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 31   3¼ 64.2   65 2109 3038 5147   880 1424 2304 3.2 69.4
15b .. 300 200 100 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 30   0¾ 64.1   68 2005 3262 5267   776 1648 2424 3.5 61.5
16a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   1½ 64.5 101 2254 3384 5638 1025 1770 2795 4.7 66.6
16b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   3¾ 64.6   75 2268 3559 5827 1039 1945 2984 3.4 63.7
17a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 34   1    64.3 111 2316 3891 6207 1087 2277 3364 5.1 59.4
17b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   1½ 64.4 112 2259 3858 6117 1030 2244 3274 5.2 58.5
18a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 32   1¼ 64.0   93 2163 3592 5755   934 1978 2912 4.5 60.2
18b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   2¼ 64.0   95 2243 3779 6022 1014 2165 3179 4.4 59.3
19 .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 29   2¼ 63.9 102 1994 3270 5264   765 1656 2421 5.4 61.0
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
21} Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22}
192

“This was my last year at Rothamsted,” said I, “and I feel a peculiar interest in looking over the results after such a lapse of time. When this crop was growing, my father, a good practical farmer, but with little faith in chemical manures, paid me a visit. We went to the experimental wheat-field. The first two plots, 0 and 1, had been dressed, the one with superphosphate, the other with potash, soda, and magnesia. My father did not seem much impressed with this kind of chemical manuring. Stepping to the next plot, where 14 tons of barn-yard manure 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 beat this myself,” said he, and passed on to the next. “This is better,” said he, “what have you here?”

“Superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia.”

“Well, it is a good crop, and the straw is bright and stiff.”—It turned out 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 with the greatest interest. “What have you here?” he asked, while he was examining 5a, which afterwards turned out 37¼ bushels per acre. —“Potash, soda, epsom-salts, superphosphate, and ammonia—but it is the ammonia that does the good.”

He passed to the next plot, and was very enthusiastic over it. “What have you here?” —“Rape-cake and ammonia,” said I. —“It is a grand crop,” said he, and after examining it with great interest, he passed to the next, 6a. —“What have you here?” —“Ammonia,” said I; and at 6b he asked the same question, and I replied “ammonia.” At 7a, the same question and the same answer. Standing between 7b and 8a, he was of course struck with the difference in the crop; 8a was left this year without any manure, and though it had received a liberal supply of mineral manures the year before, and minerals and ammonia-salts, and rape-cake, the year previous, it only produced this year, 3½ bushels more than the plot continuously unmanured. The contrast between the wheat on this plot and the next one might well interest a practical farmer. There was over 15 bushels per acre more wheat on the one plot than on the other, and 1,581 lbs. more straw.

Passing to the next plot, he exclaimed “this is better, but not so good as some that we have passed.” —“It has had a heavy dressing of rape-cake,” said I, “equal to about 100 lbs. of ammonia per acre, and the next plot was manured this year in the same way. The only difference being that one had superphosphate and potash, 193 soda, and magnesia, the year before, while the other had superphosphate alone.” It turned out, as you see from the table, that the potash, etc., only gave half a bushel more wheat per acre the year it was used, and this year, with 2,000 lbs. of rape-cake on each plot, there is only a bushel per acre in favor of the potash, soda, and magnesia.

The next plot, 9b, was also unmanured and was passed by my father without comment. “Ah,” said he, on coming to the two next plots, 10a and 10b, “this is better, what have you here?” —“Nothing but ammonia,” said I, “and I wish you would tell me which is the best of the two? Last year 10b had a heavy dressing of minerals and superphosphate with ammonia, and 10a the same quantity of ammonia alone, without superphosphate or other mineral manures. And this year both plots have had a dressing of 400 lbs. each of ammonia-salts. Now, which is the best—the plot that had superphosphate and minerals last year, or the one without?” —“Well,” said he, “I can’t see any difference. 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 than the other plot which had none. Practically, the yield is the same. There is an increase of 13 bushels of wheat per acre—and this increase is clearly due to the ammonia-salts alone.

The next plot was also a splendid crop.

“What have you here?”

“Superphosphate and ammonia.”

This plot (11a), turned out 35 bushels per acre. The next plot, with phosphates and ammonia, was nearly as good. The next plot, with potash, phosphates, and ammonia, equally good, but no better than 11a. There was 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 simply said, “ammonia,” and the next “ammonia,” and the next “ammonia.”—Standing still and looking at the wheat, my father asked, “Joe, where can I get this ammonia?” He had previously been a little skeptical as to the 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 where he could get ammonia. And, now, as then, every good farmer asks the same question: “Where can I get ammonia?” Before we attempt to answer the question, let us look at the next year’s experiments.—The following is the results of the experiments the seventh year, 1849-50.

194
195
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 IN AUTUMN, 1849.

Manures Produce

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
SPL Dressed corn.
FM P-A S-A SMg B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm RC Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
0 .. .. .. .. 600 450 .. .. .. .. 19   1½ 60.8   42 1220 2037 3257   218   318   536 3.5 59.9
1 .. 600 400 200 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28   2    61.9   98 1861 3245 5106   859 1526 2385 5.4 57.3
3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15   3¼ 60.6   44 1002 1719 2721 .. .. .. 4.5 58.2
4 .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 27   3    61.2   87 1785 3312 5097   783 1593 2376 5.1 53.9
5a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 250 250 .. 29   3½ 60.4 171 1974 4504 6478   972 2785 3757 9.5 43.8
5b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 250 250 .. 30   3    60.4 160 2018 4379 6397 1016 2660 3676 8.6 46.1
6a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   0½ 61.1 119 1960 3927 5887   958 2208 3166 6.3 49.9
6b .. *00 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 29   3½ 61.3 148 1980 3959 5939   978 2240 3218 8.0 50.0
7a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 500 32   1    61.0 167 2134 4485 6619 1132 2766 3898 8.4 47.9
7b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 500 32   0¼ 61.2 150 2112 4280 6392 1110 2561 3671 7.6 49.4
8a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 28   3    61.1 101 1856 3407 5263   854 1688 2542 5.5 54.5
8b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 30   1    61.0 103 1948 3591 5539   946 1872 2818 5.6 54.2
9a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 30   1½ 60.4 118 1951 3550 5501   949 1831 2780 6.3 55.0
9b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 27   2¾ 60.8   80 1762 3165 4927   760 1446 2206 4.7 55.7
10a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 26   3¾ 60.2 100 1721 3089 4810   719 1370 2089 6.1 55.7
10b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. .. .. .. 17   3¾ 61.1   76 1171 1949 3120   169   230   399 6.8 60.1
11a .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   3¼ 61.0 121 2001 3806 5807   999 2087 3086 6.4 52.6
11b .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 29   1½ 61.1 145 1940 3741 5681   938 2022 2960 8.0 51.9
12a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 29   3¾ 61.5   94 1935 3921 5856   933 2202 3135 5.1 49.4
12b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   3¾ 61.4 115 2013 3905 5918 1011 2186 3197 5.9 51.5
13a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   3¾ 60.2 105 2027 4026 6053 1025 2307 3332 5.4 50.3
13b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   1½ 61.0 111 1964 4008 5972   962 2289 3251 6.0 49.0
14a .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   1¾ 61.1 102 2023 4052 6075 1021 2333 3354 5.3 49.9
14b .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   1½ 61.5   65 1995 4015 6010   993 2296 3289 3.2 49.7
15a .. 300 200 100 200 .. 200 300 .. .. 26   0¼ 61.5   90 1693 3321 5014   691 1602 2293 5.7 51.0
15b .. 300 200 100 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 30   3½ 61.0   59 1942 3926 5868   940 2207 3147 3.0 49.5
16a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   2½ 60.3 108 2134 5103 7237 1132 3384 4516 5.3 41.8
16b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   3    60.4 122 2159 4615 6774 1157 2896 4053 6.0 46.8
17a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   1    61.2   73 1985 4126 6111   983 2407 3390 3.8 48.1
17b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 29   2½ 61.5 139 1961 4034 5995   959 2315 3274 7.7 48.6
18a .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 29   3¼ 61.2 110 1934 3927 5861   932 2208 3140 6.1 49.3
18b .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 28   2½ 60.9 103 1845 3844 5689   843 2125 2968 5.7 48.0
19 .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 29   0    60.8   88 1850 3527 5377   848 1808 2656 4.9 52.4
20 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14   0    59.1   40   868 1639 2507 -134   -80 -214 4.5 53.0
21} Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. .. ..     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22}

196 The summer of 1850 was unusually cool and unfavorable for wheat. It will be seen that on all the plots the yield of grain is considerably lower than last year, with a greater growth of straw.

You will notice that 10b, which last year gave, with ammonia-salts alone, 32¼ bushels, this year, with superphosphate, potash, soda, and sulphate of magnesia, gives less than 18 bushels, while the adjoining plot, dressed with ammonia, gives nearly 27 bushels. In other words, the ammonia alone gives 9 bushels per acre more than this large dressing of superphosphate, potash, etc.

On the three plots, 8a, 8b and 9a, a dressing of ammonia-salts alone 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 this plot 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 not advise the use of ammonia-salts for wheat.”

“That is so,” said I, “but perhaps I am mistaken. Such facts as those just given, though I have been acquainted with them for many years, sometimes incline me to doubt the soundness of my conclusions. Still, on the whole, I think I am right.”

“We all know,” said the Deacon, “that you have great respect for your own opinions.”

“Never mind all that,” said the Doctor, “but tell us just what you think on this subject.”

“In brief,” said I, “my opinion is this. We need ammonia for wheat. But though ammonia-salts and nitrate of soda can often be used with decided profit, yet I feel sure that we can get ammonia or nitrogen at a less cost per lb. by buying bran, malt-roots, cotton-seed cake, and other foods, and using them for the double purpose of feeding stock and making manure.”

“I admit that such is the case,” said the Doctor, “but here is a plot of land that has now had 14 tons of manure every year for seven years, and yet there is a plot along side, dressed with ammonia-salts furnishing less than half the ammonia contained in the 14 tons of manure, that produces a better yield of wheat.”

“That,” said I, “is simply because the nitrogen in the manure is not in an available condition. And the practical question is, how to make the nitrogen in our manure more immediately available. It is one of the most important questions which agricultural science is called upon to answer. Until we get more light, I feel 197 sure in saying that one of the best methods is, to feed our animals on richer and more easily digested food.”

The following table gives the results of the eighth season of 1850-51.

198
199
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 Produce

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.

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.

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.

P
l
o
t
s.
Manures per Acre. Produce per Acre, etc. Increase per Acre
by Manure.
SPL Dressed corn.
FM WSC CS SP S-A SMg B-A SAc MAc SAm MAm RC Quantity Wt/Bu. OC TC S&C TP
C&S
C S&C TP OC
100
C100
  Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Bush.  Pks. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
0 .. .. .. .. .. .. 600 450 .. .. .. .. 18   3½ 61.9 125 1296 1862 3158   213   235   448 10.7 69.6
1 .. .. .. 600 400 200 .. .. .. .. .. .. 18   1¼ 61.7 124 1251 1845 3096   168   218   386 11.0 67.8
2 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29   2½ 63.6 166 2049 3094 5143   966 1467 2433   8.8 66.2
3 Unmanured. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15   3½ 61.1 114 1083 1627 2710 .. .. .. 11.8 66.6
4 .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 400 .. .. 28   0½ 62.6 159 1919 2949 4868   836 1322 2158   9.0 65.1
5a .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 300 300 .. 36   0    63.3 194 2473 4131 6604 1390 2504 3894   8.6 59.9
5b .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 300 300 .. 37   3¾ 63.3 213 2611 4294 6905 1528 2667 4195   8.9 60.8
6a .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 33   1¾ 63.3 154 2271 3624 5895 1188 1997 3185 7.2 62.6
6b .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   0¼ 62.3 189 2119 3507 5626 1036 1880 2916   9.8 60.4
7a .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 1000 36   3½ 63.0 201 2524 4587 7111 1441 2960 4401   8.7 55.0
7b .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 200 200 1000 37   1½ 63.0 178 2532 4302 6834 1449 2675 4124   7.6 58.8
8a .. 5000 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26   0¾ 62.8 141 1785 2769 4554   702 1142 1844   8.6 64.5
8b .. .. .. 300 200 100 200 150 .. 100 100 .. 27   2¼ 62.6 137 1863 2830 4693   780 1203 1983   7.9 65.8
9a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 31   1½ 62.4 182 2142 3252 5394 1059 1625 2684 9.3 65.9
9b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 29   0¾ 62.0 170 1970 2942 4912   887 1315 2202   9.5 67.0
10a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 28   3½ 61.9 179 1966 3070 5036   883 1443 2326 10.0 64.0
10b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 28   2½ 62.5 149 1937 3048 4985   854 1421 2275   8.3 63.5
11a .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 32   2¾ 62.3 181 2216 3386 5602 1133 1759 2892   8.9 65.4
11b .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   2¾ 62.5 181 2163 3302 5465 1080 1675 2755   9.1 65.5
12a .. .. .. 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 32   3    63.1 165 2234 3600 5834 1151 1973 3124   8.0 62.0
12b .. .. .. 200 100 .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 32   2¼ 62.5 166 2203 3581 5784 1120 1954 3074   8.2 61.5
13a .. .. .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   2¾ 62.6 180 2102 3544 5646 1019 1917 2936   9.4 59.3
13b .. .. .. 300 .. .. 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   3¼ 62.3 160 2083 3440 5523 1000 1813 2813   8.3 60.5
14a .. .. .. 200 .. 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   0¼ 62.9 168 2120 3605 5725 1037 1978 3015   8.6 58.8
14b .. .. .. 200 .. 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   0½ 62.8 165 2121 3537 5658 1038 1910 2948   8.4 59.9
15a .. .. .. 200 100 100 200 .. 200 400 .. .. 27   0½ 62.7 138 1839 3041 4880   756 1414 2170   8.1 60.5
15b .. .. .. 200 100 100 200 .. 200 400 .. 500 30   2½ 62.9 148 2077 3432 5509   994 1805 2799   7.6 60.5
16a .. .. 3361 200 100 100 200 150 .. 300 300 .. 36   3¼ 63.5 161 2499 4234 6733 1416 2607 4023   6.9 59.0
16b .. .. .. 200 100 100 200 150 .. 300 300 .. 36   2¾ 63.4 176 2501 4332 6833 1418 2705 4123   7.6 57.7
17a .. .. .. 200 100 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 31   3½ 63.3 131 2149 3597 5746 1066 1970 3036   6.5 59.7
17b .. .. .. 200 100 100 200 150 .. 200 200 .. 30   2¼ 63.1 152 2079 3406 5485   996 1779 2775   7.9 61.0
18a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 30   3¼ 63.0 139 2083 3390 5473 1000 1763 2763   7.2 64.1
18b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. 31   0¾ 62.4 143 2090 3586 5676 1007 1959 2966   7.3 58.3
19 .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 .. 200 300 .. 500 30   1    62.4 144 2031 3348 5379   948 1721 2669   7.7 60.7
20} Unmanured {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14   1    60.8   89   956 1609 2565 -127   -18 -145 10.2 59.4
21} {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17   3¼ 61.9 127 1232 1763 2995 149 136 285 11.5 69.9
22} {.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1. Top-dressed in March, 1851.

200 The plot continuously unmanured, gives about 16 bushels of wheat per acre.

The plot with barn-yard manure, nearly 30 bushels per acre.

400 lbs. of ammonia-salts alone, on plot 9a, 31¼ bushels; on 9b, 29 bushels; on 10a and 10b, nearly 29 bushels each. This is remarkable uniformity.

400 lbs. ammonia-salts and a large quantity of mineral manures in addition, on twelve different plots, average not quite 32 bushels per acre.

“The superphosphate and minerals,” said the Deacon, “do not seem to do much good, that is a fact.”

You will notice that 336 lbs. of common salt was sown on plot 16a. It does 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 adjoining plot 16b, where no salt was used, but otherwise manured alike. It would seem, however, that the quality of the grain was slightly improved by 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 autumn with the other manures.”

“The Deacon is right,” said I, “but it so happens that the next year and the year after, the salt was applied at the same time as the other manures. It gave an increase of 94 lbs. of grain and 61 lbs. of straw in 1851, but the following year the same quantity of salt used on the same plot did more harm than good.”

Before we leave the results of this year, it should be observed that on 8a, 5,000 lbs. of cut straw and chaff were used per acre. I do not recollect seeing anything in regard to it. And yet the result was very remarkable—so much so indeed, that it is a matter of regret that the experiment was not repeated.

This 5,000 lbs. of straw and chaff gave an increase of more than 10 bushels per acre over the continuously unmanured plot.

“Good,” said the Deacon, “I have always told you that you under-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 doubted the good effects of anything that lightens up a clay soil and renders it warmer and more porous. I suppose the great benefit derived from this application of straw must be attributed to its ameliorating action on the soil. The 5,000 lbs. of straw and chaff produced a crop within nearly 3 bushels per acre of the plot manured every year with 14 tons of barn-yard manure.

