“For hops,” said the Doctor, “there is nothing better than rich, well-decomposed farmyard-manure—such manure as you are now making from your pigs that are bedded with stable-manure.”
“That is so,” said I, “and the better you feed your horses and pigs, the better will the manure be for hops. In England, Mr. Paine, of Surrey, made a series of experiments with different manures for hops, and, as the result of four years trial, reported that rape-cake, singly, or in combination, invariably proved the best manure for hops. In this country, cotton-seed, or cotton-seed-cake, would be a good substitute for the rape-cake. Whatever manure is used should be used liberally. Hops require a large amount of labor per acre, and it is, therefore, specially desirable to obtain a large yield per acre. This can be accomplished only by the most lavish expenditure of manure. And all experience seems to show that it must be manure rich in nitrogen. In the hop districts of England, 25 tons of rich farmyard-manure are applied per acre; and in addition to this, soot and rags, both rich in nitrogen, have long been popular auxiliaries. The value of soot is due to the fact that it contains from 12 to 15 per cent of sulphate of ammonia, and the fact that it has been so long used with success as a manure for hops, seems to prove that sulphate of ammonia, which 275 can now be readily obtained, could be used to advantage by our hop-growers—say at the rate, in addition to farm-yard manure, of 500 lbs. per acre, sown broadcast early in the spring.”
When tobacco is grown for wrappers, it is desirable to get a large, strong leaf. The richest land is selected for the crop, and large quantities of the richest and most stimulating manures are used.
Like cabbages, this crop requires a large amount of plant-food per acre; and, like them, it can only be grown by constant and high manuring. More manure must be used than the plants can take up out of the soil, and hence it is, that land which has been used for growing tobacco for some years, will be in high condition for other crops without further manuring.
Farm-yard or stable-manure, must be the mainstay of the tobacco-planter. With this, he can use artificial fertilizers to advantage—such as fish-scrap, woollen-rags, Peruvian guano, dried blood, slaughter-house offal, sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, etc.
For choice, high-flavored smoking-tobacco, the grower aims to get quality rather than quantity. This seems to depend more on the land and the climate than on the manures used. Superphosphate of lime would be likely to prove advantageous in favoring the early growth and maturity of the crop. And in raising tobacco-plants in the seed-bed, I should expect good results from the use of superphosphate, raked into the soil at the rate of three or four lbs. per square rod.
We know less about the manurial requirements of Indian corn, than of almost any other crop we cultivate. We know that wheat, barley, oats, and grasses, require for their maximum growth a liberal supply of available nitrogen in the soil. And such facts and experiments as we have, seem to indicate that the same is also true of Indian corn. It is, at any rate, reasonable to suppose that, as Indian corn belongs to the same botanical order as wheat, barley, oats, rye, timothy, and other grasses, the general manurial requirements would be the same. Such, I presume, is the case; and yet there seem to be some facts that would incline us to place Indian corn with the leguminous plants, such as clover, peas, and beans, rather than with the cereals, wheat, barley, oats, etc.
“Why so,” asked the Deacon, “Indian corn does not have much in common with beans, peas, and clover?”
276 As we have shown, clover can get more nitrogen out of the soil, than wheat, barley, and oats. And the same is true of beans and peas, though probably not to so great an extent.
Now, it would seem that Indian corn can get more nitrogen out of a soil, than wheat, barley, or oats—and to this extent, at least, we may consider Indian corn as a renovating crop. In other words, the Indian corn can get more nitrogen out of the soil, than wheat, barley, and oats—and when we feed out the corn and stalks on the farm, we have more food and more manure than if we raised and fed out a crop of oats, barley, or wheat. If this idea is correct, then Indian corn, when consumed on the farm, should not be classed with what the English farmers term “white crops,” but rather with the “green crops.” In other words, Indian corn is what old writers used to call a “fallow crop”—or what we call a renovating crop.
If this is so, then the growth and consumption of Indian corn on the farm, as is the case with clover, should leave the farm richer for wheat, rather than poorer. I do not mean richer absolutely, but richer so far as the available supply of plant-food is concerned.
“It may be that you are right,” said the Doctor, “when corn is grown for fodder, but not when grown for the grain. It is the formation of the seed which exhausts the soil.”
If I could be sure that it was true of corn-fodder, I should have little doubt that it is true also of corn as ordinarily grown for grain and stalks. For, I think, it is clear that the grain is formed at the expense of the stalks, and not directly from the soil. The corn-fodder will take from the soil as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as the crop of corn, and the more it will take, the more it approximates in character to clover and other renovating crops. If corn-fodder is a renovating crop, so is the ordinary corn-crop, also, provided it is consumed on the farm.
“But what makes you think,” said the Deacon, “that corn can get more nitrogen from the soil, than wheat?”
“That is the real point, Deacon,” said I, “and I will ask you this question. Suppose you had a field of wheat seeded down to clover, and the clover failed. After harvest, you plow up half of the field and sow it to wheat again, the other half of the field you plow in the spring, and plant with Indian corn. Now, suppose you get 15 bushels of wheat to the acre, how much corn do you think you would be likely to get?”
“Well, that depends,” said the Deacon, “but I should expect at least 30 bushels of shelled corn per acre.”
“Exactly, and I think most farmers would tell you the same; 277 you get twice as much corn and stalks to the acre as you would of wheat and straw. In other words, while the wheat cannot find more nitrogen than is necessary to produce 15 bushels of wheat and straw, the corn can find, and does find, take up, and organize, at least twice as much nitrogen as the wheat.”
If these are facts, then the remarks we have made in regard to the value of clover as a fertilizing crop, are applicable in some degree to Indian corn. To grow clover and sell it, will in the end impoverish the soil; to grow clover and feed it out, will enrich the land. And the same will be true of Indian corn. It will gather up nitrogen that the wheat-crop can not appropriate; and when the corn and stalks are fed out, some 90 per cent of the nitrogen will be left in the manure.
“You do not think, then,” said the Doctor, “that nitrogen is such an important element in manure for corn, as it is in a manure for wheat.”
I have not said that. If we want a large crop of corn, we shall usually need a liberal supply of available nitrogen. But this is because a larger crop of corn means a much larger produce per acre, than a large crop of wheat. Forty bushels of wheat per acre is an unusually large crop with us; but 80 bushels of shelled corn can be grown in a favorable season, and on rich, well-cultivated land. As the Deacon has said, 30 bushels of corn per acre can be grown as easily as 15 bushels of wheat; and it is quite probable, in many cases, that a manure containing no nitrogen, might give us a crop of 35 or 40 bushels per acre. In other words, up to a certain point, manures containing mineral, or carbonaceous matter, might frequently, in ordinary agriculture, increase the yield of Indian corn; while on similar land, such manures would have little effect on wheat.
“That is so,” said the Deacon, “we all know that plaster frequently increases the growth of corn, while it seldom does much good on wheat.”
But, after you have got as large a crop as the land will produce, aided by plaster, ashes, and superphosphate, say 40 bushels of shelled corn per acre, then if you want to raise 70 bushels per acre, you must furnish the soil with manures containing sufficient available nitrogen.
Some years ago, I made some careful experiments with artificial manures on Indian corn.
“Oh, yes,” said the Deacon, “they were made on the south lot, 278 in front of my house, and I recollect that the N.Y. State Ag. Society awarded you a prize of $75 for them.”
“And I recollect,” said I, “how you and some other neighbors laughed at me for spending so much time in measuring the land and applying the manures, and measuring the crop. But I wish I could have afforded to continue them. A single experiment, however carefully made, can not be depended on. However, I will give the results for what they are worth, with some remarks made at the time:
“The soil on which the experiments were made, is a light, sandy loam. It has been under cultivation for upwards of twenty years, and so far as I can ascertain has never been manured. It has been somewhat impoverished by the growth of cereal crops, and it was thought that for this reason, and on account of its light texture and active character, which would cause the manures to act immediately, it was well adapted for the purpose of showing the effect of different manurial substances on the corn-crop.
“The land was clover-sod, two years old, pastured the previous summer. It was plowed early in the spring, and harrowed until in excellent condition. The corn was planted May 23, in hills 3½ feet apart each way.
“The manures were applied in the hill immediately before the seed was planted.
“With superphosphate of lime, and with plaster (gypsum, or sulphate of lime), the seed was placed directly on top of the manure, as it is well known that these manures do not injure the germinating principle of even the smallest seeds.
“The ashes were dropped in the hill, and then covered with soil, and the seed planted on the top, so that it should not come in contact with the ashes.
“Guano and sulphate of ammonia were treated in the same way.
“On the plots where ashes and guano, or ashes and sulphate of ammonia were both used, the ashes were first put in the hill, and covered with soil, and the guano or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top, and also covered with soil before the seed was planted. The ashes and superphosphate of lime was also treated in the same way. It is well known that unleached ashes, mixed either with guano, sulphate of ammonia, or superphosphate, mutually decompose each other, setting free the ammonia of the guano and sulphate of ammonia, and converting the soluble phosphate of the superphosphate of lime into the insoluble form in which it existed before treatment with sulphuric acid. All the plots were planted on the same day, and the manures weighed and applied under my 279 own immediate supervision. Everything was done that was deemed necessary to secure accuracy.
“The following table gives the results of the experiments:
TABLE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS ON INDIAN CORN.
SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre. SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre. TC Total No. of bushels of ears of corn per acre. ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn. ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn. TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn. |
Plot. | Descriptions of manures and quantities applied per acre. | SdC | SfC | TC | ISdC | ISfC | TIC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | No manure |
60 | 7 | 67 | .. | .. | .. |
2. | 100 lbs. plaster (gypsum or sulphate of lime) |
70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11 |
3. | 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes and 100 lbs. plaster (mixed) |
68 | 10 | 78 | 8 | 3 | 11 |
4. | 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia |
90 | 15 | 105 | 30 | 8 | 38 |
5. | 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime |
70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11 |
6. | 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia and 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime (mixed) |
85 | 5 | 90 | 25 | .. | 23 |
7. | 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes, (uncertain) |
60 | 12 | 72 | .. | 5 | 5 |
8. | 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia and 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes (sown separately) |
87 | 10 | 97 | 27 | 3 | 30 |
9. | 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime, 150 lbs. sulph. ammonia, and 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes |
100 | 8 | 108 | 40 | 1 | 41 |
10. | 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes |
60 | 8 | 68 | .. | 1 | 1 |
11. | 100 lbs. plaster. 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes, 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime, and 200 lbs. Peruvian guano |
95 | 10 | 105 | 35 | 3 | 38 |
12. | 75 lbs. sulphate of ammonia |
78 | 10 | 88 | 18 | 3 | 21 |
13. | 200 lbs. Peruvian guano |
88 | 13 | 101 | 28 | 6 | 34 |
14. | 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes, 100 lbs. plaster, and 500 lbs. Peruvian guano |
111 | 14 | 125 | 51 | 7 | 58 |
“The superphosphate of lime was made on purpose for these experiments, and was a pure mineral manure of superior quality, made from calcined bones; it cost about 2½ cents per pound. The sulphate of ammonia was a good, commercial article, obtained from London, at a cost of about seven cents per pound. The ashes were made from beech and hard maple (Acer saccharinum) wood, and were sifted through a fine sieve before being weighed. The guano was the best Peruvian, costing about three cents per pound. It was crushed and sifted before using. In sowing the ashes on plot 7, an error occurred in their application, and for the purpose of checking the result, it was deemed advisable to repeat the experiment on plot 10.
“On plot 5, with 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime per acre, the plants came up first, and exhibited a healthy, dark-green appearance, 280 which they retained for some time. This result was not anticipated, though it is well known that superphosphate of lime has the effect of stimulating the germination of turnip-seed, and the early growth of the plants to an astonishing degree; yet, as it has no such effect on wheat, it appeared probable that it would not produce this effect on Indian corn, which, in chemical composition, is very similar to wheat. The result shows how uncertain are all speculations in regard to the manurial requirements of plants. This immediate effect of superphosphate of lime on corn was so marked, that the men (who were, at the time of planting, somewhat inclined to be skeptical, in regard to the value of such small doses of manure), declared that ‘superphosphate beats all creation for corn.’ The difference in favor of superphosphate, at the time of hoeing, was very perceptible, even at some distance.
“Although every precaution was taken that was deemed necessary, to prevent the manures from mixing in the hill, or from injuring the seed, yet, it was found, that those plots dressed with ashes and guano, or with ashes and sulphate of ammonia, were injured to some extent. Shortly after the corn was planted, heavy rain set in, and washed the sulphate of ammonia and guano, down into the ashes, and mutual decomposition took place, with more or less loss of ammonia. In addition to this loss of ammonia, these manures came up to the surface of the ground in the form of an excrescence, so hard that the plants could with difficulty penetrate through it.