“I am surprised,” said the Doctor, “that salt did no good. I 201 have seen many instances in which it has had a wonderful effect on wheat.”

“Yes,” said I, “and our experienced friend, John Johnston, is very decidedly of the opinion that its use is highly profitable. He sows a barrel of salt per acre broadcast on the land at the time he sows his wheat, and I have myself seen it produce a decided improvement in the crop.”

We have now given the results of the first eight years of the experiments. From this time forward, the same manures were used year after year on the same plot.

The results are given in the accompanying tables for the following twelve 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, and they deserve and will receive the careful study of every intelligent American farmer.

“I am with you there,” said the Deacon. “You seem to think that I do not appreciate the labors of scientific men. I do. Such experiments as these we are examining command the respect of every intelligent farmer. I may not fully understand them, but I can see clearly enough that they are of great value.”

202
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.*

FM   Farm-yard Manure.

CS   Common Salt.

SP   Sulphate of Potass.1

SS   Sulphate of Soda.1

SMg   Sulphate of Magnesia.1

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.

NS   Nitrate of Soda.

RC   Rape-cake.

P
l
o
t
s.
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.
Superphosphate of Lime.
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 .. ..
29a .. .. 300 200   100   200   150 .. .. .. 550 ..
39b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 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 .. 3364 300 200   100   200   150 .. 400 400 .. ..
16b .. .. 300 200   100   200   150 .. 400 400 .. ..
{17a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. ..
5{17b .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 200 .. ..
{18a .. .. 300 200   100   200   150 .. .. .. .. ..
5{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.

203
NOTES TO TABLE IX. (p. 202.)

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 12a and 12b; and the sulphate of magnesia from 420 to 280 lbs. (two-thirds the amount) on Plots 14a and 14b.

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.

3. Plot 9b—in the 9th season only 475 lbs. of nitrate of soda were applied.

4. Common salt—not applied after the 10th season.

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.

204  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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

205  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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
16 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

206  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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

207  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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
15a 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

208  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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

209  

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.

Wt/Bu.   Weight per Bushel.

C&S   Corn and Straw.

P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
P
l
o
t
s.
Produce per Acre, etc.
(For the Manures see pp. 202 and 203.)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Dressed Corn. Total
Corn
Total
Produce
(C&S)
Quantity Wt/Bu. Quantity Wt/Bu.
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

210  

The ninth season (1851-2), was unusually cold in June and wet in August. It will be seen that the wheat, both in quantity and quality, is the poorest since the commencement of the experiments. The unmanured plot gave less than 14 bushels of dressed grain per acre; the plot with barn-yard manure, less than 28 bushels, and the best yield in the whole series was not quite 29 bushels per acre, and only weighed 55 lbs. per bushel. On the same plot, the year before, with precisely the same manure, the yield was nearly 37 bushels per acre, and the weight per bushel, 63½ lbs. So much for a favorable and an unfavorable season.

The tenth season (1852-3), was still more unfavorable. The autumn of 1852 was so wet that it was impossible to work the land and sow the wheat until the 16th of March 1853.

You will see that the produce on the unmanured plot was less than 6 bushels per acre. With barn-yard manure, 19 bushels, and with a heavy dressing 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, 10 bushels per acre.

The weight per bushel on the unmanured plot was 45 lbs.; with mixed mineral manures, 48½ lbs.; with ammonia-salts alone, 48½ lbs.; with barn-yard manure, 51 lbs.; and with ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures, 52¼ lbs.

Farmers are greatly dependent on the season, but the good farmer, who keeps up the fertility of his land stands a better chance of making money (or of losing less), than the farmer who depends on the unaided products of the soil. The one gets 6 bushels per acre, and 1,413 lbs. of straw of very inferior quality; the other gets 20 to 26 bushels per acre, and 5,000 lbs. of straw. And you must recollect that in an unfavorable season we are pretty certain to get high prices.

The eleventh season (1853-4,) gives us much more attractive-looking figures! We have over 21 bushels per acre on the plot which has grown eleven crops of wheat in eleven years without any manure.

With barn-yard manure, over 41 bushels per acre. With ammonia-salts alone (17a), 45¾ bushels. With ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, (16b), over 50 bushels per acre, and 6,635 lbs. of straw. A total produce of nearly 5½ tons per acre.

The twelfth season (1854-5), gives us 17 bushels of wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot. Over 34½ bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure. And I think, for the first time since the commencement of the experiments, this plot produces 211 the largest yield of any plot in the field. And well it may, for it has now had, in twelve years, 168 tons of barn-yard manure per acre!

Several of the plots with ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, are nearly up to it in grain, and ahead of it in straw.

The thirteenth season (1855-6), gives 14½ bushels on the unmanured plot; over 36¼ bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure; and over 40 bushels on 8a, dressed with 600 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures. It will be noticed that 800 lbs. ammonia-salts does not give quite as large a yield this year as 600 lbs. I suppose 40 bushels per acre was all that the season was capable of producing, and an extra quantity of ammonia did no good. 400 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 7a, produced 37¼ bushels per acre, and 800 lbs. on 16b, only 37¾ bushels. That extra half bushel of wheat was produced at considerable cost.

The fourteenth season (1856-7), gives 20 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and 41 bushels on the plot with barn-yard manure. Mixed mineral manures alone on 5a gives nearly 23 bushels per acre. Mixed mineral manures and 200 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 6a, give 35¼ bushels. In other words the ammonia gives us over 12 extra bushels of wheat, and 1,140 lbs. of straw. Mineral manures and 400 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 7b, give 46¼ bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 600 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 8b, give nearly 49 bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 800 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 16b, give 50 bushels per acre, and 4,703 lbs. of straw.

“This exceedingly heavy manuring,” said the Deacon, “does not pay. For instance,

“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 especial attention to this point. The 200 lbs. of ammonia-salts contain about 50 lbs. of ammonia, and the 400 lbs., 100 lbs. of ammonia. And as I have said, 100 lbs. of ammonia per acre is an unusually heavy dressing. It is as 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 wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot, and nearly 39 bushels on the plot continuously manured with 14 tons of barnyard manure. Mixed mineral manures on 5a and 5b, give a mean yield of less than 19 bushels per acre.

212 Mixed mineral manures and 100 lbs. ammonia-salts, on plots 21 and 22, give 23¼ bushels per acre. In other words:

  25 lbs. ammonia (100 lbs. ammonia-salts),

gives an increase of 4¼ bush.

  50 lbs. ammonia (200 lbs. ammonia-salts),

gives an increase of 10 bush.

100 lbs. ammonia (400 lbs. ammonia-salts),

gives an increase of 20 bush.

150 lbs. ammonia (600 lbs. ammonia-salts),

gives an increase of 23 bush.

200 lbs. ammonia (800 lbs. ammonia-salts),

gives an increase of 23 bush.

“It takes,” said the Deacon, “about 5 lbs. of ammonia to produce a bushel of wheat. And according to this, 500 lbs. of Peruvian guano, guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, would give an increase of 10 bushels of wheat.”

“This is a very interesting matter,” said I, “but we will not discuss it at present. Let us continue the examination of the subject. I do not propose to make many remarks on the tables. You must study them for yourself. I have spent hours and days and weeks making and pondering over these tables. The more you study them the more interesting and instructive they become.”

The sixteenth season (1858-9), gives us a little over 18¼ bushels on the unmanured plot. On the plot manured with 14 tons farmyard manure, 36¼ bushels; and this is the highest yield this season in the wheat-field. Mixed mineral manures alone, (mean of plot 5a and 5b), give 20½ bushels.

25 lbs. ammonia (100 lbs. ammonia-salts), and mixed minerals, give 25¼ bushels, or an increase over minerals alone of 4¾ bushels.

  50 lbs. ammonia, an increase of   9¼ bush.
100 ””” 14 bush.
150 ””” 14 bush.
200 ””” 14¼ bush.

The season was an unfavorable one for excessive manuring. It was too wet and the crops of wheat when highly manured were much laid. The quality of the grain was inferior, as will be seen from the light weight per bushel.

The seventeenth season (1859-60,) gives less than 13 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and 32¼ bushels on the plot manured with 14 tons farm-yard manure. This season (1860), was a miserable year for wheat in England. It was both cold and wet. Mixed mineral manures, on plots 5a and 5b, gave nearly 16 bushels per acre. 25 lbs. ammonia, in addition to 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 bushels.
150 ”””” 15¼ bushels.
200 ”””” 16¾ bushels.

It was a poor year for the wheat-grower, and that, whether he manured excessively, liberally, moderately, or not at all.

213 “I do not quite see that,” said the Deacon, “the farm-yard manure gave an increase of nearly 20 bushels per acre. And the quality of the grain must have been much better, as it weighed 3½ lbs. per bushel more than the plot unmanured. If the wheat doubled in price, as it ought to do in such a poor year, I do not see but that the good farmer who had in previous years made his land rich, would come out ahead.”

“Good for the Deacon,” said I. “‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’” If the Deacon continues to study these experiments much longer, we shall have him advocating chemical manures and high farming!

The eighteenth season (1860-1,) gave less than 11½ bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and nearly 35 bushels on the manured plot.

The mixed mineral manures, gave nearly … … … 15½ bushels.
The mixed mineral manures, and   25 lbs. ammonia … 18¼
50 lbs. ammonia … 27¾
100 lbs. ammonia … 35  
150 lbs. ammonia … 35  
200 lbs. ammonia … 37  

The nineteenth season (1861-2,) gave 16 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and over 38¼ bushels on the plot manured with farm-yard manure.

Mixed mineral manures, gave nearly … … … 18 bushels per acre.
Mixed mineral manures, and 25 lbs. ammonia … 20¼ ””
50 lbs. ammonia … 28¼ ””
100 lbs. ammonia … 36   ””
150 lbs. ammonia … 39½ ””
200 lbs. ammonia … 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.
Mixed mineral manures, and 25 lbs. ammonia … 28¾ ””
50 lbs. ammonia … 39¾ ””
100 lbs. ammonia … 53¾ ””
150 lbs. ammonia … 55¾ ””
200 lbs. ammonia … 56   ””

When we consider that this is the twentieth wheat-crop in succession on the same land, these figures are certainly remarkable.

“They are so,” said the Deacon, “and what to me is the most surprising thing about the whole matter is, that the plot which has had no manure of any kind for 25 years, and has grown 20 wheat-crops in 20 successive years, 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 must either have very good land, or else the 214 climate of England is better adapted for wheat-growing than Western New York.”

“I do not think,” said I, “that Mr. Lawes’ land is any better than yours or mine; and I do not think the climate of England is any more favorable for growing wheat without manure than our climate. If there is any difference it is in our favor.”

“Why, then,” asked the Doctor, “do we not grow as much wheat per acre as Mr. 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 every year; and the crop was hoed once or twice in the spring to kill the weeds.

2d. We do not half work our heavy land. We do not plow it enough—do not cultivate, 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-spots could not deposit the seed an inch deep. There is “plant-food” enough in these “clay-spots” to give 17 bushels of wheat per acre—or perhaps 40 bushels—but we shall not get ten bushels. The wheat will not come up until late in the autumn—the plants will be weak and thin on the ground; and if they escape the winter they will not get a fair hold of the ground until April or May. You know the result. The straw is full of sap, and is almost sure to rust; the grain shrinks up, and we harvest the crop, not because it is worth the labor, but because we cannot cut the wheat with a machine on the better parts of the field without cutting these poor spots also. An acre or two of poor spots pull down the 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 the soil, and standing water on the surface. I think we may safely say that one-third the wheat-crop of this county (Monroe Co., N.Y.), is lost for want of better tillage and better draining—and yet we think we have as good wheat-land and are as good farmers as can be found in this country or any other!


Unless we drain land, where drainage is needed, and unless we work land thoroughly that needs working, and unless we kill the weeds or check their excessive growth, it is poor economy to sow expensive manures on our 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 the greatest pains to make the best and most manure 215 from the animals kept on the farm. They know what manures cost and what they are worth. As a rule, too, such men are good farmers, and endeavor to work their land thoroughly and keep it clean. When this is the case, there can be little doubt that we can often use artificial manures to great advantage.


“You say,” said the Deacon, who had been looking over the tables while I was talking, “that mixed mineral manures and 50 lbs. of ammonia give 39¾ bushels per acre. Now these mixed mineral manures contain potash, soda, magnesia, and superphosphate. And I see where superphosphate was used without any potash, soda, and magnesia, but with the same amount of ammonia, the yield is nearly 46 bushels per acre. This does not say much in favor of potash, soda, and magnesia, as manures, for wheat. Again, I see, on plot 10b, 50 lbs. of ammonia, alone, gives over 43½ bushels per acre. On plot 11b, 50 lbs. ammonia and superphosphate, give 46½ bushels. Like your father, I am inclined to ask, ‘Where can I get this ammonia?’”


CHAPTER XXVIII.

LIME AS A MANURE.

These careful, systematic, and long-continued experiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to prove that if you have a piece of land well prepared for wheat, which will produce, without manure, say 15 bushels per acre, there is no way of making that land produce 30 bushels of wheat per acre, without directly or indirectly furnishing the soil with a liberal supply 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 good dressing of lime double the yield of wheat. In such a case I suppose the lime decomposes the organic matter in the soil, or in some other way sets free the nitrogen or ammonia already in the soil; or the lime forms compounds in the soil which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. Be this as it may, the facts brought out by Mr. Lawes’ experiments warrant us in concluding that the increased growth of wheat was connected in some way with an increased supply of available nitrogen or ammonia.”

216 My father used great quantities of lime as manure. He drew it a distance of 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 the acre—generally 150 bushels. He used to say that a small dose of lime did little or no good. He wanted to use enough to change the general character of the land—to make the light land firmer and the heavy land lighter.

While I was with Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert at Rothamsted, I went home on a visit. My father had a four-horse team drawing lime every day, and putting it in large heaps in the field to slake, before spreading it on the land for wheat.

“I do not believe it pays you to draw so much lime,” said I, with the confidence which a young man who has learned a little of agricultural chemistry, is apt to feel in his newly acquired knowledge.

“Perhaps not,” said my father, “but we have got to do something for the land, 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, strictly speaking,” said I; “a bushel to the acre would furnish all the lime the crops require, even if there was not an abundant supply already in the soil. If you mix lime with guano, it sets free the ammonia; and when you mix lime with the soil it probably decomposes some compounds containing ammonia or the elements of ammonia, and thus furnishes a supply of ammonia for the plants. I think it would be cheaper to buy ammonia in the shape of Peruvian guano.”

After dinner, my father asked me to take a walk over the farm. We came to a field of barley. Standing at one end of the field, about the middle, 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 the left hand. The straw is stiffer and brighter, and the heads larger and heavier. I should think the right half of the field will be ten bushels per acre better than the other.”

“So I think,” he said, “and now can you tell me why?” —“Probably you manured 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 them off by sheep on the other half.” —“No, both sides were treated precisely alike.” —I gave it up —“Well,” said he, “this half the field on the right-hand was limed, thirty years ago, and that is the only reason I know for the difference. And now you need not tell me that lime does not pay.”

I can well understand how this might happen. The system of 217 rotation adopted was, 1st clover, 2d wheat, 3d turnips, 4th barley, seeded with clover.

Now, you put on, say 150 bushels of lime for wheat. After the wheat the land is manured and sown with turnips. The turnips are eaten off on the land by sheep; and it is reasonable to suppose that on the half of the field dressed with lime there would be a much heavier crop of turnips. These turnips being eaten off by the sheep would furnish more manure for this half than the other half. Then again, when the land was in grass or clover, the limed half would afford more and sweeter grass and clover than the other half, and the sheep would remain on it longer. They would eat it close into the ground, going only on to the other half when they could not get enough to eat on the limed half. More of their droppings would be left on the limed half of the field. The lime, too, would continue to act for several years; but even after all direct benefit from the lime had ceased, it is easy to understand why the crops might be better for a long period of time.

“Do you think lime would do any good,” asked the Deacon, “on our limestone land?”—I certainly do. So far as I have seen, it does just as much 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 are charged from 25 to 30 cts. a bushel for it, and I do not think at these rates 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 of limestone on the farm, and could use up your down wood.”—I believe it would pay me to do so, but one man cannot do everything. I think if farmers would use more lime for manure we should get it cheaper. The demand would increase with competition, and we should soon get it at its real value. At 10 to 15 cents a bushel, I feel sure that we could use lime as a manure with very great benefit.


“I was much interested some years ago,” said the Doctor, “in the results of Prof. Way’s investigations in regard to the absorptive powers of soils.”

His experiments, since repeated and confirmed by other chemists, formed a new epoch in agricultural chemistry. They afforded some new suggestions 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 substances presented to them in manure; thus, when solutions of salts of ammonia, of potash, magnesia, etc., were made to filter 218 slowly through a bed of dry soil, five or six inches deep, arranged in a flower-pot, or other suitable vessel, it was observed that the liquid which ran through, no longer contained any of the ammonia or other salt employed. The soil had, in some form or other, retained the alkaline substance, while the water in which it was previously dissolved passed through.