“It will be seen, by examining the table, that although the superphosphate of lime had a good effect during the early stages of the growth of the plants, yet the increase of ears of corn in the end did not come up to these early indications. On plot 5, with 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime per acre, the yield is precisely the same as on plot 2, with 100 lbs. of plaster (sulphate of lime), per acre. Now, superphosphate of lime is composed necessarily of soluble phosphate of lime and plaster, or sulphate of lime, formed from a combination of the sulphuric acid, employed in the manufacture of superphosphate, with the lime of the bones. In the 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime, sown on plot 5, there would be about 100 lbs. of plaster; and as the effect of this dressing is no greater than was obtained from the 100 lbs. of plaster, sown on plot 2, it follows, that the good effect of the superphosphate of lime was due to the plaster that it contained.
“Again, on plot 4, with 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia per acre, we have 90 bushels of ears of sound corn, and 15 bushels of ears of soft corn, (‘nubbins,’) per acre; or a total increase over the 281 plot without manure, of 38 bushels. Now, the sulphate of ammonia contains no phosphate of lime, and the fact that such a manure gives a considerable increase of crop, confirms the conclusion we have arrived at, from a comparison of the results on plots 2 and 5; that the increase from the superphosphate of lime, is not due to the phosphate of lime which it contains, unless we are to conclude that the sulphate of ammonia rendered the phosphate of lime in the soil more readily soluble, and thus furnished an increased quantity in an available form for assimilation by the plants—a conclusion, which the results with superphosphate alone, on plot 5, and with superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia, combined, on plot 6, do not sustain.
“On plot 12, half the quantity of sulphate of ammonia, was used as on plot 4, and the increase is a little more than half what it is where double the quantity was used. Again, on plot 13, 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano per acre, gives nearly as great an increase of sound corn, as the 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia. Now, 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano contains nearly as much ammonia as 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia, and the increase in both cases is evidently due to the ammonia of these manures. The 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano, contained about 50 lbs. of phosphate of lime; but as the sulphate of ammonia, which contains no phosphate of lime, gives as great an increase as the guano, it follows, that the phosphate of lime in the guano, had little, if any effect; a result precisely similar to that obtained with superphosphate of lime.
“We may conclude, therefore, that on this soil, which has never been manured, and which has been cultivated for many years with the Ceralia—or, in other words, with crops which remove a large quantity of phosphate of lime from the soil—the phosphate of lime, relatively to the ammonia, is not deficient. If such was not the case, an application of soluble phosphate of lime would have given an increase of crop, which we have shown was not the case in any one of these experiments.
“Plot 10, with 400 lbs. of unleached wood-ashes per acre, produces the same quantity of sound corn, with an extra bushel of ‘nubbins’ per acre, as plot 1, without any manure at all; ashes, therefore, applied alone, may be said to have had no effect whatever. On plot 3, 400 lbs. of ashes, and 100 lbs. of plaster, give the same total number of bushels per acre, as plot 2, with 100 lbs. of plaster alone. Plot 8, with 400 lbs. ashes, and 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia, yields three bushels of sound corn, and five bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre, less than plot 4, with 150 lbs. sulphate of 282 ammonia alone. This result may be ascribed to the fact previously alluded to—the ashes dissipated some of the ammonia.
“Plot 11, with 100 lbs. of plaster, 400 lbs. ashes, 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime, and 200 lbs. Peruvian guano (which contains about as much ammonia as 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia), produced precisely the same number of total bushels per acre, as plot 4, with 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia alone, and but 4 bushels more per acre, than plot 13, with 200 lbs. Peruvian guano alone. It is evident, from these results, that neither ashes nor phosphates had much effect on Indian corn, on this impoverished soil. Plot 14 received the largest dressing of ammonia (500 lbs. Peruvian guano), and produced much the largest crop; though the increase is not so great in proportion to the guano, as where smaller quantities were used.
“The manure which produced the most profitable result, was the 100 lbs. of plaster, on plot 2. The 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano, on plot 13, and which cost about $6, gave an increase of 14 bushels of shelled corn, and 6 bushels of ‘nubbins.’ This will pay at the present price of corn in Rochester, although the profit is not very great. The superphosphate of lime, although a very superior article, and estimated at cost price, in no case paid for itself. The same is true of the ashes.
“But the object of the experiment was not so much to ascertain what manures will pay, but to ascertain, if possible, what constituents of manures are required, in greatest quantity, for the maximum growth of corn. **Hitherto, no experiments have been made in this country, on Indian corn, that afforded any certain information on this point. Indeed, we believe no satisfactory experiments have been made on Indian corn, in any country, that throw any definite light on this interesting and important question. A few years ago, Mr. Lawes made similar experiments to those given above, on his farm, at Rothamsted, England; but owing to the coolness of the English climate, the crop did not arrive at maturity.
“Numerous experiments have been made in this country, with guano and superphosphate of lime; but the superphosphates used were commercial articles, containing more or less ammonia, and if they are of any benefit to those crops to which they are applied, it is a matter of uncertainty whether the beneficial effect of the application is due to the soluble phosphate of lime, or to the ammonia. On the other hand, guano contains both ammonia and phosphate; and we are equally at a loss to determine, whether the effect is attributable to the ammonia or phosphate, or both. In order, therefore, to determine satisfactorily, which of the several ingredients 283 of plants is required in greatest proportion, for the maximum growth of any particular crop, we must apply these ingredients separately, or in such definite compounds, as will enable us to determine to what particular element or compounds the beneficial effect is to be ascribed. It was for this reason, that sulphate of ammonia, and a purely mineral superphosphate of lime, were used in the above experiments. No one would think of using sulphate of ammonia at its price, [sulphate of ammonia is now cheaper, while Peruvian guano is more costly and less rich in ammonia], as an ordinary manure, for the reason, that the same quantity of ammonia can be obtained in other substances, such as barnyard-manure, Peruvian guano, etc., at a much cheaper rate. But these manures contain all the elements of plants, and we can not know whether the effect produced by them is due to the ammonia, phosphates, or any other ingredients. For the purpose of experiment, therefore, we must use a manure that furnishes ammonia without any admixture of phosphates, potash, soda, lime, magnesia, etc., even though it cost much more than we could obtain the same amount of ammonia in other manures. I make these remarks in order to correct a very common opinion, that if experiments do not pay, they are useless. The ultimate object, indeed, is to ascertain the most profitable method of manuring; but the means of obtaining this information, can not in all cases be profitable.
“Similar experiments to those made on Indian corn, were made on soil of a similar character, on about an acre of Chinese sugar-cane. I do not propose to give the results in detail, at this time, and allude to them merely to mention one very important fact, the superphosphate of lime had a very marked effect. This manure was applied in the hill on one plot (the twentieth of an acre,) at the rate of 400 lbs. per acre, and the plants on this plot came up first, and outgrew all the others from the start, and ultimately attained the height of about ten feet; while on the plot receiving no manure, the plants were not five feet high. This is a result entirely different from what I should have expected. It has been supposed, from the fact that superphosphate of lime had no effect on wheat, that it would probably have little effect on corn, or on the sugar-cane, or other ceralia; and that, as ammonia is so beneficial for wheat, it would probably be beneficial for corn and sugar-cane. The above experiments indicate that such is the case, in regard to Indian corn, so far as the production of grain is concerned, though, as we have stated, it is not true in reference to the early growth of the plants. The superphosphate of lime on Indian corn, stimulated the growth of the plants, in a very decided manner at first, so 284 much so, that we were led to suppose, for some time, that it would give the largest crop; but at harvest, it was found that it produced no more corn than plaster. These results seem to indicate, that superphosphate of lime stimulates the growth of stalks and leaves, and has little effect in increasing the production of seed. In raising Indian corn, for fodder or for soiling purposes, superphosphate of lime may be beneficial, as well as in growing the sorghum for sugar-making purposes, or for fodder—though, perhaps, not for seed.”
“In addition to the experiments given above, I also made the same season, on an adjoining field, another set of experiments on Indian corn, the results of which are given below.
“The land on which these experiments were made, is of a somewhat firmer texture than that on which the other set of experiments was made. It is situated about a mile from the barn-yard, and on this account, has seldom, if ever been manured. It has been cultivated for many years with ordinary farm crops. It was plowed early in the spring, and it was harrowed until quite mellow. The corn was planted May 30, 1857. Each experiment occupied one-tenth of an acre, consisting of 4 rows 3½ feet apart, and the same distance between the hills in the rows, with one row without manure between each experimental plot.
“The manure was applied in the hill, in the same manner as in the first set of experiments.
“The barnyard-manure was well-rotted, and consisted principally of cow-dung with a little horse-dung. Twenty two-horse wagon loads of this was applied per acre, and each load would probably weigh about one ton. It was put in the hill and covered with soil, and the seed then planted on the top.
“The following table gives the results of the experiments:
TABLE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS ON INDIAN CORN, MADE NEAR ROCHESTER, N.Y., IN THE YEAR 1857.
SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre. SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre. TC Total No. of bushels of ears of corn per acre. ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn. ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn. TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn. |
Plot. | Descriptions of manures and quantities applied per acre. |
SdC | SfC | TC | ISdC | ISfC | TIC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | No manure |
75 | 12 | 87 | .. | .. | .. |
2. | 20 loads barn-yard manure |
82½ | 10 | 92½ | 5½ | .. | 5½ |
3. | 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia |
85 | 30 | 115 | 10 | 18 | 28 |
4. | 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime |
88 | 10 | 98 | 11 | .. | 11 |
5. | 400 lbs. Peruvian guano |
90 | 30 | 120 | 15 | 18 | 33 |
6. | 400 lbs. of “Cancerine,” or fish manure |
85 | 20 | 105 | 10 | 8 | 18 |
285 “As before stated, the land was of a stronger nature than that on which the first set of experiments was made, and it was evidently in better condition, as the plot having no manure produced 20 bushels of ears of corn per acre more than the plot without manure in the other field.
“On plot 4, 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime gives a total increase of 11 bushels of ears of corn per acre over the unmanured plot, agreeing exactly with the increase obtained from the same quantity of the same manure on plot 5, in the first set of experiments.
“Plot 3, dressed with 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia per acre, gives a total increase of 28 bushels of ears of corn per acre, over the unmanured plot; and an increase of 22½ bushels of ears per acre over plot 2, which received 20 loads of good, well-rotted barnyard-dung per acre.
“Plot 5, with 400 lbs. of Peruvian guano per acre gives the best crop of this series viz: an increase of 33 bushels of corn per acre over the unmanured plot, and 27½ over the plot manured with 20 loads of barnyard-dung. The 400 lbs. of ‘Cancerine’—an artificial manure made in New Jersey from fish—gives a total increase of 18 bushels of ears per acre over the unmanured plot, and 12½ bushels more than that manured with barn-yard dung, though 5 bushels of ears of sound corn and 10 bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre less than the same quantity of Peruvian guano.”
To raise a large crop of turnips, especially of ruta-bagas, there is nothing better than a liberal application of rich, well-rotted farm-yard-manure, and 250 to 300 lbs. of good superphosphate of lime per acre, drilled in with the seed.
I have seen capital crops of common turnips grown with no other manure except 300 lbs. of superphosphate per acre, drilled with the seed. Superphosphate has a wonderful effect on the development of the roots of the turnip. And this is the secret of its great value for this crop. It increases the growth of the young plant, developing the formation of the roots, and when the turnip once gets full possession of the soil, it appropriates all the plant-food it can find. A turnip-crop grown with superphosphate, can get from the soil much more nitrogen than a crop of wheat. The turnip-crop, when supplied with superphosphate, is a good “scavenger.” It will gather up and organize into good food the refuse plant-food left in the soil. It is to the surface soil, what clover is to the subsoil. 286 To the market gardener, or to a farmer who manures heavily common turnips drilled in with superphosphate will prove a valuable crop. On such land no other manure will be needed. I cannot too earnestly recommend the use of superphosphate as a manure for turnips.
For Swede turnips or ruta-bagas, it will usually be necessary, in order to secure a maximum crop, to use a manure which, in addition to superphosphate, contains available nitrogen. A good dressing of rich, well-rotted manure, spread on the land, and plowed under, and then 300 lbs. of superphosphate drilled in with the seed, would be likely to give a good crop.