Further, this power of the soil was found not to extend to the whole salt of ammonia or potash, but only to the alkali itself. If, for instance, sulphate of ammonia were the compound used in the experiments, the ammonia would be removed from solution, but the filtered liquid would contain sulphuric acid in abundance—not in the free or uncombined form, but united to lime; instead of sulphate of ammonia we should find sulphate of lime in the solution; and this result was obtained, whatever the acid of the salt experimented upon might be.

It was found, moreover, that the process of filtration was by no means necessary; by the mere mixing of an alkaline solution with a proper quantity of soil, as by shaking them together in a bottle, and allowing the soil to subside, the same result was obtained. The action, therefore, was in no way referable to any physical law brought into operation by the process of filtration.

It was also found that the combination between the soil and the alkaline substance was rapid, if not instantaneous, partaking of the nature of the ordinary union between an acid and an alkali.

In the course of these experiments, several different soils were operated upon, and it was found that all soils capable of profitable cultivation possessed this property in a greater or less degree.

Pure sand, it was found, did not possess this property. The organic matter of the soil, it was proved, had nothing to do with it. The addition of carbonate of lime to a soil did not increase its absorptive power, and indeed it was found that a soil in which carbonate of lime did not exist, possessed in a high degree the power of removing ammonia or potash from solution.

To what, then, is the power of soils to arrest ammonia, potash, magnesia, phosphoric acid, etc., owing? The above experiments lead to the conclusion that it is due to the clay which they contain. In the language of Prof. Way, however,

“It still remained to be considered, whether the whole clay took any active part in these changes, or whether there existed in clay some chemical compound in small quantity to which the action was due. This question was to be decided by the extent to which clay was able to unite with ammonia, or other alkaline bases; and it soon became evident that the idea of the clay as a 219 whole, being the cause of the absorptive property, was inconsistent with all the ascertained laws of chemical combination.”

After a series of experiments, Prof. Way came to the conclusion that there is in clays a peculiar class of double silicates to which the absorptive properties of soil are due. He found that the double silicate of alumina and lime, or soda, whether found naturally in soils or produced artificially, would be decomposed when a salt of ammonia, or potash, etc., was mixed with it, the ammonia, or potash, taking the place of the lime or soda.

Prof. Way’s discovery, then, is not that soils have “absorptive properties”—that has been long known—but that they absorb ammonia, potash, phosphoric acid, etc., by virtue of the double silicate of alumina 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 fertility by exposure to the influence of the atmosphere—hence one of the uses of fallows. **I find that clay is so greedy of ammonia, that if air, charged with carbonate of ammonia, so as to be highly pungent, is passed through a tube filled with small fragments of dry clay, every particle of the gas is arrested.”

This power of the soil to absorb ammonia, is also due to the double silicates. But there is this remarkable difference, that while either the lime, soda, or potash silicate is capable of removing the ammonia from solution, the lime silicate alone has the power of absorbing it from the air.

This is an important fact. Lime may act beneficially on many or most soils by converting the soda silicate into a lime silicate, or, in other words, converting a salt that will not absorb carbonate of ammonia from the air, into a salt that has this important property.

There is no manure that has been so extensively used, and with such general success as lime, and yet, “who among us,” remarks Prof. Way, “can say that he perfectly understands the mode in which lime acts?” We are told that lime sweetens the soil, by neutralizing any acid character that it may possess; that it assists the decomposition of inert organic matters, 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 it liberates silica from these rocks; and lastly, that lime is one of the substances found uniformly and in considerable quantity in the ashes of plants, that therefore its application may be beneficial simply as furnishing a material indispensable to the substance of a plant.

220 These explanations are no doubt good as far as they go, but experience furnishes many facts which cannot be explained by any one, or all, of these suppositions. Lime, we all know, does much good on soils abounding in organic matter, and so it frequently does on soils almost destitute of it. It may liberate potash, soda, silica, etc., from clay soils, but the application of potash, soda, and silica has little beneficial effect on the soil, and therefore we cannot account for the action of lime on the supposition that it renders the potash, soda, etc., of the soil available to plants. Furthermore, lime effects great good on soils abounding in salts of lime, and therefore it cannot be that it operates as a source of lime for the structure of the plant.

None of the existing theories, therefore, satisfactorily account for the action of lime. Prof. Way’s views are most consistent with the facts of practical experience; but they are confessedly hypothetical; and his more recent investigations do not confirm the idea that lime acts beneficially by converting the soda silicate into the lime silicate.

Thus, six soils were treated with lime water until they had absorbed from 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 about 300 bushels of lime per acre. The amount of ammonia in the soil was determined before liming, after liming, and then after being exposed to the fumes of carbonate ammonia until it had absorbed as much as it would. 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 the absorption of ammonia, and hence the beneficial effect of liming on such soils must be accounted for on some other supposition. This negative result, 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 of lime and not that of soda. Indeed, the extent to 221 which the natural soils absorbed ammonia—equal, in No. 3, to about 7,000 lbs. of ammonia per acre, equivalent to the quantity contained in 700 tons of barn-yard manure—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, that we are justified in believing it to be due to some special cause, and probably it arises from the existence of some compound silicates containing ammonia, of which lime under the circumstances can replace one-half—forming, for instance, a double silicate of alumina, with half lime and half ammonia—such compounds are not unusual or new to the chemist.”

This loss of ammonia from a heavy dressing of lime is very great. A soil five 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, or in an acre, five inches deep, 169 lbs. The loss by liming is 124 lbs. of ammonia 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. Way observes:

“Is it not possible, that for the profitable agricultural use, the ammonia of the soil is too tightly locked up in it? Can we suppose that the very powers of the soil to unite with and preserve the elements of manure are, however excellent a provision of nature, yet in some degree opposed to the growth of the abnormal crops which it is the business of the farmer to cultivate? There is no absolute reason why such should not be the case. A provision of nature must relate to natural circumstances; for instance, compounds of ammonia may be found in the soil, capable of giving out to the agencies of water and air quite enough of ammonia for the 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 the supply of vegetable nutrition in the soil, are too stringent for the requirements of an unusual and excessive vegetation, such as the cultivator must promote.

“In the case of ammonia locked up in the soil, lime may be the remedy at the command of the farmer—his means of rendering immediately available stores of wealth, which can otherwise only slowly be brought into use.

“In this view, lime would well deserve the somewhat vague 222 name that has been given it, namely, that of a ‘stimulant’; for its application would be in some sort an application of ammonia, while its excessive application, by driving off ammonia, would lead to all the disastrous effects which are so justly attributed to it.

“I do not wish to push this assumption too far,” says Prof. Way, in conclusion, “but if there be any truth in it, it points out the importance 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 bushels of refuse lime from the kiln, and mixed it with his manure. It made a powerful smell, and not an agreeable one, to the passers by. He put the mixture on a twenty-acre field of wheat, and he said he was going to beat you.”

“Yes,” said I, “so I understood—but he did not do it. If he had applied the 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 mixing lime with good, rich farm-yard manure; but with long, coarse, strawy manure, there would be less injury, and possibly some advantage.”

“The Squire,” said the Deacon, “got one advantage. He had not much trouble in drawing the manure about the land. There was not much of it left.”

Lime does not always decompose organic matter. In certain conditions, it will preserve vegetable substances. We do not want to mix lime with manure in order to preserve it; and if our object is to increase fermentation, we must be careful to mix sufficient soil with the manure to keep it moist enough to retain the liberated ammonia.


Many farmers who use lime for the first time on wheat, are apt to feel a little discouraged in the spring. I have frequently seen limed wheat in the 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 will generally give a good account of itself.

There is one thing about lime which, if generally true, is an important matter to our wheat-growers. Lime is believed to hasten the maturity of the crop. “It is true of nearly all our cultivated crops,” says the late Professor Johnston, “but especially of those of wheat, that their full growth is attained more speedily when the land is limed, and that they are ready for the harvest from ten to fourteen days earlier. This is the case even with buckwheat, 223 which becomes sooner ripe, though it yields no larger a return when lime is applied to the land on which it is grown.”

In districts where the midge affects the wheat, it is exceedingly important to get a variety of wheat that ripens early; and if lime will favor early maturity, without checking the growth, it will be of great value.


A correspondent in Delaware writes: “I have used lime as a manure in various ways. For low land, the best way is, to sow it broadcast while the vegetation is in a green state, at the rate of 40 or 50 bushels to the 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 the plowed ground in about the same quantity as before. Last year, I tried it both ways, and the result was, my crop was increased at least fourfold in each instance, but that used on the vegetation was best. The soil is a low, black sand.”

A farmer writes from New Jersey, that he has used over 6,000 bushels of lime on his farm, and also considerable guano and phosphates, but considers that the lime has paid the best. His farm has more than doubled in real value, and he attributes this principally to the use of lime.

“We lime,” he says, “whenever it is convenient, but prefer to put it on at least one year before plowing the land. We spread from 25 to 40 bushels of lime on the sod in the fall; plant with corn the following summer; next spring, sow with oats and clover; and the next summer, plow under the clover, and sow with wheat and timothy. We have a variety of soils, from a sandy loam to a stiff clay, and are certain that lime will pay on all or any of them. Some of the best farmers in our County commenced liming when the lime cost 25 cts. a bushel, and their farms are ahead yet, more in value, I judge, than the lime cost. The man who first commences using lime, will get so far ahead, while his neighbors are looking on, that they will never catch up.”

Another correspondent in Hunterdon Co., N.J., writes: “Experience has taught me that the best and most profitable mode of applying lime is on grass 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 the harvest 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 spread more evenly on the ground, and is in a state to be more readily taken up by 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 ground 224 as practicable, as the specific gravity or weight of this mineral manure is so great, that we soon find it too deep in the ground for the fibrous roots of plants to derive the greatest possible benefit from its use. With this method of application are connected several advantages. The lime can be hauled in the fall, after the busy season is over, and when spread on the sod in this way, comes in more immediate contact with the grass and grass-roots than when the land is first plowed. In fields that have been limed in part in this manner, and then plowed, and lime applied to the remainder at the time of planting with corn, I always observe a great difference in the corn-crop; and in plowing up the stubble the next season, the part limed on the sod is much mellower than that limed after the sod was broken, presenting a rich vegetable mould not observed in the other part of the field.”

A farmer in Chester Co., Pa., also prefers to apply lime to newly-seeded grass or clover. He puts on 100 bushels of slaked lime per acre, either in the fall or in the spring, as most convenient. He limes one field every year, and as the farm is laid off into eleven fields, all the land receives a dressing of lime once in eleven years.


In some sections of the country, where lime has been used for many years, it is possible that part of the money might better be used in the purchase of guano, phosphates, fish-manure, etc.; while in this section, where we seldom use lime, we might find it greatly to our interest to give our land an occasional dressing of lime.

The value of quick-lime as a manure is not merely in supplying an actual constituent of the plant. If it was, a few pounds per acre would be sufficient. Its value consists in changing the chemical and physical character of the soil—in developing the latent mineral plant-food, and in decomposing and rendering available organic matter, and in forming compounds which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. It may be that we can purchase this ammonia and other plant-food cheaper than we can get it by using lime. It depends a good deal on the nature and composition of the soil. At present, this question can not be definitely settled, except by actual trial on the farm. In England, where lime was formerly used in large quantities, the tendency for some time has been towards a more liberal and direct use of ammonia and phosphates in manures, rather than to develop them out of the soil by the use of lime. A judicious combination of the two systems will probably be found the most profitable.


Making composts with old sods, lime, and barn-yard manure, is 225 a time-honored practice in Europe. I have seen excellent results from the application of such a compost on meadow-land. The usual plan is, to select an old hedge-row or headland, which has lain waste for many years. Plow it up, and cart the soil, sods, etc., into a long, narrow heap. Mix lime with it, and let it lie six months or a year. Then turn it, and as soon as it is fine and mellow, draw it on to the land. I have assisted at making many a heap of this kind, but do not recollect the proportion of lime used; in fact, I question if we had any definite rule. If we wanted to use lime on the land, we put more in the heap; if not, 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 in Wakefield, England. He found that:

Phosphoric Acid. Nitrogen.

10 tons of dry earth before using contained

  63 lbs.   36 lbs.

10 tons of dry earth after being used once contained

  74   ”   50   ”

twice contained

  84   ”   88   ”

thrice contained

102   ” 102   ”

After looking at the above figures, the Deacon remarked: “You say 10 tons of dry earth before being used in the closet contained 62 lbs. of nitrogen. How much nitrogen does 10 tons of barn-yard manure contain?”

“That depends a good deal on what food the animals eat. Ten tons of average fresh manure would contain about 80 lbs. of nitrogen.”

“Great are the mysteries of chemistry!” exclaimed the Deacon. “Ten tons of dry earth contain almost as much nitrogen as 10 tons of barn-yard manure, and yet you think that nitrogen is the most valuable thing in manure. What shall we be told next?”

“You will be told, Deacon, that the nitrogen in the soil is in such a form that the plants can take up only a small portion of it. But if you will plow such land in the fall, and expose it to the disintegrating effects of the frost, and plow it again in the spring, and let the sun and air act upon it, more or less of the organic matter in the soil will be decomposed, and the nitrogen rendered soluble. And then if you sow this land to wheat after a good summer-fallow, you will stand a chance of having a great crop.”

This dry earth which Dr. Vœlcker analyzed appeared, he says, “to be ordinary garden soil, containing a considerable portion of clay.” After it had been passed once through the closet, one ton of it was spread on an acre of grass-land, which produced 2 tons 8 cwt. of hay. In a second experiment, one ton, once passed through the closet, produced 2 tons 7 cwt. of hay per acre. We are not told how much hay the land produced without any dressing 226 at all. Still we may infer that this top-dressing did considerable good. Of one thing, however, there can be no doubt. This one ton of earth manure contained only 1¼ lb. more nitrogen and 1½ lb. more phosphoric acid than a ton of the dry earth itself. Why then did it prove so valuable as a top-dressing for grass? I will not say that it was due solely to the decomposition of the nitrogenous matter and other plant-food in the earth, caused by the working over and sifting 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 the supply of plant-food, we must attribute it to the earth itself rather than to the small amount of night-soil which it contained.

It is a very common thing in England, as I have said before, for farmers to make a compost of the sods and earth from an old hedge-row, ditch, or fence, and mix with it some lime or barn-yard manure. Then, after turning it once or twice, and allowing it to remain in the heap for a few months, to spread it on meadow-land. I have seen great benefit apparently derived from such a top-dressing. The young grass in the spring assumed a rich, dark green color. I have observed the same effect where coal-ashes were spread on grass-land; and I have thought that the apparent benefit was due largely to the material acting as a kind of mulch, rather than to its supplying plant-food to the grass.


I doubt very much whether we can afford to make such a compost of earth with lime, ashes, or manure in this country. But I feel sure that those of us having rich clay land containing, in an inert form, as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as Dr. Vœlcker found in the soil to be used in the earth-closet at Wakefield, can well afford to stir it freely, and expose it to the disintegrating and decomposing action of the atmosphere.

An acre of dry soil six inches deep weighs about 1,000 tons; and consequently an acre of such soil as we are talking about would contain 6,200 lbs. of nitrogen, and 3,600 lbs. of phosphoric acid. In other words, it contains to the depth of only six inches as much nitrogen as would be furnished by 775 tons of common barn-yard manure, and as much phosphoric acid as 900 tons of manure. With such facts as these before us, am I to blame for urging farmers to cultivate their land more thoroughly? I do not know that my land or the Deacon’s is as rich as this English soil; but, at any rate, I see no reason why such should not be the case.

227

CHAPTER XXIX.

MANURES FOR BARLEY.

Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert have published the results of experiments with different manures on barley grown annually on the same land for twenty years in succession. The experiments commenced in 1852.

The soil is of the same general character as that in the field on the same farm where wheat was grown annually for so many years, and of which we have given such a full account. It is what we should call a calcareous 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 tenth of an acre. They rarely produced even a fair crop of corn or potatoes, and the barley was seldom worth harvesting. Since I have drained the land and taken special pains to bestow extra care in plowing and working these hard and intractable portions of the fields, the “clay spots” have disappeared, and are now nothing more than good, rather stiff, clay loam, admirably adapted for wheat, barley, and oats, and capable of producing good crops of corn, potatoes, and mangel-wurzels.

The land on which Mr. Lawes’ wheat and barley experiments were made is not dissimilar in general character from these “clay spots.” If the land was only half-worked, we should call it clay; but being thoroughly cultivated, it is a good clay loam. Mr. Lawes describes it as “a somewhat heavy loam, with a subsoil of raw, yellowish red clay, but resting in its turn upon chalk, which provides good natural drainage.”

The part of the field devoted to the experiments was divided into 24 plots, 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-yard manure, 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 best wheat soils. This is probably due to the fact that barley usually follows a crop of turnips—more or less of which are eaten off on the land by sheep. The trampling of the sheep compresses the soil, and makes even 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. 228 It is no use sowing barley on heavy land half worked. It will do better on light soils; but if the clayey soils are made fine and mellow, they produce with us the best barley.

In chemical composition, barley is quite similar to wheat. Mr. Lawes and Dr. 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, as follows:

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 in Western New York raised “winter barley,” instead of “winter wheat,” and I have seen remarkably heavy crops of this winter barley. It is not now grown with us. The maltsters would not pay as much for it as for spring barley, and as the midge troubles us less, our farmers are raising winter wheat again.

Where, as with us, we raise winter wheat and spring barley, the difference between the two crops, taking the above estimate of yield and proportion of grain to straw, would be:

1st. Almost identical composition in regard to nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, lime, and magnesia; but as it has more straw, the wheat-crop removes a larger amount of silica than barley.

2d. The greatest difference is in the length of time the two crops are in the ground. We sow our winter wheat the last of August, or the first and second week in September. Before winter sets in, the wheat-plant often 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 not improbable that the roots continue to absorb more or less food from the ground, and store it up for future use. In the spring, the wheat commences to grow before we can get the barley into the ground, though not to any considerable extent. I have several times sown barley as soon as the surface-soil was thawed out five or six inches deep, but with a bed of solid frozen earth beneath.

3d. Two-rowed barley does not ripen as early as winter wheat, but our ordinary six-rowed barley is ready to harvest the same time as our winter wheat.

229 4th. We sow our barley usually in May, and harvest it in July. The barley, therefore, has to take up its food rapidly. If we expect a good growth, we must provide a good supply of food, and have it in the proper condition for the roots to reach it and absorb it; in other words, the land must be not only rich, but it must be so well worked that the roots can spread out easily and rapidly in search of food and water. In this country, 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 good barley, or a crop not worth harvesting.”

“You have hit it exactly, Deacon,” said I. “The best barley I have this year (1878) is on these clay-spots. And the reason is, that we gave them an extra plowing last fall with a three-horse plow. That extra plowing has probably given me an extra 30 bushels of barley per acre. The barley on some of the lighter portions of the field will not yield over 25 bushels per acre. On the clay-spots, it looks now (June 13) as though there would be over 50 bushels per acre. It is all headed out handsomely on the clay-spots, and has a strong, dark, luxuriant appearance, while on the sand, the crop is later and has a yellow, sickly look.”

“You ought,” said the Doctor, “to have top-dressed these poor, sandy parts of the field with a little superphosphate and nitrate of soda.”

“It would have paid wonderfully well,” said I, “or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, the loss would have been considerably less. We have recently been advised by a distinguished writer, to apply manure to our best land, and let the poor land take care of itself. But where the poor land 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, whether we shall make them capable of producing a good crop by the application of manure, or be at all the labor and expense of putting in and harvesting a crop of chicken-feed and weeds. Artificial manures give us a grand chance to make our crops more uniform.”

“You are certainly right there,” said the Doctor, “but let us examine the Rothamsted experiments on barley.”

You will find the results in the following tables. The manures 230 used, are in many respects the same as were adopted in the wheat experiments already 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, or otherwise mixed, with a sufficient quantity of soil and turf-ashes to make it up to a convenient measure for equal distribution over the land. The mixtures so prepared were, with proper precautions, sown broadcast by hand; as it has been found that the application of an exact amount of manure, 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 to this rule are mentioned in foot-notes.

231
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].
Plots manures per acre, per annum (unless otherwise stated in the foot-notes). Plots
1 O.    

Unmanured continuously

1 O.
2 O.    

3½ cwts. Superphosphate of Lime*

2 O.
3 O.    

200 lbs. †Sulphate of Potass, 100 lbs. ‡ Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia

3 O.
4 O.    

200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass. 100 lbs. ‡ Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

4 O.
1 A.    

200 lbs. Ammonia-salts §

1 A.
2 A.    

200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

2 A.
3 A.    

200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia

3 A.
4 A.    

200 lbs. Ammonia salts 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

4 A.
{1 AA.  

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda

1 AA.}
{2 AA.  

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

2 AA.}
‖{3 AA.  

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. † Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia

3 AA.}‖
{4 AA.  

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

4 AA.}
{1 AAS.

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda

1 AAS.}
{2 AAS.

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

2 AAS.}
{3 AAS.

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. ¶Silicate Soda, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia

3 AAS.}
{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

4 AAS.}
{1 C.    

1000 lbs. Rape-cake

1 C.}
{2 C.    

1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

2 C.}
**{3 C.    

1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. † Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia,

3 C.}**
{4 C.    

1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. ‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate

4 C.}
{1 N.    

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda

1 N.}
††{2 N.    

275 lbs. Nitrate Soda (550 lbs. Nitrate for 5 years, 1853, 4, 5, 6, and 7)

2 N.}
M.    

100 lbs. ‡‡Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate (commencing 1855; 1852, 3, and 4, unmanured

  M.
5 O.    

200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate (200 lbs. Ammonia-salts also, for the first year, 1852, only)

5 O.
5 A.    

200 lbs. †Sulphate Potass, 3½ cwts. Superphosphate, 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts

5 A.
6 {1    

Unmanured continuously

1} 6
{2    

Ashes (burnt-soil and turf)

2}
      7

14 Tons Farmyard-Manure

  7

NOTES TO TABLE I.

* “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:
For comparison purposes, the above table is repeated here in the format used for similar tables in Chapter XXVII.

FM Farm-yard Manure.

ABT Ashes (burnt-soil and turf).

SiS Silicate of Soda.

SPL Superphosphate (of Lime).

SMg Sulphate of Magnesia.

SP Sulphate of Potass.

S Sulphate of Soda.

NS Nitrate of Soda.

RC Rape-Cake.

A-S Ammonia-salts.

Plots FM ABT SiS SPL 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

232
233

The following four tables are shown in “thumbnail” form. The full-width versions are collected in a separate file.

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.]

1st 10: First ten Years, 1852-’61.

2nd 10: Second ten Years, 1862-’71.

T20: Total Period, 20 Years, 1852-’71.

Harvests. Average Annual.
Plots. 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1st
10
2nd
10
T20
bushels. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bush. bushels. bushels. bushels.
1 O. 27¼ 25¾ 35   31   13⅞ 26⅛ 21⅛ 13½ 13¼ 16¼ 16½ 22⅞ 24   18   15⅞ 17⅛ 15⅝ 15⅛ 13½ 16¾ 22⅜ 17½ 20  
2 O. 28⅝ 33½ 40⅝ 36¼ 17¾ 33¼ 28¾ 19⅝ 15¾ 25   21⅞ 32⅜ 30¼ 22½ 22⅜ 24⅝ 18½ 18¼ 18   23⅛ 27⅞ 23¼ 25½
3 O. 26⅛ 27⅝ 36½ 34¾ 16⅝ 32   24¼ 15⅞ 15¼ 18⅞ 19¾ 27⅝ 26⅛ 22   19⅛ 17   14¼ 18¾ 16¾ 19⅜ 24¾ 20⅛ 22⅜
4 O. 32¾ 35⅝ 42   37⅛ 19¾ 39¾ 30⅞ 19¾ 18¼ 29⅜ 25⅛ 33   33¼ 24⅜ 24   20⅞ 17⅝ 22¼ 18½ 25   30½ 24⅜ 27½
Means 28¾ 30⅝ 38½ 34¾ 17   32¾ 26¼ 17¼ 15⅝ 22⅜ 20¾ 28⅞ 28⅜ 21¾ 20⅜ 19⅞ 16½ 18⅝ 16¾ 21⅛ 26⅜ 21¼ 23⅞
1 A. 36⅞ 38⅝ 47¾ 44½ 25   38⅞ 31½ 15⅜ 26⅝ 30½ 31⅜ 42⅝ 38⅞ 29⅞ 27⅛ 30⅝ 20⅜ 27⅞ 27¾ 36⅜ 33⅝ 31¼ 32½
2 A. 38⅝ 40⅛ 60½ 47¾ 29⅛ 56½ 51⅜ 34½ 43⅜ 55   48⅝ 61⅝ 58½ 48⅜ 50½ 44   37⅝ 48   41½ 45⅛ 45⅝ 48⅜ 47  
3 A. 36   36½ 50   44½ 28⅜ 42⅜ 34¼ 16⅞ 28   32¾ 35¼ 48⅝ 43⅞ 33¼ 27½ 33   25   34¾ 30⅞ 38⅛ 35   35   35  
4 A. 40¾ 38¼ 60⅝ 48⅜ 31¾ 57⅜ 51½ 34⅝ 43½ 54⅝ 47⅝ 55⅜ 55⅜ 46½ 47   43⅞ 34⅝ 49¼ 38   46½ 46⅛ 46⅜ 46¼
Means 38⅛ 38⅜ 54¾ 46¼ 28½ 48¾ 42⅛ 25⅜ 35⅜ 43¼ 40¾ 52⅛ 49⅛ 39½ 38⅛ 37⅞ 29⅜ 39⅞ 34½ 41½ 40⅛ 40¼ 40¼
1 AA. 44½ 40¾ 56⅝ 48   36¼ 49¾ 39⅜ 21½ 25⅜ 35   31½ 49   41¾ 33¾ 29⅛ 29¾ 27   32⅛ 29¼ 39⅛ 39¾ 34¼ 37  
2 AA. 43¾ 42¼ 63¼ 50⅜ 31½ 66½ 56¼ 35⅞ 43¼ 55¾ 51   60½ 56⅞ 47½ 50⅞ 44¼ 44   48¼ 46¼ 46½ 48⅞ 49⅝ 49¼
3 AA. 41¾ 41¼ 51½ 47¾ 25⅜ 49⅞ 40⅝ 20⅜ 30¾ 36⅞ 36¼ 54   44⅝ 34⅛ 29¾ 32⅞ 27½ 33⅞ 32⅜ 36⅛ 38⅝ 36⅛ 37⅜
4 AA. 45⅛ 44½ 62¾ 49⅝ 37⅝ 64⅞ 56¼ 35¾ 46¼ 55⅞ 48¾ 59½ 56⅜ 48⅞ 50⅞ 45   45⅜ 49⅞ 44½ 46   49⅞ 49½ 49¾
Means 43¾ 42⅛ 58½ 48⅞ 32⅝ 57¾ 48⅛ 28⅜ 36⅜ 45⅞ 41⅞ 55¾ 49⅞ 41⅛ 40⅛ 38   36   41   38⅛ 42   44¼ 42⅜ 43⅜
1 AAS. 44⅛ 34⅞ 37⅞ 32¼ 29⅜ 34¾ 35   48⅛ {37¼ 36⅞ 37 }
2 AAS. 54⅞ 47¼ 51⅛ 44   44⅞ 49⅞ 44¾ 49½ {49¼ 47¼ 48¼}1
3 AAS. 50   41   41⅞ 39½ 36⅜ 40½ 42¾ 48⅜ 1{43⅛ 42   42⅝}
4 AAS. 59⅛ 50½ 50¾ 45¼ 46⅝ 51¾ 47¼ 48⅞ {51⅜ 48⅝ 50 }
Means (d)2 43⅜ 45⅜ 40¼ 39⅜ 44¼ 42½ 48¾ 45¼ 43¾ 44½
1 C. 39⅛ 39⅞ 60¾ 48½ 36¾ 64⅛ 53¾ 38¾ 31¾ 56½ 41   51⅞ 48⅛ 45   45⅞ 38⅝ 37   42½ 41¾ 44   47   43⅝ 45¼
2 C. 36½ 36⅛ 60⅝ 53¼ 37⅛ 62¼ 57⅜ 41   36¾ 56⅞ 45   55   51¾ 46⅛ 47½ 45½ 35¼ 48¼ 41¾ 41¾ 47¾ 45¾ 46¾
3 C. 33½ 35¼ 56½ 48⅞ 32⅝ 60¼ 52   34⅛ 35¼ 51⅛ 36   53⅛ 49⅛ 48¾ 43⅞ 38⅞ 35⅛ 43⅝ 38½ 45⅜ 44   43¼ 43⅝
4 C. 38   40⅛ 60¼ 51¾ 35⅜ 62¼ 57⅛ 35   40¾ 53⅝ 45½ 54½ 53   48⅛ 48⅝ 42⅝ 36¼ 52⅛ 43¾ 47½ 47⅜ 47¼ 47⅜
Means 36¾ 37⅞ 59½ 50⅝ 35½ 62¼ 55   37¼ 36⅛ 54½ 41⅞ 53⅝ 50½ 47   46½ 41⅜ 35⅞ 46⅝ 41½ 44⅝ 46½ 45   45¾
1 N. }(25⅞){ 34⅜ 49⅜ 50   28½ 47⅞ 37¾ 24⅞ 27⅜ 38¼ 35½ 51½ 40¾ 37   34⅜ 33   25½ 35¼ 34¾ 43⅛ 2{37⅝ 37⅛ 37⅜}2
2 N. 37⅛ 53¼ 49⅜ 42   58   43⅞ 26½ 29¾ 41⅝ 38⅜ 53⅞ 46¼ 39⅞ 41   36⅜ 25⅜ 38⅜ 40¼ 45⅜ {42⅜ 40½ 41⅜}
  M. 32⅛ 18¾ 24½ 25⅞ 19½ 10⅝ 27⅝ 23⅜ 28⅛ 25⅞ 19¾ 19   20½ 14¾ 16⅝ 16⅛ 22⅛ 3(22⅝ 20⅝ 21½)3
5 O. (36½) 27½ 30¾ 32⅜ 19⅛ 31⅛ 25⅜ 16½ 10⅛ 28⅝ 17⅜ 29½ 26½ 23   22½ 19½ 15   23⅜ 14½ 20   4(24⅝ 21⅛ 22¾)4
5 A. 36½ 40⅛ 51⅞ 47⅞ 33⅛ 54⅞ 48⅛ 33⅛ 39   49⅜ 46⅝ 51½ 50¾ 48¼ 43⅞ 34⅞ 36⅛ 49⅞ 41¾ 44¼ 43⅜ 44¾ 44⅛
6{1 29   26¼ 35⅛ 37¼ 15⅛ 34⅞ 26½ 17⅛ 12¼ 16⅝ 18½ 27¼ 25⅛ 21   16⅛ 16⅜ 15¼ 14⅞ 15¼ 18¾ 25   18⅞ 22  
  {2 25⅛ 27⅜ 33¼ 36¼ 15⅞ 31⅛ 25¼ 14¾ 12⅛ 17⅞ 19   28⅝ 25⅛ 19¼ 17¼ 19¾ 15⅞ 15⅜ 15⅛ 24¼ 23⅞ 20   21⅞
7 33   36⅛ 56⅜ 50⅛ 32⅛ 51¼ 55   40   41⅝ 54⅜ 49¾ 59½ 62   52¾ 53⅛ 45⅝ 43⅝ 46⅞ 47½ 54¼ 45   51½ 48¼

1. Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.

2. Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

3. Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.

4. Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

234
235
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.]

1st 10: First ten Years, 1852-’61.

2nd 10: Second ten Years, 1862-’71.

T20: Total Period, 20 Years, 1852-’71.