In the absence of manure, there is probably nothing better for the ruta-bagas than 300 lbs. of so-called “rectified” Peruvian guano, that is, guano treated with sulphuric acid, to render the phosphates soluble. Such a guano is guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, and 10 per cent of soluble phosphoric acid, and would be a good dressing for Swede turnips.
The best way to use guano for turnips is to sow it broadcast on the land, and harrow it in, and then either drill in the turnip-seed on the flat, or on ridges. The latter is decidedly the better plan, provided you have the necessary implements to do the work expeditiously. A double mould-board plow will ridge up four acres a day, and the guano being previously sown on the surface, will be turned up with the mellow surface-soil into the ridge, where the seed is to be sown. The young plants get hold of it and grow so rapidly as to be soon out of danger from the turnip-beetle.
When sugar-beets are grown for feeding to stock, there is probably little or no difference in the manurial requirements of sugar-beets and mangel-wurzel. Our object is to get as large a growth as possible consistent with quality.
“Large roots,” said the Deacon, “have been proved to contain less nutriment than small roots.”
True, but it does not follow from this that rich land, or heavy manuring is the chief cause of this difference. It is much more likely to be due to the variety selected. The seed-growers have been breeding solely for size and shape. They have succeeded to such an extent that 84 gross tons of roots have been grown on an acre. This is equal to over 94 of our tons per acre. “That is an enormous crop,” said the Deacon; “and it would require some labor to put 10 acres of them in a cellar.”
“If they were as nutritious as ordinary mangels,” said I, “that 287 would be no argument against them. But such is not the case. In a letter just received from Mr. Lawes, (May, 1878,) he characterizes them as ‘bladders of water and salts.’”
Had the seed-growers bred for quality, the roots would have been of less size, but they would contain more nutriment.
What we want is a variety that has been bred with reference to quality; and when this is secured, we need not fear to make the land rich and otherwise aim to secure great growth and large-sized roots.
It certainly is not good economy to select a variety which has been bred for years to produce large-sized roots, and then sow this seed on poor land for the purpose of obtaining small-sized roots. Better take a variety bred for quality, and then make the land rich enough to produce a good crop.
We are not likely to err in making the land too rich for mangel-wurzel or for sugar-beets grown for stock. When sugar-beets are grown for sugar, we must aim to use manures favorable for the production of sugar, or rather to avoid using those which are unfavorable. But where sugar-beets are grown for food, our aim is to get a large amount of nutriment to the acre. And it is by no means clear to my mind that there is much to be gained by selecting the sugar-beet instead of a good variety of mangel-wurzel. It is not a difficult matter, by selecting the largest roots for seed, and by liberal manuring, and continuously selecting the largest roots, to convert the sugar-beet into a mangel-wurzel.
When sugar-beets are grown for food, we may safely manure them as we would mangel-wurzel, and treat the two crops precisely alike.
I usually raise from ten to fifteen acres of mangel-wurzel every year. I grow them in rotation with other crops, and not as the Hon. Harris Lewis and some others do, continuously on the same land. We manure liberally, but not extravagantly, and get a fair yield, and the land is left in admirable condition for future crops.
I mean by this, not that the land is specially rich, but that it is very clean and mellow.
“In 1877,” said the Deacon, “you had potatoes on the land where you grew mangels the previous year, and had the best crop in the neighborhood.”
This is true, but still I do not think it a good rotation. A barley crop seeded with clover would be better, especially if the mangels were heavily manured. The clover would get the manure which had been washed into the subsoil, or left in such a condition that potatoes or grain could not take it up.
288 There is one thing in relation to my mangels of 1876 which has escaped the Deacon. The whole piece was manured and well prepared, and dibbled in with mangels, the rows being 2½ feet apart, and the seed dropped 15 inches apart in the rows. Owing to poor seed, the mangels failed on about three acres, and we plowed up the land and drilled in corn for fodder, in rows 2½ feet apart, and at the rate of over three bushels of seed per acre. We had a great crop of corn-fodder.
The next year, as I said before, the whole piece was planted with potatoes, and if it was true that mangels are an “enriching crop,” while corn is an “exhausting” crop, we ought to have had much better potatoes after the mangels than after corn. This was certainly not the case; if there was any difference, it was in favor of the corn. But I do not place any confidence in an experiment of this kind, where the crops were not weighed and the results carefully ascertained.
Mr. Lawes has made some most thorough experiments with different manures on sugar-beets, and in 1876 he commenced a series of experiments with mangel-wurzel.
The land is a rather stiff clay loam, similar to that on which the wheat and barley experiments were made. It is better suited to the growth of beets than of turnips.
“Why so,” asked the Deacon, “I thought that black, bottom land was best for mangels.”
“Not so, Deacon,” said I, “we can, it is true, grow large crops of mangels on well-drained and well-manured swampy or bottom land, but the best soil for mangels, especially in regard to quality, is a good, stiff, well-worked, and well-manured loam.”
“And yet,” said the Deacon, “you had a better crop last year on the lower and blacker portions of the field than on the heavy, clayey land.”
In one sense, this is true. We had dry weather in the spring, and the mangel seed on the dry, clayey land did not come up as well as on the cooler and moister bottom-land. We had more plants to the acre, but the roots on the clayey land, when they once got fair hold of the soil and the manure, grew larger and better than on the lighter and moister land. The great point is to get this heavy land into a fine, mellow condition.
But to Mr. Lawes’ experiments. They are remarkably interesting and instructive. But it is not necessary to go into all the details. Suffice it to say that the experiments seem to prove, very conclusively, that beets require a liberal supply of available nitrogen. 289 Thus, without manure, the yield of beets was about 7½ tons of bulbs per acre.
With 550 lbs. nitrate of soda per acre, the yield was a little over 22 tons per acre. With 14 tons of farmyard-manure, 18 tons per acre. With 14 tons of farmyard manure and 550 lbs. nitrate of soda, over 27½ tons per acre.
Superphosphate of lime, sulphates of potash, soda, and magnesia, and common salt, alone, or with other manures, had comparatively little effect.
Practically, when we want to grow a good crop of beets or mangels, these experiments prove that what we need is the richest kind of barnyard-manure.
If our manure is not rich, then we should use, in addition to the manure, a dressing of nitrate of soda—say 400 or 500 lbs. per acre.
If the land is in pretty good condition, and we have no barnyard-manure, we may look for a fair crop from a dressing of nitrate of soda alone.
“I see,” said the Deacon, “that 550 lbs. of nitrate of soda alone, gave an increase of 14½ tons per acre. And the following year, on the same land, it gave an increase of 13½ tons; and the next year, on the same land, over 9 tons.”
“Yes,” said I, “the first three years of the experiments (1871-2-3), 550 lbs. of nitrate of soda alone, applied every year, gave an average yield of 19¼ tons of bulbs per acre. During the same three years, the plot dressed with 14 tons of barnyard-manure, gave an average yield of 16¼ tons. But now mark. The next year (1874) all the plots were left without any manure, and the plot which had been previously dressed with nitrate of soda, alone, fell off to 3 tons per acre, while the plot which had been previously manured with barnyard-manure, produced 10¾ tons per acre.”
“Good,” said the Deacon, “there is nothing like manure.”
I class these plants together, because, though differing widely in many respects, they have one feature in common. They are all artificial productions.
A distinguished amateur horticulturist once said to me, “I do not see why it is I have so much trouble with lettuce. My land is rich, and the lettuce grow well, but do not head. They have a tendency to run up to seed, and soon get tough and bitter.”
I advised him to raise his own seed from the best plants—and especially to reject all plants that showed any tendency to go prematurely 290 to seed. Furthermore, I told him I thought if he would sow a little superphosphate of lime with the seed, it would greatly stimulate the early growth of the lettuce.
As I have said before, superphosphate, when drilled in with the seed, has a wonderful effect in developing the root-growth of the young plants of turnips, and I thought it would have the same effect on lettuce, cabbage, cauliflowers, etc.
“But,” said he, “it is not roots that I want, but heads.”
“Exactly,” said I, “you do not want the plants to follow out their natural disposition and run up to seed. You want to induce them to throw out a great abundance of tender leaves. In other words, you want them to ‘head.’ Just as in the turnip, you do not want them to run up to seed, but to produce an unnatural development of ‘bulb.’”
Thirty years ago, Dr. Gilbert threw out the suggestion, that while it was evident that turnips required a larger proportion of soluble phosphates in the soil than wheat; while wheat required a larger proportion of available nitrogen in the soil, than turnips, it was quite probable, if we were growing turnips for seed, that then, turnips would require the same kind of manures as wheat.
We want exceedingly rich land for cabbage, especially for an early crop. This is not merely because a large crop of cabbage takes a large amount of plant-food out of the soil, but because the cultivated cabbage is an artificial plant, that requires its food in a concentrated shape. In popular language, the plants have to be “forced.”
According to the analyses of Dr. Anderson, the outside leaves of cabbage, contain, in round numbers, 91 per cent of water; and the heart leaves, 94½ per cent. In other words, the green leaves contain 3½ per cent more dry matter than the heart leaves.
Dr. Vœlcker, who analyzed more recently some “cattle-cabbage,” found 89½ per cent of water in the green leaves, and 83¾ per cent in the heart and inner leaves—thus confirming previous analyses, and showing also that the composition of cabbages varies considerably.
Dr. Vœlcker found much less water in the cabbage than Dr. Anderson.
The specimen analyzed by Dr. V., was grown on the farm of the Royal Ag. College of England, and I infer from some incidental remarks, that the crop was grown on rather poor land. And it is probably true that a large crop of cabbage grown on rich land, contains a higher percentage of water than cabbage grown on poorer 291 land. On the poor land, the cabbage would not be likely to head so well as on the rich land, and the green leaves of cabbage contain more than half as much again real dry substance as the heart leaves.
The dry matter of the heart leaves, however, contains more actual nutriment than the dry matter of the green leaves.
It would seem very desirable, therefore, whether we are raising cabbage for market or for home consumption, to make the land rich enough to grow good heads. Dr. Vœlcker says, “In ordinary seasons, the average produce of Swedes on our poorer fields is about 15 tons per acre. On weighing the produce of an acre of cabbage, grown under similar circumstances, I found that it amounted to 17½ tons per acre. On good, well-manured fields, however, we have had a much larger produce.”
In a report on the “Cultivation of Cabbage, and its comparative Value for Feeding purposes,” by J. M. M’Laren, of Scotland, the yield of Swede turnips, was 29¾ tons per acre, and the yield of cabbage, 47¾ tons per acre.
“It is very evident,” said the Deacon, “that if you grow cabbage you should make the land rich enough to produce a good crop—and I take it that is all you want to show.”
“I want to show,” I replied, “that our market gardeners have reason for applying such apparently excessive dressings of rich manure to the cabbage-crop. They find it safer to put far more manure into the land than the crop can possibly use, rather than run any risk of getting an inferior crop. An important practical question is, whether they can not grow some crop or crops after the cabbage, that can profitably take up the manure left in the soil.”
Prof. E. Wolff, in the last edition of “Praktische Düngerlehre,” gives the composition of cabbage. For the details of which, see Appendix, page 345.
From this it appears that 50 tons of cabbage contain 240 lbs. of nitrogen, and 1,600 lbs. of ash. Included in the ash is 630 lbs. of potash; 90 lbs. of soda; 310 lbs. of lime; 60 lbs. of magnesia; 140 lbs. of phosphoric acid; 240 lbs. of sulphuric acid, and 20 lbs. of silica.
Henderson, in “Gardening for Profit,” advises the application of 75 tons of stable or barn-yard manure per acre, for early cabbage. For late cabbage, after peas or early potatoes, he says about 10 tons per acre are used.
Brill, in “Farm Gardening and Seed Growing,” also makes the same distinction in regard to the quantity of manure used for early 292 and late cabbage. He speaks of 70 to 80 tons or more, per acre, of well-rotted stable-manure as not an unusual or excessive dressing every year.
Now, according to Wolff’s table, 75 tons of fresh stable-manure, with straw, contains 820 lbs. of nitrogen; 795 lbs. of potash; 150 lbs. soda; 315 lbs. of lime; 210 lbs. of magnesia; 420 lbs. of phosphoric acid; 105 lbs. sulphuric acid; 2,655 lbs. of silica, and 60 lbs. of chlorine.
“Put the figures side by side,” said the Deacon, “so that we can compare them.”