Harvests. Average Annual.
Plots. 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1st
10
2nd
10
T20
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 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 53.6 55.7 53.9 51.1 51.8 54.3 52.4 52.9 55.0 51.6 53.1 52.3
2 O. 52.6 52.6 54.0 52.5 46.5 52.8 54.0 52.0 50.5 53.8 52.0 54.2 56.8 53.8 53.2 53.9 55.8 54.3 53.6 56.0 52.0 54.4 53.2
3 O. 52.5 51.9 53.6 52.9 48.5 52.5 53.5 49.5 50.3 52.8 51.8 54.5 56.9 54.5 52.3 52.9 55.7 54.7 54.3 55.4 51.8 54.3 53.0
4 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 57.3 54.0 52.7 53.6 55.3 54.6 55.6 55.6 52.3 54.6 53.4
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 56.7 54.1 52.3 53.1 55.3 54.0 54.1 55.5 52.0 54.1 53.0
1 A. 50.7 52.4 53.6 51.8 48.5 51.9 53.0 47.5 50.8 51.5 49.4 53.6 55.4 53.8 50.9 51.3 53.3 52.4 54.6 55.6 51.2 53.0 52.1
2 A. 50.5 52.5 54.3 51.3 46.3 54.3 53.8 51.0 51.0 53.5 53.5 55.3 57.0 52.7 54.4 54.1 54.6 57.0 57.2 55.0 51.8 55.1 53.5
3 A. 50.9 52.6 54.0 52.2 49.1 52.1 54.0 47.5 50.8 51.5 50.5 54.3 56.4 54.7 52.1 51.9 54.8 54.6 55.4 56.1 51.5 54.1 52.8
4 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 57.6 53.5 54.7 54.3 55.6 57.4 57.1 56.5 52.2 55.7 54.0
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 56.6 53.7 53.0 52.9 54.6 55.4 56.1 55.8 51.6 54.5 53.1
1 AA. 49.1 51.3 52.8 50.6 48.3 52.0 53.5 47.5 50.7 51.8 50.0 53.9 55.5 53.5 50.9 52.4 53.7 53.1 54.5 54.1 50.8 53.2 52.0
2 AA. 49.5 51.7 52.4 50.1 46.1 53.5 53.3 50.7 51.3 53.5 54.4 55.7 57.2 52.3 55.0 54.1 55.6 57.2 56.9 55.9 51.2 55.4 53.3
3 AA. 50.6 51.3 53.1 50.2 47.3 52.1 53.9 47.5 50.4 51.5 51.5 54.5 56.5 54.8 51.4 51.9 55.1 53.7 54.6 54.3 50.8 53.8 52.3
4 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 57.6 53.3 55.4 54.6 56.0 57.1 57.1 56.3 51.1 55.8 53.4
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 56.7 53.5 53.2 53.3 55.1 55.3 55.8 55.2 51.0 54.6 52.8
1 AAS. 56.1 54.2 51.8 53.5 54.2 54.8 55.0 54.6 {53.9 54.6 54.3}
2 AAS. 57.2 52.4 55.6 55.1 56.2 57.4 57.4 55.6 1{55.1 56.7 55.9}
3 AAS. 57.2 54.8 52.5 53.0 55.5 56.6 55.9 53.8 {54.4 55.5 55.0}
4 AAS. 57.0 53.1 55.3 54.1 56.2 57.8 57.8 55.4 {54.9 56.8 55.8}
Means 56.9 53.6 53.8 53.9 55.5 56.7 56.5 54.9 54.6 55.9 55.2
1 C. 51.7 51.3 52.9 50.5 46.1 53.2 53.5 52.0 52.0 54.0 54.5 56.3 57.1 53.8 55.1 54.4 56.2 56.7 57.5 56.3 51.7 55.8 53.8
2 C. 51.8 51.6 52.8 50.0 47.3 53.8 52.8 51.5 51.5 54.1 55.3 56.4 57.0 53.3 55.7 55.0 56.1 57.1 57.8 56.4 51.7 56.0 53.9
3 C. 51.3 51.5 52.6 50.6 46.6 54.1 53.5 51.7 51.8 53.5 53.5 56.8 57.3 53.3 55.3 54.7 55.8 57.1 57.6 56.3 51.7 55.8 53.7
4 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 57.2 53.5 55.6 54.8 55.4 57.4 58.0 56.4 51.4 55.9 53.6
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 57.1 53.5 55.4 54.7 55.9 57.1 57.7 56.4 51.6 55.9 53.8
1 N. }{51.7}{ 51.3 53.3 52.0 50.0 52.9 53.5 48.0 51.0 52.0 51.5 53.4 56.0 54.1 52.0 52.9 52.8 54.3 55.6 54.6 2{51.6 53.7 52.7}
2 N. 49.7 53.1 50.1 48.4 53.0 54.0 48.5 51.1 51.8 51.3 53.9 56.5 53.8 52.8 52.7 55.5 54.8 55.8 54.6 {51.1 54.2 52.7}
  M. 52.6 49.3 52.6 53.6 49.5 51.0 53.8 52.8 53.8 56.3 54.4 52.9 53.9 54.0 54.0 55.3 55.0 3(51.8 54.2 53.2)
5 O. (51.0) 51.8 53.1 52.6 47.5 53.4 54.0 51.0 51.0 53.3 51.5 54.1 57.6 54.5 53.4 54.0 56.4 55.6 55.9 55.1 4(52.0 54.8 53.4)
5 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 57.5 54.1 54.8 55.2 57.5 57.5 57.3 55.5 51.9 55.7 53.8
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 56.0 53.9 51.3 52.0 53.5 52.8 54.0 55.4 51.5 53.5 52.5
  {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 55.8 53.9 51.8 52.5 53.8 52.9 54.6 54.9 51.6 53.6 52.6
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 57.4 54.4 54.9 54.8 57.1 56.4 57.1 56.6 52.6 56.0 54.3

1. Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.

2. Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

3. Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.

4. Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

236
237
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.]

1st 10: First ten Years, 1852-’61.

2nd 10: Second ten Years, 1862-’71.

T20: Total Period, 20 Years, 1852-’71.

Harvests. Average Annual.
Plots. 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1st
10
2nd
10
T20
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 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   49   42   47   41   90   21   44   31   48 120   48   84
2 O. 100 101 101   69   58 106 103 159   84   78 114   58   69   38   21   53   29   89   18   33 96   52   74
3 O. 183 151   64   76 129   61 96   83   78   88   73   54   43   38   38   64   27   70   18   35 101   46   74
4 O. 136 160 105   94   88   53 108 160   74   58 117   57   41   28   55   60   25   69   26   48 104   53   78
Means 146 159   89   96 102   78   98 129   78   78   92   55   49   38   39   67   25   68   23   41 105   50   78
1 A. 218 253 201 138 219 113   98 184 150 170 269 116   99   58   94 115   49 139   23 105 174 107 141
2 A. 260 214 150 184 121   88 114 274 159 130 191   99   63   84   64   76   38 113   26 189 174 107 141
3 A. 252 336 197 177 180   91 96 175 115 109 269 108   83   51 106   94   34   95   24   89 173   95 134
4 A. 273 274 138 142 125   70 117 253 150 110 150   81 110   60   63   71   50   21   27 146 165   78 122
Means 251 277 172 160 161   91 106 222 143 130 220 101   89   63   82   89   43   92   25 132 171   94 133
1 AA. 299 303 326 204 310 135 88 215 109 173 296 110 110   64 148 110 46   64   33 133 216 111 164
2 AA. 315 251 329 181 233 133 134 320 118 190 133 143   50 113 111   69 46   89   24 168 220   95 158
3 AA. 318 236 334 212 290 108 118 265 122 138 364   95   76   48 103 106 59 111   36 133 214 113 164
4 AA. 246 301 273 150 176 183 143 285 141 179 191   66   46   76 133 119 43   78   30   90 208   87 148
Means 294 273 316 187 252 140 121 271 123 170 246 103   71   75 124 101   48   86   31 131 215 102 159
1 AAS. 94   55   88   85 49 121   33   94 {81   74 77}
2 AAS. 53   86   96   66 64   60   23 153 1{75   75 75}1
3 AAS. 70   50 141   79 39 136   29 130 {85   84 85}
4 AAS. 93   70   80   93 46 125   26 175 {84   93 89}
Means (d)7   65 101   81   50 111   28 138 81   82   82
1 C. 170 268 178 219 173 135 103 225 120 154 154   85   78   83 104 109   43   69   25   78 175   83 129
2 C. 164 316 238 195 161 169 148 171 156 150 128 109   92   44   89   89   64 111   24   88 193   84 138
3 C. 190 296 248 183 189 156 105 236 115 204 190   71   90   66   94   91   39   91   37 141 192   91 142
4 C. 144 277 227 222 205 168 125 350 153 204 174   66 123   69 128   72   42   67   28 124 208   89 149
Means 167 304 223 205 182 157 120 246 136 178 161   83   96   66 104   90   47   85   28 108 192   87 139
1 N. }(94){ 283 109 128 245   99 119 205 146 225 245 120   74   98 124 119   61 150   33   99 {173 112 141}
2 N. 228 286 224 193 151 110 235 179 190 216 114   95   84 104   88   35   98   33 171 2{199 104 149}2
  M. 36   94   90 84   85   75   78 198   46   58   69   44   56   26   61   25   58 3(77   64 69)3
5 O. (173) 68 113   50   96 101 71 110   73   73 193   41   78   35   48   56   20   75   23   41 4(84   61 72)4
5 A. 173 210 170 126 151   68 154 168 193 188 210   81   91   94   53   74   33   63   30 144 160   87 124
6 {1 120 200 144 116 152   72   84 121   88   73   75   51   51   45   72 103   27   71   26   50 117   57   87
  {2 118 161 119   73 125 105   81 127   95   67 194   65   54   47   51   83   21   57   23   41 107   64   85
7 101 269   86 109 141 134 121 260 147 190 208   66 117   56 148 111   48 100   26 171 156 105 130

1. Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.

2. Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

3. Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.

4. Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

238
239
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.]

1st 10: First ten Years, 1852-’61.

2nd 10: Second ten Years, 1862-’71.

T20: Total Period, 20 Years, 1852-’71.

Harvests. Average Annual.
Plots. 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1st
10
2nd
10
T20
Cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts. cwts.
1 O. 16⅝ 18   21¾ 17⅝ 12¾ 10⅞ 9⅛ 11   11⅜ 12¾ 8⅛ 10¼ 11⅝ 11   6⅝ 11   13⅜ 10¼ 11¾
2 O. 16½ 17⅛ 23¼ 17¾ 15⅝ 14⅞ 12¼ 8⅞ 13¼ 12⅞ 15⅝ 15⅝ 9⅛ 12⅝ 12¼ 9⅜ 10⅜ 8 12¼ 14⅞ 11⅞ 13⅜
3 O. 16½ 17¼ 20⅞ 17½ 9⅛ 15   12¼ 11½ 10⅞ 13⅜ 13⅝ 10¼ 10⅛ 8⅝ 11   11¼ 13⅞ 10¾ 12¼
4 O. 19½ 20½ 23⅛ 18   9⅜ 17⅛ 16⅛ 12¼ 9⅛ 15⅜ 13½ 15⅜ 16¾ 10   12⅞ 12   10⅛ 12⅞ 9⅜ 14   16⅛ 12⅝ 14⅜
Means 17¼ 18¼ 22¼ 17⅝ 9 15⅛ 13½ 10⅝ 8⅝ 12¾ 11½ 13⅞ 14⅝ 11¼ 11⅛ 9⅞ 11¼ 8⅛ 12⅛ 14½ 11⅜ 12⅞
1 A. 22⅞ 23¾ 30¼ 24⅛ 17⅛ 17¾ 15½ 11½ 14⅞ 19⅝ 20⅜ 21⅜ 20⅜ 13   15⅜ 17¼ 12¼ 18¼ 12½ 23⅛ 19¾ 17⅜ 18½
2 A. 26   25½ 40⅞ 29⅜ 21½ 26¾ 28¾ 24⅞ 25¼ 29¾ 32⅜ 34   32½ 21⅝ 28⅛ 28⅝ 19⅜ 32   17⅞ 28⅛ 27⅞ 27½ 27⅝
3 A. 23⅝ 25⅛ 33¾ 27½ 17⅞ 21⅜ 17⅞ 13½ 16¼ 21½ 23¼ 26¼ 19¼ 16   16¾ 19⅜ 14⅞ 20¾ 15   25⅜ 21⅞ 19¾ 20¾
4 A. 27⅞ 26⅝ 40½ 31   21¼ 27⅞ 29⅜ 27¼ 26⅝ 30½ 31⅝ 32   34⅞ 22½ 27⅜ 25½ 20⅞ 34⅜ 18⅝ 32½ 28⅞ 28   28½
Means 25⅛ 25¼ 36⅜ 28   19½ 23½ 22⅛ 19¼ 20¾ 25⅜ 26¾ 28⅜ 26¾ 18¼ 21¾ 22⅝ 16¾ 26⅜ 16   27¼ 24½ 23⅛ 23¾
1 AA. 26⅞ 26⅛ 37⅞ 32⅛ 24½ 23½ 19⅛ 14½ 13½ 22   21¼ 25⅛ 23¼ 16   17¾ 17⅛ 14½ 21½ 17⅞ 26¾ 24 20⅛ 22⅛
2 AA. 28⅜ 28⅜ 44⅜ 38⅝ 31⅝ 32⅞ 32⅝ 26½ 24¼ 31⅝ 31½ 32½ 33⅛ 23   28⅛ 30⅞ 21⅞ 34⅞ 23¾ 32⅛ 31⅞ 29⅛ 30½
3 AA. 26⅜ 27¼ 37⅞ 34   26⅛ 26   22⅛ 16⅛ 18⅛ 24⅛ 24¾ 27⅞ 26⅞ 17   18⅛ 20¾ 16¼ 22¾ 20⅞ 25⅜ 25¾ 22¼ 24  
4 AA. 28⅜ 31⅝ 49   39⅞ 33   36¼ 35¼ 30⅝ 29   33⅝ 33⅛ 34¾ 37¼ 24⅞ 28¼ 28⅜ 25⅝ 38⅛ 18¼ 32⅝ 34¾ 30⅛ 32⅜
Means 27½ 28⅜ 42¼ 36⅛ 28¾ 29⅝ 27½ 21⅞ 21¼ 27⅞ 27⅝ 30   30⅛ 20¼ 23⅛ 24¼ 19⅝ 29¼ 20¼ 29¼ 29 25⅜ 27¼
1 AAS. 26⅛ 22⅜ 20⅝ 18½ 16⅞ 23¾ 17   29¾ {21⅞ 21⅞ 21⅞}
2 AAS. 33½ 23¼ 30¼ 29½ 25¼ 37⅛ 20⅛ 36⅛ 1{29⅛ 29⅝ 29⅜}1
3 AAS. 30¼ 20⅜ 25   23⅜ 22 30⅝ 20½ 31⅛ {24¾ 26⅛ 25⅜}
4 AAS. 40¾ 25½ 29½ 28¼ 26⅝ 42½ 20¾ 38   {31 32   31½}
Means 32⅝ 22⅞ 26⅜ 24⅞ 22⅝ 33½ 19⅝ 33¾ 26⅝ 27⅜ 27  
1 C. 24⅝ 26⅞ 43¼ 36⅛ 26   33⅛ 30¾ 26⅞ 17⅞ 27⅞ 26   28⅝ 26⅛ 21½ 24⅛ 25½ 19⅛ 27   17¼ 27½ 29⅜ 24¼ 26⅞
2 C. 23¾ 25⅝ 44⅛ 36⅛ 31½ 33⅛ 33⅞ 28¾ 20⅝ 30⅜ 27¼ 30⅛ 31⅞ 21⅞ 24½ 25⅝ 19⅝ 33⅛ 17⅞ 27⅞ 30⅞ 26   28⅜
3 C. 21⅞ 25¼ 41¼ 35⅞ 26½ 30⅞ 30¾ 25⅝ 20⅛ 30¾ 23⅞ 29⅞ 31   22   24⅜ 22¼ 10¾ 30½ 18⅜ 30⅞ 28⅞ 25¼ 27⅛
4 C. 24⅛ 27½ 42⅛ 37⅝ 30½ 33⅛ 35 29½ 22¾ 31   28⅞ 30¾ 34⅞ 22   27⅝ 24¼ 21⅛ 35⅛ 20⅜ 32   31¼ 27¾ 29½
Means 23½ 26¼ 42¾ 36½ 28⅝ 32⅝ 32⅝ 27¾ 20⅜ 30   26½ 29⅞ 31   21⅞ 25⅛ 24⅜ 19⅞ 31⅜ 18½ 29⅝ 30⅛ 25¾ 28  
1 N. }(15¼){ 23⅛ 33⅜ 27   19⅝ 24⅝ 20⅛ 18¾ 16¾ 27¼ 24¼ 30¼ 24⅛ 18½ 21⅛ 21⅛ 18⅞ 24   13¼ 29¼ 2{23⅜ 22½ 22⅞}2
2 N. 25⅜ 38¼ 33¼ 28¾ 32   23⅝ 21¼ 18⅝ 29⅝ 24¾ 29⅞ 27¾ 21½ 23⅞ 21¾ 17⅛ 27⅝ 19⅛ 31½ {27⅞ 24½ 26⅛}
  M. 15¼ 10⅝ 10⅜ 12⅜ 10⅞ 15⅛ 14½ 19½ 13⅞ 9⅜ 12⅜ 12   10⅛ 11⅝ 8⅞ 14¾ 3(11¾ 12¾ 12⅜)3
5 O. (25⅛) 15¾ 20¼ 14⅝ 10⅜ 13¼ 12½ 10½ 6⅞ 17½ 10½ 15¼ 14⅞ 10¾ 10⅝ 10⅜ 15½ 4⅜ 13⅛ 4(13⅝ 11⅜ 12⅜)4
5 A. 25⅛ 24   35¾ 31   22¾ 27⅝ 28⅝ 26⅛ 25½ 31⅞ 31⅝ 34   33⅞ 24⅞ 28   22⅜ 20⅝ 36⅛ 21⅜ 29⅝ 27⅞ 28¼ 28  
6{1 17⅛ 16½ 22½ 18½ 16⅛ 12   11¼ 9⅞ 10⅜ 13½ 13⅝ 10½ 9⅜ 10½ 9⅞ 13   14 10¾ 12⅜
  {2 14⅛ 15⅞ 20¾ 16¾ 14⅝ 11⅜ 10   10   11⅝ 14⅜ 13⅞ 8⅞ 10⅞ 10⅞ 10⅜ 7⅞ 13⅝ 13 11¼ 12⅛
7 18½ 22¾ 37¼ 27½ 19¾ 23⅝ 31⅜ 28½ 25⅜ 31⅝ 34¼ 33⅛ 37⅜ 25⅜ 31½ 27⅛ 24½ 28¾ 19¾ 37⅛ 26⅝ 29⅞ 28¼

1. Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.

2. Averages of 9 years, (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

3. Averages of 7 years (1855-’61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.

4. Averages of 9 years (1853-’61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.

240 The produce of barley the first season (1852), was, per acre:

On the unmanured plot … … … 27¼ bushels
With superphosphate of lime 28⅝ bushels
With potash, soda, and magnesia 26¼ bushels

With potash, soda, and magnesia and superphosphate

32¾ bushels
With 14 tons barn-yard manure 33 bushels
With 200 lbs. ammonia-salts alone 36⅞ bushels

With 200 lbs. ammonia-salts and superphosphate

38⅝ bushels

With 200 lbs. ammonia-salts and potash, soda, and magnesia

36 bushels

With 200 lbs. ammonia-salts and superphosphate, potash, soda, and magnesia

40¾ bushels
With 400 lbs. ammonia-salts alone 44½ bushels

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 1a, gives an increase of nearly 10 bushels per acre, or to be more accurate, it gives an increase over the unmanured plot of 503 lbs. of grain, and 329 lbs. of straw, while double the quantity of ammonia on plot 1a.a., gives an increase of 17¼ bushels per acre—or an increase of 901 lbs. of grain, and 1,144 lbs. of straw.

“Put that fact in separate lines, side by side,” said the Deacon, “so that we can see it.”

Grain Straw Total
Produce.

  50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of

503 lbs. 704 lbs. 1207 lbs.

100 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of

901 lbs. 1144 lbs. 2045 lbs.

The first 50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of

503 lbs. 704 lbs. 1207 lbs.

The second 50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of

398 lbs. 540 lbs. 738 lbs.

“That shows,” said the Deacon, “that a dressing of 50 lbs. per acre pays better than a dressing of 100 lbs. per acre. I wish Mr. Lawes had sown 75 lbs. on one plot.”

I wish so, too, but it is quite probable that in our climate, 50 lbs. of available ammonia per acre is all that it will usually be profitable to apply 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 how much 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 per acre, and the yield of barley was not as much as from the 50 lbs. of ammonia alone. How do you account for that?”

Simply because the ammonia in the manure is not ammonia. It is what the chemists used to call “potential ammonia.” A good deal of it is in the form of undigested straw and hay. The nitrogenous matter of the food which has been digested by the animal 241 and thrown off in the liquid excrements, is in such a form that it will readily ferment and produce ammonia, while the nitrogenous matter in the undigested food and in the straw used for bedding, decomposes slowly even under the most favorable conditions; and if buried while fresh in a clay soil, it probably would not all decompose in many years. But we will not discuss this at present.

“The superphosphate does not seem to have done much good,” said the Deacon; “3½ cwt. per acre gives an increase of less than two bushels per acre. And I suppose it was good superphosphate.”

There need be no doubt on that point. Better superphosphate of lime cannot be made. But you must recollect that this is pure superphosphate made from burnt bones. It contains no ammonia or organic matter. Commercial superphosphates contain more or less ammonia, and had they been used in these experiments, they would have shown a better result than the pure article. They would have done good in proportion to the available nitrogen they contained. If these experiments prove anything, they clearly indicate that superphosphate alone is a very poor manure for 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 bushels per acre.

50 lbs. of ammonia, alone, gives nearly 39 bushels, and ammonia and superphosphate together, 40 bushels.

The superphosphate and “ashes” give a better account of themselves this year; but it is remarkable that the ammonia alone, gives almost as good a crop as the ammonia and superphosphate, and a better crop than the ammonia and “ashes,” or the ammonia, superphosphate, and ashes, together.

The 14 tons farm-yard manure gives over 36 bushels per acre. This plot has now had 28 tons of manure per acre, yet the 50 lbs. of ammonia alone, still gives a better yield than this heavy dressing of manure.

The third season (1854), was quite favorable for the ripening of wheat and 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 season for growth. It was one of the years when even poor land, if clean, gives a good crop. The unmanured plot, it will be seen, yielded over 35 bushels 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 per acre, of 48 lbs. per bushel, which is the standard with us.

242 The 14 tons of farm-yard manure produce nearly 56½ bushels per acre.

  50 lbs. of ammonia, on plot 1a. 47¾ bushels per acre.
100 lbs. of ammonia, on plot 1a.a. 56⅝ bushels per acre.

You will see, that though the plot which has received 42 tons of manure per acre, produced a splendid crop; the plot having nothing except 100 lbs. of ammonia per acre, produced a crop equally good. “How much increase do you get from 50 lbs. of ammonia,” asked the Deacon, “and how much from 100 lbs.?”

Equal Amer.
Bushels.
Grain. Straw.

  50 lbs. of ammonia, gives an increase of

800 lbs. 952 lbs. 16⅔ bush.

100 lbs. of ammonia, gives an increase of

1,350 lbs. 2,100 lbs. 28 bush.

If you buy nitrate of soda at 3¾ cents a lb., the ammonia will cost 20 cents 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 of straw. If the straw is worth $4.00 per ton, the barley will cost 48 cents a bushel.

Double the quantity of manure, costing $20, gives an increase of 28 bushels of barley, and over one ton of straw. In this case the extra barley costs 57 cents a bushel.

On plot 2a., 50 lbs. of ammonia and 3½ cwt. of superphosphate, give 3,437 lbs. of grain, equal to 71½ of our bushels per acre.

On plot 2a.a., 100 lbs. of ammonia and 3½ cwt. of superphosphate, give 3,643 lbs. of grain, which lacks only 5 lbs. of 76 bushels per acre, and nearly 2½ tons of straw.

“That will do,” said the Deacon, “but I see that in 1857, this same plot, with the same manure, produced 66½ bushels of dressed grain per acre, 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 tons of farm-yard manure per acre, produced only 2,915 lbs. of grain, or less than 61 of our bushels of barley per acre.”

The Squire happened in at this time, and heard the last remark. “What are you saying,” he remarked, “about only 61 bushels of barley per acre. 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 per acre, and very little of it would weigh 44 lbs. to the bushel.”

This is true. And the maltsters find it almost impossible to get six-rowed barley weighing 48 lbs. per bushel. They told me, that they would pay $1.10 per bushel for good bright barley weighing 48 lbs. per bushel, and for each pound it weighed less than this, they deducted 10 cents a bushel from the price. In other words, 243 they would pay $1.00 a bushel for barley weighing 47 lbs. to the bushel; 90 cents for barley weighing 46 lbs.; 80 cents for barley weighing 45 lbs., and 70 cents for barley weighing 44 lbs.—and at these figures they much preferred the heaviest barley.

It is certainly well worth our while, if we raise barley at all, to see if we cannot manage not only to raise larger crops per acre, but to produce 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 to hear you talk, one would think you scientific gentlemen never have any poor crops, and yet I see that in 1860, there are three different crops of only 12⅛, 12¼, and 13¼ bushels per acre.”

“Those,” said I, “are the three plots which have grown barley every year without any manure, and you have selected the worst year of the whole twenty.”

“Perhaps so,” said the Squire, “but we have got to take the bad with the good, and I have often heard you say that a good farmer who has his land rich and clean makes more money in an unfavorable than in a favorable season. Now, this year 1860, seems to have been an unfavorable one, and yet your pet manure, superphosphate, only gives an increase of 148 lbs. of barley—or three bushels and 4 lbs. Yet this plot has had a tremendous 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, and tomatoes, cabbages, lettuce, melons, cucumbers, etc., and would not like to be without it; but I have never recommended any one to use it on wheat, barley, oats, Indian corn, or potatoes, except as an experiment. What I have recommended you to get for barley is, nitrate of soda, and superphosphate, or Peruvian guano. And you will see that even in this decidedly unfavorable season, the plot 2a.a., dressed with superphosphate and 275 lbs. of nitrate of soda, produced 2,338 lbs. of barley, or 48¾ bushels per acre. This is an increase over the unmanured 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 salts of ammonia, gave equally as good results.”

And this, mark you, is the year which the Squire selected as the one most likely to show that artificial manures did not pay.

“I never knew a man except you,” said the Squire, “who wanted unfavorable seasons.”

244 I have never said I wanted unfavorable seasons. I should not dare to say so, or even to cherish the wish for one moment. But I do say, that when we have a season so favorable that even poorly worked land will produce a fair crop, we are almost certain to have prices below the average cost of production. But when we have an unfavorable season, such crops as barley, potatoes, and beans, often advance to extravagantly high prices, and the farmer who has good crops in such a season, gets something like adequate pay for his patient waiting, and for his efforts to improve his land.

“That sounds all very well,” said the Squire, “but will it pay to use these artificial manures?”

I do not wish to wander too much from the point, but would like to remark before I answer that question, that I am not a special advocate of artificial manures. I think we can often make manures on our farms far cheaper than we can buy them. But as the Squire has asked the question, 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 specially unfavorable for the growth of barley. Now, in such an unfavorable year in this country, barley would be likely to bring, at least, $1.25 per bushel, 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 many barley-growers. And in this unfavorable season of 1860, he gets on his three unmanured plots an average of 730 lbs. of barley, equal to 15¼ bushels per acre, and not quite 800 lbs. of straw.

Many of our farmers frequently do no better than this. And you must recollect 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 on the land. With us, barley is cut with a reaper, and admirable as our machines are, it is not an easy matter to cut a light, spindling crop of barley perfectly clean. Then, in pitching the crop and drawing it in, more or less barley is scattered, and even after we have been over the field two or three times with a steel-tooth rake, there is still considerable barley left on the ground. I think we may safely assume that at least as much barley is left on the ground as we usually sow—say two bushels per acre. And so, instead of having 15¼ bushels per acre, as Mr. Lawes had, we should only harvest 13¼ bushels.

Of all our ordinary farm crops, barley is attended with the least labor and expense. We usually sow it after corn or potatoes. On such strong land as that of Mr. Lawes, we ought to plow the land 245 in the autumn and again in the spring, or at least stir up the land thoroughly with a two or 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 a bushel.

Receipts:

13¼ bushels barley @ 1.25 $16.57

800 lbs. of straw @ $4. per ton

1.60
18.17

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 as barley occupies the land only a few months, and as we sow wheat after it, we cannot expect large profits.”

“Very well,” said I, “Now let us take the crop, this same unfavorable year, on plot 2a.a., dressed with superphosphate and nitrate of soda.”

The expense of plowing, harrowing, drilling, rolling, seed, and harvesting, would be about the same, or we will say $2.00 an acre more for extra labor in harvesting. And we will allow two bushels per acre for scatterings—though there is nothing like as much barley left on the ground when we have a good crop, as when we have a poor crop. But I want to be liberal.

The yield on plot 2a.a., was 48¾ bushels per acre, and 2,715 lbs. of straw.

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 most economical way of getting the full value of the manure. There is much nitrogen and phosphoric acid left in the land, which barley or even wheat does not seem capable of taking up, but which would probably be of great benefit to the clover.

246
MANURE AND ROTATION OF CROPS.

The old notion that there is any real chemical necessity for a rotation of crops is unfounded. Wheat can be grown after wheat, and barley after barley, and corn after corn, provided we use the necessary manures and get 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 put in 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 not be 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 cleaned the land while it was in corn the previous year. I say supposed, because in point of fact, many of our farmers do not half clean their land while it is in corn. It is the weak spot in our agriculture. If our land was as clean as it should be to start with, there is no rotation so convenient in this section, as corn the first year, barley, peas, or oats the second year, followed by winter-wheat seeded down. But to carry out 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 get fair prices for our produce. If we could get a good superphosphate made from Charleston phosphates for 1½ cent per lb., and nitrate of soda for 3½ 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 for good 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 there is a great difference between rich and poor manure. The rich manure contains twice or three times as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as ordinary or poor manure. And this is the reason why artificial manures are valuable in proportion to the nitrogen and phosphoric acid that they contain in an available condition. When we use two or three hundred pounds per acre of a good artificial manure we in effect, directly or indirectly, convert 247 poor manure into rich manure. There is manure in our soil, but it is poor. There is manure in our barn-yard, but it is poor also. Nitrogen and phosphoric acid will make these manures rich. This is the reason why a few pounds of a good artificial manure will produce as great an effect as tons of common manure. Depend upon it, the coming farmer will avail himself of the discoveries of science, and will use more artificial fertilizers.

But whether we use artificial fertilizers or farm-yard manure, we shall not get the full effect of the manures unless we adopt a judicious rotation of crops.

When we sow wheat after wheat, or barley after barley, or oats after oats, we certainly do not get the full effect of the manures used. Mr. Lawes’ experiments afford conclusive evidence on this point. You will recollect that in 1846, one of the plots of wheat (10b), which had received a liberal dressing of salts of ammonia the year previous, was left without manure, and the yield of wheat on this plot was no greater than on the plot which was continuously unmanured. In other words, the ammonia which was left in the soil from the previous year, had no effect on the wheat.

The following table shows the amount of nitrogen furnished by the manure, and the amount recovered in the crop, when wheat is grown after wheat for a series of years, and also when barley is grown after barley, and oats after oats.

248

TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN RECOVERED, AND NOT RECOVERED, IN INCREASE OF PRODUCE, FOR 100 SUPPLIED IN MANURE.

100N: For 100 Nitrogen in Manure

R/I: Recovered in Increase.

NRI: Not Recovered in Increase.

Plots. MANURES PER ACRE, PER ANNUM. 100N
R/I NRI
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) 6 years, 1852-’57

49.8 50.2

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) 6 years, 1852-’57

36.3 63.7

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

1. 13 years only, 1852-1864.

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.

249 It is not necessary to make any comments on this table. It speaks for itself; but it does not tell half the story. For instance, in the case of wheat and barley, it gives the average result for 20 years. It shows that when 100 lbs. of nitrogen in a soluble and available form, are applied to wheat, about 68 lbs. are left in the soil. But you must recollect that 100 lbs. was applied again the next year, and no account is taken of the 68 lbs. left in the soil—and so on for 20 years. In other words, on plot 8, for instance, 2,460 lbs. of nitrogen have been applied, and only 775 lbs. have been recovered in the total produce of grain, straw, and chaff, and 1,685 lbs. have been left in the soil.

Mr. Lawes estimates, from several analyses, that his farm-yard manure contains 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 20 years to the plot dressed with farm-yard manure, of which 427½ lbs. were recovered in the crop, and 3,567½ lbs. left in the soil.

“I see,” said the Deacon, “that barley gets less of the goodness out of farm-yard manure than wheat, but that it gets more out of the salts of ammonia and nitrate of soda. How do you account for that?”

“I suppose, because the manure for wheat was applied in the autumn, and the rains of winter and spring dissolved more of the plant-food than would be the case if the manure was applied in the spring. If the manure had been applied on the surface, instead of plowing it under, I believe the effect would have been still more in favor of the autumn-manuring.”

When the nitrogen is in an available condition, spring barley can take up 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 is applied, and this, notwithstanding the fact that a heavy dew or a slight rain furnishes water enough on an acre to dissolve a liberal dressing of nitrate of soda or sulphate and muriate of ammonia. The truth is, the soil is very conservative. It does not, fortunately for us, yield up all its plant-food in a year.

We have seen that when wheat or barley is dressed with soluble 250 ammonia-salts or nitrate of soda, a considerable amount of the nitrogen is left in the soil—and yet this nitrogen is of comparatively little benefit to the succeeding crops of wheat or barley, while a fresh dressing of ammonia-salts or nitrate of soda is of great benefit to the crop.

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 theoretically capable of producing.


Now, the question is, whether by a judicious rotation of crops, we can avoid this great loss of manure?

There was a time when it was thought that the growth of turnips enriched the soil. I have heard it said, again and again, that the reason English farmers grow larger crops of wheat and barley than we do, is because they grow so many acres of turnips.

“So I have often heard,” said the Deacon, “and I supposed the broad turnip leaves absorbed nitrogen from the atmosphere.”

There is no evidence that leaves have any such power; while there are many facts which point in an opposite direction. The following experiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to show that the mere growth of turnips does not enrich land for grain crops.

Turnips were grown on the same land, year after year, for ten years. The land was then plowed and sown to barley for three years. The following table gives the results:

Three Years of Barley after Ten Years of Turnips.
PARTICULARS OF MANURES, ETC. Produce of Barley per Acre.
1853. 1854. 1855. Average 3 years
bush. bush. bush. bush.

Hoos-Field—
Barley, without manure, after 3 corn-crops

26 35⅛ 34⅛ 31⅜

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 251 in the soil. In other words, the turnips leave less available nitrogen in the soil than grain crops.

After alluding to the facts given in the foregoing table, Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert say:

“There is evidence of another kind that may be cited as showing that it was of available nitrogen that the turnips had rendered the soil so deficient for the after-growth of barley. It may be assumed that, on the average, between 25 and 30 lbs. of nitrogen would be annually removed from the Rothamsted soil by wheat or barley grown year after year without nitrogenous manure. But it is estimated that from the mineral-manured turnip-plots there were, over the 10 years, more than 50 lbs. of nitrogen per acre per annum removed. As, however, on some of the plots, small quantities of ammonia-salts or rape-cake were applied in the first two years of the ten of turnips, it is, perhaps, more to the purpose to take the average over the last 8 years of turnips only; and this would show about 45 lbs. of nitrogen removed per acre per annum. An immaterial proportion of this might be due to the small amounts of nitrogenous manures applied in the first two years. Still, it may be assumed that about 1½ time as much nitrogen was removed from the land for 8, if not for 10 years, in succession, as would have been taken in an equal number of crops of wheat or barley grown without nitrogenous manure. No wonder, then, that considerably less barley has been grown in 3 years after a series of mineral-manured turnip-crops, than was obtained in another field after a less number of corn-crops.