Here they are:
75 tons Fresh Horse Manure. |
50 tons Cabbage. |
|
---|---|---|
Nitrogen | 820 lbs. | 240 lbs. |
Potash | 795 lbs. | 630 lbs. |
Phosphoric acid | 420 lbs. | 140 lbs. |
Soda | 150 lbs. | 90 lbs. |
Lime | 315 lbs. | 310 lbs. |
Magnesia | 210 lbs. | 60 lbs. |
“That is rather an interesting table,” said the Doctor. “In the case of lime, the crop takes about all that this heavy dressing of manure supplies—but I suppose the soil is usually capable of furnishing a considerable quantity.”
“That may be so,” said the Deacon, “but all the authorities on market gardening speak of the importance of either growing cabbage on land containing lime, or else of applying lime as a manure. Quinn, who writes like a sensible man, says in his book, ‘Money in the Garden,’ ‘A top-dressing of lime every third year, thirty or forty bushels per acre, spread broadcast, and harrowed in, just before planting, pays handsomely.’”
Henderson thinks cabbage can only be grown successfully on land containing abundance of lime. He has used heavy dressings of lime on land which did not contain shells, and the result was satisfactory for a time, but he found it too expensive.
Experience seems to show that to grow large crops of perfect cabbage, the soil must be liberally furnished with manures rich in nitrogen and phosphoric acid.
In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that cabbage require a large quantity of potash. I think, however, that when large quantities of stable or barn-yard manure is used, it will rarely be found that the soil lacks potash.
What we need to grow a large crop of cabbage, is manure from well-fed animals. Such manure can rarely be purchased. Now, the difference between rich manure and ordinary stable or barnyard-manure, 293 consists principally in this: The rich manure contains more nitrogen and phosphoric acid than the ordinary stable-manure—and it is in a more available condition.
To convert common manure into rich manure, therefore, we must add nitrogen and phosphoric acid. In other words, we must use Peruvian guano, or nitrate of soda and superphosphate, or bone-dust, or some other substance that will furnish available nitrogen and phosphoric acid.
Or it may well be, where stable-manure can be bought for $1.00 per two-horse load, that it will be cheaper to use it in larger quantity rather than to try to make it rich. In this case, however, we must endeavor to follow the cabbage by some crop that has the power of taking up the large quantity of nitrogen and other plant-food that will be left in the soil.
The cabbage needs a large supply of nitrogen in the soil, but removes comparatively little of it. We see that when 75 tons of manure is used, a crop of 50 tons of cabbage takes out of the soil less than 30 per cent of the nitrogen. And yet, if you plant cabbage on this land, the next year, without manure, you would get a small crop.
“It cannot be for want of nitrogen,” said the Deacon.
“Yes it can,” said I. “The cabbage, especially the early kinds, must have in the soil a much larger quantity of available nitrogen than the plants can use.”
I do not mean by this that a large crop of cabbage could be raised, year after year, if furnished only with a large supply of available nitrogen. In such a case, the soil would soon lack the necessary inorganic ingredients. But, what I mean, is this: Where land has been heavily manured for some years, we could often raise a good crop of cabbage by a liberal dressing of available nitrogen, and still more frequently, if nitrogen and phosphoric acid were both used.
You may use what would be considered an excessive quantity of ordinary stable-manure, and grow a large crop of cabbage; but still, if you plant cabbage the next year, without manure of any kind, you will get a small crop; but dress it with a manure containing the necessary amount of nitrogen, and you will, so far as the supply of plant-food is concerned, be likely to get a good crop.
In such circumstances, I think an application of 800 lbs. of nitrate of soda per acre, costing, say $32, would be likely to afford a very handsome profit.
For lettuce, in addition to well prepared rich land, I should sow 3 lbs. of superphosphate to each square rod, scattered in the rows 294 before drilling in the seed. It will favor the formation of fibrous roots and stimulate the growth of the young plants.
In raising onions from seed, we require an abundance of rich, well-rotted manure, clean land, and early sowing.
Onions are often raised year after year on the same land. That this entails a great waste of manure, is highly probable, but it is not an easy matter to get ordinary farm-land properly prepared for onions. It needs to be clean and free from stones and rubbish of all kinds, and when once it is in good condition, it is thought better to continue it in onions, even though it may entail more or less loss of fertility.
“What do you mean,” asked the Deacon, “by loss of manure?”
“Simply this,” said I. “We use a far greater amount of plant-food in the shape of manure than is removed by the crop of onions. And yet, notwithstanding this fact, it is found, as a matter of experience, that it is absolutely necessary, if we would raise a large and profitable crop, to manure it every year.”
A few experiments would throw much light on this matter. I should expect, when land had been heavily dressed every year for a few years, with stable-manure, and annually sown to onions, that 800 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia, or of nitrate of soda, or 1,200 lbs. of Peruvian guano would give as good a crop as 25 or 30 tons of manure. Or perhaps a better plan would be to apply 10 or 15 loads of manure, and 600 lbs. of guano, or 400 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
The chief dependence of the market gardener must be on the stable-manure which he can obtain from the city or village. The chief defect of this manure is that it is not rich enough in available nitrogen. The active nitrogen exists principally in the urine, and this in our city stables is largely lost. A ton of fresh, unmixed horse-dung contains about 9 lbs. of nitrogen. A ton of horse-urine, 31 lbs. But this does not tell the whole story. The nitrogen in the dung is contained in the crude, undigested portions of the food. It is to a large extent insoluble and unavailable, while the nitrogen in the urine is soluble and active.
295 The market-gardener, of course, has to take such manure as he can get, and the only points to be considered are (1), whether he had better continue to use an excessive quantity of the manure, or (2), to buy substances rich in available nitrogen, and either mix them with the manure, or apply them separately to the soil, or (3), whether he can use this horse-manure as bedding for pigs to be fed on rich nitrogenous food.
The latter plan I adopt on my own farm, and in this way I get a very rich and active manure. I get available nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, at far cheaper rates than they can be purchased in the best commercial fertilizers.
Pigs void a large amount of urine, and as pigs are ordinarily kept, much of this liquid is lost for want of sufficient bedding to absorb it. With the market-gardener or nurseryman, who draws large quantities of horse-manure from the city, this need not be the case. The necessary buildings can be constructed at little cost, and the horse-manure can be used freely. The pigs should be fed on food rich in nitrogen, such as bran, malt-combs, brewers’ grains, the refuse animal matter from the slaughter-houses or butchers’ stores, fish scrap, pea or lentil-meal, palm-nut cake, or such food as will furnish the most nitrogenous food, other things being equal, at the cheapest rate.