“The results obtained in Barn-field afford a striking illustration of the dependence of the turnip-plant on a supply of available nitrogen within the soil, and of its comparatively great power of exhausting it. They are also perfectly consistent with those in Hoos-field, in showing that mineral manures will not yield fair crops of barley, unless there be, within the soil, a liberal supply of available nitrogen. The results obtained under such very different conditions in the two fields are, in fact, strikingly mutually confirmatory.”


252

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 certainly will not pay to manure them. We can use our manure on some crop that will pay better.”

“That is precisely what we want to know,” said I. “Very likely you are right, but have you any evidence?”

“Evidence of what?”

“Have you any facts that show, for instance, that it will pay better to use manure for wheat or barley than for oats?”

“Can’t say that I have, but I think manure will pay better on wheat than on oats.”

Mr. Lawes is making a series of experiments on oats. Let us take a hasty glance at the results of the first two seasons:

Experiments on Oats at Rothamsted.
MANURES PER ACRE. Grain, in
bushels.
Straw, cwts. Weight per
bushel, lbs.
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 most need in manure, is available nitrogen.

The first year, the no-manure plot produced 36⅝ bushels of oats per acre, weighing 36¾ lbs. per bushel, and plot 3, with ammonia-salts alone, 56⅛ bushels, and with nitrate of soda alone, on plot 5, 62¼ bushels per acre, both weighing 38½ lbs. per bushel. In other words, 82 lbs. of available nitrogen in the salts of ammonia gave an increase of about 20 bushels per acre, and the same quantity of nitrogen in nitrate of soda an increase of 26 bushels per acre.

The next year, the season seems to have been a very unfavorable 253 one for oats. 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 3 bushels per acre. But it will be seen that on plot 3 the ammonia-salts do as much good in this unfavorable season as in the favorable one. They give an increase of over 20 bushels per acre.

“A few such facts as this,” said the Deacon, “would almost persuade me that 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 farmer stands the best chance to make money.”

“Where mixed alkalies and superphosphate,” said the Doctor, “are added to the ammonia, the increase from the ammonia is far greater than where ammonia is used alone. In other words, by comparing plot 2 and plot 4, you will see that the ammonia gives an increase of 30¼ bushels per acre in 1869, and 31½ bushels in 1870.”

The truth of the matter probably is this: 100 lbs. of available ammonia per acre is an excessive supply, when used alone. And in fact Mr. Lawes himself only recommends about half this quantity.

Whether it will pay us to use artificial manures on oats depends on the price we are likely to get for the oats. When the price of oats per lb. and oat-straw is as high as barley and barley-straw per lb., then it will pay a little better to use manure on oats than on barley. As a rule in this country, however, good barley is worth more per lb. than good oats; and it will usually pay better to use artificial manures on barley than on oats.

Some years ago Mr. Bath, of Virginia, made some experiments on oats with the 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, and sulphate of ammonia as a top-dressing on oats.

The land was a clover-sod, plowed about the middle of May, and the oats sown May 20. On the 26th of May, just as the oats were coming up, the manures were sown broadcast. The oats were sown too late to obtain the best results. On another field, where the oats were sown two weeks earlier, the crop was decidedly better. The oats were cut August 28.

The following is the result:

254
Experiments on Oats at Moreton Farm, Rochester, N.Y.
Plots. MANURES PER ACRE. Bushels
of Oats
per acre.
Weight
per Bushel
in lbs.
Straw
per acre
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. To top-dress foul land with expensive artificial manures is money thrown away. If the land had been plowed in the autumn, and the seed and manures could have been put in early in the spring, I presume we should have had more favorable results.

“Are you not ashamed to acknowledge,” said the Deacon, “that you have ever raised oats weighing only 22 lbs. per bushel.”

No. I have raised even worse crops than this—and so has the Deacon. But I made up my mind that such farming did not pay, and I have been trying hard since then to clean my land and get it into better condition. And until this is done, it is useless to talk much of artificial manures.

The most striking result is the effect of the gypsum. It not only gave an increased yield of 11 bushels per acre, but the oats were of decidedly better quality, and there was nearly half a ton more straw per acre than on the plot alongside, where no manure was used.

The superphosphate was a good article, similar to that used in Mr. Lawes’ experiments.


255

CHAPTER XXXI.

MANURES FOR POTATOES.

Some time ago, a farmer in Pennsylvania wrote me that he wanted “to raise a first-rate crop of potatoes.” I answered him as follows through the American Agriculturist:

“There are many ways of doing this. But as you only enter on the farm this 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 not a weed to grow. A two or three-year-old clover-sod, on warm, rich, sandy loam, gives a good chance for potatoes. Do not plow until you are ready to plant. Sow the guano broadcast after plowing, and harrow it in, or apply a tablespoonful in each hill, and mix it with the soil. Mark out the rows, both ways, three feet apart, and drop a fair-sized potato in each hill. Start the cultivator as soon as the rows can be distinguished, and repeat every week or ten days until there is danger of disturbing the roots. We usually hill up a little, making a broad, flat hill. A tablespoonful of plaster, dusted on the young plants soon after they come up, will usually do good. We recommend guano, because in our 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 and well mixed with the soil the fall previous, half so injurious as some people would have us suppose. If any one will put 25 loads per acre on our potato land, we will agree to plant and run the risk of the rot. But we would use some guano as well. The truth is, that it is useless to expect a large crop of potatoes, say 350 bushels per acre, without plenty of manure.”

This was written before the potato-beetle made its appearance. But I think 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 of potatoes. We must select the best land we have and make it as rich as possible.

“But why do you recommend Peruvian guano,” asked the Doctor, “rather than 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 256 pay well on potatoes. I have tried this mixture again and again, and always with good effect.”

“I believe in the hen-dung,” said I, “and possibly in the plaster, but on my land, ashes do not seem to be specially beneficial on potatoes, while I have rarely used Peruvian guano without good effect; and sometimes it has proved wonderfully profitable, owing to the high price of potatoes.”


Sometime ago, I had a visit from one of the most enterprising and successful farmers in Western New York.

“What I want to learn,” he said, “is how to make manure enough to keep my 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 the farm, and draw into the barn-yard the potato-vines and everything else that will rot into manure. I make a big pile of it. But the point with me 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 the largest 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, intending to sell them in the spring.”

“What did they cost you?”

“I went into Wyoming and Cattaraugus Counties, and picked them up among the 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 chance to feed out his straw, stalks, and other fodder to advantage. It cannot be adopted as a permanent system. It is bad for the dairyman, and no real help to the grain-grower. The manure is not rich enough. Straw and stalks alone can not be fed to advantage. And when you winter cows to sell again in the spring, it will not pay to feed grain. If you were going to keep the cows it would pay well. The fat and flesh you put on in the winter would be returned in the form of butter and cheese next summer.”

“Why is not the manure good? I am careful to save everything, and expect seven or eight hundred loads of manure in the spring.”

“You had 60 acres of wheat that yielded 25 bushels per acre, and have probably about 50 tons of wheat straw. You had also 30 acres oats, that yielded 50 bushels per acre, say 35 tons of straw. Your 20 acres of corn produced 40 bushels of shelled corn per acre; say the stalks weigh 30 tons. And you have 60 tons of 257 hay, half clover and half timothy. Let us see 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 are 600 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 of manure annually applied would soon greatly increase its fertility. But you do not think you can afford to summer-fallow, and you want to raise thirty or forty acres of potatoes every year.”

“I propose to do so,” he replied. “Situated as I am, close to a good shipping station, no crop pays me better. My potatoes this year have averaged 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, situated close to a village where you can get plenty of help, and with a good shipping station near by, you had better adopt the latter plan. You must feed 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 800 loads of manure, worth on the land $2,226.96, or, estimating as before that 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 can afford 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 to fatten in the winter. Those farmers who raise good grade Shorthorn or Devon cattle are not the men to sell them half-fat at low rates. They can fatten them as well as I can. For some time to come, the farmer who proposes to feed liberally, 258 will have to raise his own stock. He can rarely buy well-bred animals to fatten. A good farmer must be a good farmer throughout. He can not be good in spots. His land must be drained, well-worked, and free from weeds. If he crops heavily he must manure heavily, and to do this he must feed liberally—and he can not afford to feed liberally unless he has good stock.

“I have, myself, no doubt but you are right on this point,” said the Doctor, “but all this takes time. Suppose a farmer becomes satisfied that the manure he makes is not rich enough. To tell him, when he is anxious to raise a good crop of potatoes next year, that he must go to work and improve his stock of cattle, sheep, and swine, and then buy bran and oil-cake to make richer manure, is somewhat tantalizing.”

This is true, and in such a case, instead of adding nitrogen and phosphoric acid to his manure in the shape of bran, oil-cake, etc., he can buy nitrogen and phosphoric acid in guano or in nitrate of soda and superphosphate. This gives him richer manure; which is precisely what he wants for his potatoes. His poor manure is not so much deficient in potash as in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and consequently it is nitrogen and phosphoric acid that he will probably need to make his soil capable of producing a large crop of potatoes.


I have seen Peruvian guano extensively used on potatoes, and almost always with good effect. My first experience with it in this country, was in 1852. Four acres of potatoes were planted on a two-year-old clover-sod, plowed in the spring. On two acres, Peruvian guano was sown broadcast at the rate of 300 lbs. per acre and harrowed in. The potatoes were planted May 10. On the other two acres no manure of any kind was used, though treated exactly alike in every other respect. The result was as follows:

No manure 119 bushels per acre.
300 lbs. Peruvian guano 205 bushels per acre.

The guano cost, here, about 3 cents a lb., and consequently nine dollars’ worth of guano gave 84 bushels of potatoes. The potatoes were all sound and good, but where the guano was used, they were larger, with scarcely a small one amongst them.


In 1857, I made the following experiments on potatoes, in the same field on which the preceding experiment was made in 1852.

In this case, as before, the land was a two-year-old clover-sod. It was plowed about the first of May, and harrowed until it was in a good mellow condition. The potatoes were planted in hills 3½ 259 feet apart each way. The following table shows the manures used and the yield of potatoes per acre.

Experiments on Potatoes at Moreton Farm.

Y/A   Yield of Potatoes per acre, in bushels.

I/A   Increase of Potatoes per acre, in bushels, caused by manure.

P
l
o
t.
Description of Manures used, and quantities 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 the proper proportions to convert all the phosphate of lime of the bones into the soluble superphosphate. It was a purely mineral article, free from ammonia and other organic matter. It cost about two and a half cents per pound.

The manures were deposited in the hill, covered with an inch or two of soil, and the seed then planted on the top. Where superphosphate of lime or sulphate of ammonia was used in conjunction with ashes, the ashes were first deposited in the hill and covered with a little soil, and then the superphosphate or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top and covered with soil before the seed was planted. Notwithstanding this precaution, the rain washed the sulphate of ammonia into the ashes, and decomposition, with loss of ammonia, was the result. This will account for the less yield on plot 8 than on plot 2. It would have been better to have sown the ashes broadcast, but some previous experiments with Peruvian guano on potatoes indicated that it was best to apply guano in the hill, carefully covering it with soil to prevent it injuring the seed, than to sow it broadcast. It was for this reason, and for the greater convenience in sowing, that the manures were applied in the hill.

The ash of potatoes consists of about 50 per cent of potash, and this fact has induced many writers to recommend ashes as a manure for this crop. It will be seen, however, that in this instance, at 260 least, they have very little effect, 400 lbs. giving an increase of only five bushels per acre. One hundred pounds of plaster per acre gave an increase of six bushels. Plaster and ashes combined, an increase per acre 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 such been the case, the sulphate of ammonia and superphosphate of lime—manures which contain no potash—would not have give a an increase of 84 bushels of potatoes per acre. There was sufficient potash in the soil, in an available condition, for 179 bushels of potatoes per acre; and the reason why the soil without manure produced only 95 bushels per acre, was owing to a deficiency of ammonia and phosphates.

Since these experiments were made, Dr. Vœlcker and others have made similar ones in England. The results on the whole all point in one direction. They show that the manures most valuable for potatoes are those rich in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and that occasionally potash is also a useful addition.

“There is one thing I should like to know,” said the Doctor. “Admitting that nitrogen and phosphoric acid and potash are the most important elements of plant-food, how many bushels of potatoes should we be likely to get from a judicious application of these manures?”

“There is no way,” said I, “of getting at this with any degree of certainty. The numerous experiments that have been made in England seem to 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 the land selected for this crop, even without manure, would usually be in better condition than the average potato land of this section, and consequently a given amount of manure, applied to potatoes here, would be likely to do more good, up to a certain point, than the same amount would 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 Scotland for 1873 is a prize essay on “Experiments upon Potatoes, with Potash Salts, on Light Land,” by Charles D. Hunter, F.C.S., made on the farm of William Lawson, in Cumberland. Mr. Hunter “was charged with the manuring of the farm and the purchasing of chemical manures to the annual value of £2,000,” or say $10,000.

261 “Potatoes,” says Mr. Hunter, “were largely grown on the farm, and in the absence of a sufficiency of farm-yard manure, potash naturally suggested itself as a necessary constituent of a chemical potato-manure. The soil was light and gravelly, with an open subsoil, and the rainfall from 29 to 38 inches a year.”

The first series of experiments was made in 1867. The following are some of 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 the superphosphate alone.”

It may be worth while mentioning that one of the experimental plots this year was on a head-land, “where the cattle frequently stand for shelter.” This plot was dressed with only eight and a half tons of manure, and the crop was over 427 bushels per acre, while a plot alongside, without manure, produced only 163 bushels per acre.

“That shows the importance,” said the Deacon, “of planting potatoes on rich land, rather than to plant on poor land and try to make it rich by applying manure directly to the crop.”

The following are some of the results in 1868:

Bushels
per acre.
1. No manure 232
2. 4 cwt. superphosphate 340
2 cwt. muriate of potash
2 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
3. 20 tons farm-yard manure 342
4. 4 cwt. superphosphate 274
4 cwt. muriate of potash

“Here again,” said the Doctor, “superphosphate and potash alone give an increase of only forty-two bushels per acre, while on plot 2, where two hundred weight of muriate of potash is substituted by two hundred weight of sulphate of ammonia, the increase is 108 bushels per acre. It certainly looks as though a manure for potatoes, so far as yield is concerned, should be rich in available nitrogen.”

262 The following are some of the results in 1869:

Bushels
per acre.
1. No manure 176
2. 4 cwt. superphosphate 306
¾ cwt. sulphate of magnesia
2 cwt. muriate of potash
2 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
3. 4 cwt. superphosphate 189
4. 4 cwt. superphosphate 201
2 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
 
5. 4 cwt. superphosphate 340
2 cwt. muriate of potash
2 cwt. sulphate of ammonia.
 
6. 4 cwt. superphosphate 249
2 cwt. 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. The potash, therefore, gives an increase of sixty bushels. Superphosphate and ammonia give twelve bushels more than superphosphate alone, and the reason it does not produce a better crop is owing to a deficiency of potash. When this is supplied the ammonia gives an increase (plots 5 and 6) of ninety-one bushels per acre.”

In 1870 the above experiments were repeated on the same land, with the same general results.

In 1871 some experiments were made on a sharp, gravelly soil, which had been over-cropped, and was in poor condition. The following are the results:—

Bushels
per acre.
1. 9 cwt. superphosphate 186
3 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
 
2. 9 cwt. superphosphate 204
3½ cwt. muriate of potash
3 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
3. No manure 70
4. 9 cwt. superphosphate 205
3½ cwt. muriate of potash
3 cwt. sulphate of ammonia
5. 20 tons farm-yard manure 197

“On this poor soil,” said the Doctor, “the ammonia and superphosphate gave an increase of 116 bushels per acre; and 3½ hundred weight of muriate of potash an increase, on one plot, of eighteen bushels, and on the other nineteen bushels per acre.”

In the same year, 1871, another set of experiments was made on a better and more loamy soil, which had been in grass for several years. In 1869 it was sown for hay, and in 1870 was broken up and sown to oats, and the next spring planted with potatoes. The following are some of the results:

263
Bushels
per acre.
1. 6¼ cwt. superphosphate 321
2½ cwt. muriate of potash
2½ cwt. sulphate of ammonia
 
2. 6¼ cwt. superphosphate 296
2½ cwt. sulphate of ammonia
3. No manure 252
4. 6¼ cwt. superphosphate 311
2½ cwt. 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 of ammonia alone should produce less than the no-manure plot.”

“The sulphate of ammonia,” said I, “may have injured the seed, or it may have produced too luxuriant a growth of vine.”

Another series of experiments was made on another portion of the same field in 1871. The “no-manure” plot produced 337 bushels per acre. Manures of various kinds were used, but the largest yield, 351 bushels per acre, was from superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia; fourteen tons barn-yard manure produce 340 bushels per acre; and Mr. Hunter remarks: “It is evident that, when the produce of the unmanured soil reaches nine tons [336 bushels] per acre, there is but little scope for manure of any kind.”

“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 on potatoes 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 applied to potatoes with more profit than to any other ordinary farm-crop, for the simple reason that, in this country, potatoes, on the average, command relatively high prices.

For instance, if average land, without manure, will produce fifteen bushels of wheat per acre and 100 bushels of potatoes, and a given quantity of manure costing, say $25, will double the crop, we have, in the 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

264 The only question is, whether the same quantity of the right kind of manure is as likely to double the potato crop as to double the wheat crop, when both are raised on average land.

“It is not an easy matter,” said the Deacon, “to double the yield of potatoes.”

“Neither is it,” said I, “to double the yield of wheat, but both can be done, provided you start low enough. If your land is clean, and well worked, and dry, and only produces ten bushels of wheat per acre, there is no difficulty in making it produce twenty bushels; and so of potatoes. If the land be dry and well cultivated, and, barring the bugs, produces without manure 75 bushels per acre, there ought to be no difficulty in making it produce 150 bushels.

“But if your land produces, without manure, 150 bushels, it is not always easy to make it produce 300 bushels. Fortunately, or unfortunately, 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 the potatoes?”

I think not. So far as my experiments and experience go, the judicious use of good manure, on dry land, favors the perfect maturity of the tubers and the formation of starch. I never manured potatoes so highly as 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 feet apart, and spread rich, well-rotted manure in the furrows, and planted the potatoes on top of the manure, and covered them with a plow. In our climate, I am inclined to think, it would be better to apply the manure to the land for potatoes the autumn previous. If sod land, spread the manure on the surface, and let it lie exposed all winter. If stubble land, plow it in the fall, and then spread the manure in the fall or winter, and plow it under in the spring.


265

CHAPTER XXXII.

WHAT CROPS SHOULD MANURE BE APPLIED TO.

“It will not do any harm on any crop,” said the Deacon, “but on my farm it 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 uses it on potatoes.”

My own rule is to apply manure to those crops which require the most labor per acre. But I am well aware that this rule will have many exceptions. For instance, it will often pay well to use manure on barley, and yet barley requires far less labor than corn or potatoes.

People who let out, and those who work farms “on shares” seldom understand this matter clearly. I knew a farmer, who last year let out a field of good land, that had been in corn the previous year, to a man to sow to barley, and afterwards to wheat on “the halves.” Another part of the 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, and onions on halves. It never seemed to occur to either of them that the conditions were unequal. The expense of digging and harvesting the potato-crop alone was greater than the whole cost of the barley-crop; while, after the barley was off, the land was plowed once, harrowed, and sowed to winter wheat; and nothing more has to be done to it until the next harvest. With the garden crops, the difference is even still more striking. The labor expended on one acre of onions or carrots would put in and harvest a ten-acre field of barley. If the tenant gets pay for his 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 did not see the matter in this light, nor the farmer either.

Crops which require a large amount of labor can only be grown on very rich land. Our successful market-gardeners, seed-growers, and nurserymen understand this matter. They must get great crops or they cannot pay their labor bill. And the principle is applicable to ordinary farm crops. Some of them require much more labor than others, and should never be grown unless the land is 266 capable of producing a maximum yield per acre, or a close approximation to it. As a rule, the least-paying crops are those which require the least labor per acre. Farmers are afraid to expend much money for labor. They are wise in this, unless all the conditions are favorable. But when they have land in a high state of cultivation—drained, clean, mellow, and rich—it would usually pay them well to grow crops which require the most labor.

And it should never be forgotten that, as compared with nearly all other countries, 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 would work for nothing, and board themselves, there are localities where we could 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 a wheat crop of 8 bushels per acre, or a corn-crop of 15 bushels, or a potato-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 less in our time. The only thing we can do is to employ it to the best advantage. Machinery will help us to some extent, but I can see no real escape from our difficulties in this matter, except to raise larger crops per acre.

In ordinary farming, “larger crops per acre” means fewer acres planted or sown with grain. It means more summer fallow, more grass, clover, peas, mustard, coleseed, roots, and other crops that are consumed on the farm. It means more thorough cultivation. It means clean and rich land. It means husbanding the ammonia and nitric acid, which is brought to the soil, as well as that which is developed from the soil, or which the soil attracts from the atmosphere, and using it to grow a crop every second, third, or fourth year, instead of every year. If a piece of land will 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, if the climate is capable of doing it, of raising 100 bushels per acre every fourth year.

Theoretically this can be done, and in one of Mr. Lawes’ experiments he did it practically in the case of a summer-fallow for wheat, the one crop in two years giving a little more than two crops sown in succession. But on sandy land we should probably lose a portion of the liberated plant-food, unless we grew a crop of some kind every year. And the matter organized in the renovating crop could not be rendered completely available for the next crop. In the end, however, we ought to be able to get it with little or no loss. How best to accomplish this result, is one of the 267 most interesting and important fields for scientific investigation and practical experiment. We know enough, however, to be sure that there is a great advantage in waiting until there is a sufficient accumulation of available plant-food in the soil to 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-yard or 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 into consideration the cost of application. Also, whether we apply it at a busy or a leisure season. I have seen it recommended, for instance, to spread manure on meadow-land immediately after the hay-crop was removed. Now, I think this may be theoretically very good advice. But, on my farm, it would throw the work right into the midst of wheat and barley harvests; 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 until harvest operations were stopped by rain.

I mention this merely to show the complex character of this question. On my own farm, the most leisure season of the year, except the winter, is immediately after wheat harvest. And, as already stated, it is at this time that John Johnston draws out his manure and spreads it on grass-land intended to be plowed up the following spring for corn.

If the manure was free from weed-seeds, many of our best farmers, if they had some well-rotted manure like this of John Johnston’s, would draw 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 it carefully. Then harrow it, and if the harrow pulls the manure into heaps, spread them and harrow again. It is of the greatest importance to spread manure evenly and mix it thoroughly with the soil. If this work is well done, and the manure is well-rotted, it will not interfere with the drill. And the manure will be near the surface, where the young roots of the wheat can get hold of it.

“You must recollect,” said the Doctor, “that the roots can only take up the manure when in solution.”

“It must also be remembered,” said I, “that a light rain of, say, only half an inch, pours down on to the manures spread on an acre of land about 14,000 gallons of water, or about 56 tons. If 268 you have put on 8 tons of manure, half an inch of rain would furnish a gallon of water to each pound of manure. It is not difficult to understand, therefore, how manure applied on the surface, or near the surface, can be taken up by the young roots.”

“That puts the matter in a new light to me,” said the Deacon. “If the manure was plowed under, five or six inches deep, it would require an abundant rain to reach the manure. And it is not one year in five that we get rain enough to thoroughly soak the soil for several weeks after sowing the wheat in August or September. And when it does come, the season is so far advanced that the wheat plants make little growth.”

My own opinion is, that on clayey land, manure will act much quicker if applied on, or near the surface, than if plowed under. Clay mixed with manure arrests or checks decomposition. Sand has no such effect. If anything, it favors a more active decomposition, and hence, manure acts much more rapidly on sandy land than on clay land. And I think, as a rule, 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 those who oppose the practice, and think manure should be plowed under, occupy sandy 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 scarce among you agricultural writers, that you can recollect who first suggested them?”

“Be that as it may,” said I, “this idea has had a decided influence on my 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 the habit, when spading in manure in the garden, of putting the manure in the trench and covering it up; and in plowing it in, I thought it was desirable to put it at the bottom of the furrow where the next furrow would 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 good plan. 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 idea that Mr. Thomas gave me, was, that it was very desirable to break up the manure fine, spread it evenly, and thoroughly mix it with the soil.

“After the manure is spread on the soil,” said Mr. Thomas, “and before plowing it in, great benefit is derived by thoroughly harrowing the top-soil, thus breaking finely both the manure and the soil, 269 and mixing them well together. Another way for the perfect diffusion of the manure among the particles of earth, is, to spread the manure in autumn, so that, all the rains of this season may dissolve the soluble portions and carry them down among the particles, where they are absorbed and retained for the growing crop.

“In experiments,” continues Mr. Thomas, “when the manure for corn was thus applied in autumn, has afforded a yield of about 70 bushels per acre, 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 per acre—and in addition to this, by the stronger growth it has caused, as well as by the protection it has afforded to the surface, it has not unfrequently saved the crop from partial or total winter-killing.

“In cases where it is necessary to apply coarse manures at once, much may be done in lessening the evils of coarseness by artificially grinding it into the soil. The instrument called the drag-roller—which is like the common roller set stiff so as not to revolve—has been used to great advantage for this purpose, by passing it over the surface in connection with the harrow. We have known this treatment to effect a thorough intermixture, and to more than double the crop obtained by common management with common manure.”

TOP-DRESSING WITH MANURE.

The term “top-dressing” usually refers to sowing or spreading manures on the growing crop. For instance, we top-dress pastures or meadows by spreading manure on the surface. If we sow nitrate of soda, or guano, on our winter-wheat in the spring, that would be top-dressing. We often sow gypsum on clover, and on barley, and peas, while the plants are growing in 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 seldom adopted, except on meadows and pastures as a regular system. It is an after-thought. We have sown wheat on a poor, sandy knoll, and we draw out some manure and spread on it in the winter or early spring; or we top-dress it with hen-manure, or guano, or nitrate of soda and superphosphate. I do not say that this is better than to apply the manure at the time of sowing the 270 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-dressing winter-wheat on the farm of the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester, England. The manures were finely sifted and mixed with about ten times their weight of fine soil, and sown broadcast on the growing wheat, March 22. A fine rain occurred the following day, and washed 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   bushels and 2576 lbs. of straw.

195 lbs. nitrate of soda

38   bushels and 2695 lbs. of straw.

180 lbs. nitrate of soda,
and 168 lbs. of common salt

40½ bushels and 2736 lbs. of straw.

448 lbs. Proctor’s wheat-manure

39½ bushels and 2668 lbs. of straw.

672 lbs. Proctor’s wheat-manure

44¼ bushels and 3032 lbs. of straw.

4 tons chalk-marl

27   bushels and 1872 lbs. of straw.

The manures in each case cost $7.80 per acre, except the large dose of Proctor’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.
With nitrate of soda   6.00
With nitrate of soda and common salt   9.33
With 448 lbs. wheat-manure   7.94
With 672 lbs. wheat-manure 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-manure contained phosphoric acid as well as nitrogen, and the following crop of clover would be likely to get some benefit from it.

John Johnston wrote in 1868, “I have used manure only as a top-dressing for the last 26 years, and I do think one load, used in that way, is worth far more than two loads plowed under on our stiff land.”


271

CHAPTER XXXIII.

MANURES ON PERMANENT MEADOWS AND PASTURES.

In this country, where labor is comparatively high, and hay often commands a good price, a good, permanent meadow frequently affords as much real profit as any other portion of the farm. Now that we have good mowing-machines, tedders, rakes, and loading and unloading apparatus, the labor of hay-making is greatly lessened. The only difficulty is to keep up and increase the annual growth of good grass.

Numerous experiments on top-dressing meadows are reported from year to year. The results, of course, differ considerably, being influenced by the soil and season. The profit of the practice depends very much on the price of hay. In the Eastern States, hay generally commands a higher relative price than grain, and it not unfrequently happens that we can use manure on grass to decided advantage.

The celebrated experiments of Messrs. Lawes & Gilbert with “Manures on Permanent Meadow-land” were commenced in 1856, and have been continued on the same plots every year since that time.

“You need not be afraid, Deacon,” said I, as the old gentleman commenced to button up his coat, “I am not going into the details of these wonderful experiments; but I am sure you will be interested in the results of the first six or seven years.”

The following table explains itself:

272

The following table is shown in “thumbnail” form. The full-width version is given in a separate file.

Experiments with Manures on Permanent Meadow land at Rothamsted, England.
DESCRIPTION AND AMOUNT OF MANURES PER ACRE. ANNUAL PRODUCE OF HAY PER ACRE IN LBS. AVERAGE HAY PER ACRE. HAY PER ACRE THE 20TH SEASON, 1875.
1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1st 7 Yrs
1856-62.
20 Years. 1st
Crop
2nd
Crop
Total Hay per Acre.
1

No manure

2433 2724 3116 2558 2822 3074 3238 2824 2534 2436 1491 3927
2

400 lbs. ammonia-salts = 82 lbs. of nitrogen

4028 3774 3982 3644 2940 3808 3854 3719 2940 2702 2016 4718
3

Superphosphate of lime

2828 3176 3400 3252 (4 yrs.)
3164
(17 yrs.)
2492
2352 1722 4074
4

400 lbs. ammonia-salts and superphosphate of lime

4996 4788 4968 4756 (4 yrs.)
4877
(17 yrs.)
3612
4102 1610 5712
5

Mixed mineral manures

3429 3666 4082 3416 3928 4488 4424 3919 3948 4564 2688 7252
6

400 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures

6363 6422 7172 6198 5624 6316 6402 6357 5712 5824 2744 8508
7

800 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures

7054 6940 7508 7150 5744 6710 7108 6876 6454 6222 5684 10,906
8

800 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures, including 200 lbs. each silicates, soda, and lime

7120 7000 6720 4592 11,312
9

275 lbs. nitrate of soda

2952 3588 3948 4092 4446 1858-62
3805
(18 yrs.)
3794
3360 1456 4816
10

550 lbs. nitrate of soda = 82 lbs. of nitrogen

3564 4116 4410 4452 4086 4126 (18 yrs.)
3962
3276 1470 4746
11

Mixed mineral manures and 275 lbs. nitrate of soda

4236 4956 4812 5514 5178 4939 (18 yrs.)
5208
5040 1862 6902
12

Mixed mineral manures and 550 lbs. nitrate of soda

5636 6072 5586 5892 5718 5783 (18 yrs.)
6384
7028 1974 9002
13

14 tons farmyard-manure

4030 5328 4164 4584 5208 5052 5060 4775 4130 2996 1316 4312
14

14 tons farmyard-manure and 200 lbs. ammonia-salts

5009 6008 5320 5356 5704 5320 5556 5468 4816 3766 1960 5726

273 These are all the figures I will trouble you with. The “mixed mineral manures” consisted of superphosphate of lime (composed of 150 lbs. bone-ash and 150 lbs. sulphuric acid, sp. gr. 1.7), 300 lbs. sulphate of potash, 200 lbs. sulphate of soda, and 100 lbs. sulphate of magnesia. The ammonia-salts consisted of equal parts sulphate and muriate of ammonia, containing about 25 per cent. of ammonia. The manures were sown as early as possible in the spring, and, if the weather was suitable, sometimes in February. The farmyard-manure was spread on the land, in the first year, in the spring, afterwards in November or December. The hay was cut from the middle to the last of June; and the aftermath was pastured off by sheep in October.

“It is curious,” said the Deacon, “that 400 lbs. of ammonia-salts should give as great an increase in the yield of hay the first year as 14 tons of farmyard-manure, but the second year the farmyard-manure comes out decidedly ahead.”

“The farmyard-manure,” said I, “was applied every year, at the rate of 14 gross tons per acre, for eight years—1856 to 1863. After 1863, this plot was left without manure of any kind. The average yield of this plot, 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. per acre. After the eighth year the farmyard-manure was discontinued, and during the next twelve years the yield of hay averaged 3,683 lbs., or 1,149 lbs. more than the continuously unmanured plot.

In 1859, superphosphate of lime was used alone on plot 3, and has been continued ever since. It seems clear that this land, which had been in pasture or meadow for a hundred years or more, was not deficient in phosphates.

“It does not seem,” said the Deacon, “to have been deficient in anything. The twentieth crop, on the continuously unmanured plot was nearly 1¼ ton per acre, the first cutting, and nearly ¾-ton the second cutting. And apparently the land was just as rich in 1875, as it was in 1856, and yet over 25 tons of hay had been cut and removed from the land, without any manure being returned. And yet we are told that hay is a very exhausting crop.”

“Superphosphate alone,” said the Doctor, “did very little to increase the yield of hay, but superphosphate and ammonia produced the first year, 1859, over a ton more hay per acre than the superphosphate alone, and when potash is added to the manure, the yield is still further increased.”

274 “Answer me one question,” said the Deacon, “and let us leave the subject. In the light of these and other experiments, what do you consider the cheapest and best manure to apply to a permanent meadow or pasture?”

“Rich, well-decomposed farmyard or stable manure,” said I, “and if it is not rich, apply 200 lbs. of nitrate of soda per acre, in addition. This will make it rich. Poor manure, made from straw, corn-stalks, hay, etc., is poor in nitrogen, and comparatively rich in potash. The nitrate of soda will supply the deficiency of nitrogen. On the sea-shore fish-scrap is a cheaper source of nitrogen, and may be used instead of the nitrate of soda.”


Chapters XXXIV - XL, Appendix

Index