The market-gardener not only requires large quantities of rich manure, but he wants them to act quickly. The nurseryman who sets out a block of trees which will occupy the ground for three, four, or five years, may want a “lasting manure,” but such is not the case with the gardener who grows crops which he takes off the land in a few months. As long as he continues to use horse or cow-manure freely, he need not trouble himself to get a slow or lasting manure. His great aim should be to make the manure as active and available as possible. And this is especially the case if he occupies clayey or loamy land. On sandy land the manure will decompose more rapidly and act quicker.
“There are many facts,” said the Doctor, “that show that an artificial application of water is equivalent to an application of manure. It has been shown that market-gardeners find it necessary to apply a much larger amount of plant-food to the soil than the crops can take up. This they have to do year after year. And it may well be that, when a supply of water can be had at slight cost, it will be cheaper to irrigate the land, or water the plants, rather than to furnish such an excess of manure, as is now found necessary. Even with ordinary farm-crops, we know that they feel the effects of drouth far less on rich land than on poor land. In 296 other words, a liberal supply of plant-food enables the crops to flourish with less water; and, on the other hand, a greater supply of water will enable the crops to flourish with a less supply of plant-food. The market-gardeners should look into this question of irrigation.”
In growing garden and vegetable seeds, much labor is necessarily employed per acre, and consequently it is of great importance to produce a good yield. The best and cleanest land is necessary to start with, and then manures must be appropriately and freely used.
“But not too freely,” said the Doctor, “for I am told it is quite possible to have land too rich for seed-growing.”
It is not often that the land is too rich. Still, it may well be that for some crops too much stable-manure is used. But in nine cases out of ten, when such manure gives too much growth and too little or too poor seed, the trouble is in the quality of the manure. It contains too much carbonaceous matter. In other words, it is so poor in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, that an excessive quantity has to be used.
The remedy consists in making richer manures and using a less quantity, or use half the quantity of stable-manure, and apply the rectified or prepared Peruvian guano, at the rate of 300 lbs. or 400 lbs. per acre, or say 200 lbs. superphosphate and 200 lbs. nitrate of soda per acre.
Where it is very important to have the seeds ripen early, a liberal dressing, say 400 lbs. per acre, of superphosphate of lime, will be likely to prove beneficial.
I once had a small garden in the city, and having no manure, I depended entirely on thorough cultivation and artificial fertilizers, such as superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia. It was cultivated not for profit, but for pleasure, but I never saw a more productive piece of land. I had in almost every case two crops a year on the same land, and on some plots three crops. No manure was used, except the superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia, and coal and wood ashes from the house.
About 5 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia was sown broadcast to the square rod, or worked into the soil very thoroughly in the rows where the seed was to be sown. Superphosphate was applied at the same rate, but instead of sowing it broadcast, I aimed to get it as near the seed or the roots of plants as possible.
297 Half a teaspoonful of the mixture, consisting of equal parts of superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia, stirred into a large three gallon can of water, and sprinkled on to a bed of verbenas, seemed to have a remarkable effect on the size and brilliancy of the flowers.
Even to this day, although I have a good supply of rich barnyard-manure, I do not like to be without some good artificial manure for the garden.
The best manure for hot-beds is horse or sheep-dung that has been used as bedding for pigs.
When fresh stable-manure is used, great pains should be taken to save all the urine. In other words, you want the horse-dung thoroughly saturated with urine.
The heat is produced principally from the carbon in the manure and straw, but you need active nitrogenous matter to start the fire. And the richer the manure is in nitrogenous matter, and the more thoroughly this is distributed through the manure, the more readily will it ferment. There is also another advantage in having rich manure, or manure well saturated with urine. You can make the heap more compact. Poor manure has to be made in a loose heap, or it will not ferment; but such manure as we are talking about can be trodden down quite firm, and still ferment rapid enough to give out the necessary heat, and this compact heap will continue to ferment longer and give out a steadier heat, than the loose heap of poor manure.
Our successful nurserymen purchase large quantities of stable and other manures from the cities, drawing it as fast as it is made, and putting it in piles until wanted. They usually turn the piles once or twice, and often three times. This favors fermentation, greatly reducing it in bulk, and rendering the manure much more soluble and active. It also makes the manure in the heap more uniform in quality.
Messrs. Ellwanger & Barry tell me that they often ferment the manure that they draw from the stables in the city, and make it so fine and rich, that they get but one load of rotted manure from three loads as drawn from the stables. For some crops, they use at least 20 loads of this rotted manure per acre, and they estimate that each load of this rotted manure costs at least $5.00.
H. E. Hooker places the cost of manure equally high, but seems willing to use all he can get, and does not think we can profitably employ artificial manures as a substitute.
298 In this I agree with him. But while I should not expect artificial manures, when used alone, to prove as cheap or as valuable as stable-manure at present prices, I think it may well be that a little nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, and superphosphate of lime, or dissolved Peruvian guano, might be used as an auxiliary manure to great advantage.
Mr. H. E. Hooker, once sowed, at my suggestion, some sulphate of ammonia and superphosphate on part of a block of nursery trees, and he could not perceive that these manures did any good. Ellwanger & Barry also tried them, and reported the same negative result. This was several years ago, and I do not think any similar experiments have been made since.
“And yet,” said the Deacon, “you used these self same manures on farm-crops, and they greatly increased the growth.”
“There are several reasons,” said the Doctor, “why these manures may have failed to produce any marked effect on the nursery trees. In the first place, there was considerable prejudice against them, and the nurserymen would hardly feel like relying on these manures alone. They probably sowed them on land already well manured; and I think they sowed them too late in the season. I should like to see them fairly tried.”
So would I. It seems to me that nitrate of soda, and superphosphate, or dissolved Peruvian guano, could be used with very great advantage and profit by the nurserymen. Of course, it would hardly be safe to depend upon them alone. They should be used either in connection with stable-manure, or on land that had previously been frequently dressed with stable-manure.
How to keep up the fertility of our apple-orchards, is becoming an important question, and is attracting considerable attention.
There are two methods generally recommended—I dare not say generally practised. The one, is to keep the orchard in bare-fallow; the other, to keep it in grass, and top-dress with manure, and either eat the grass off on the land with sheep and pigs, or else mow it frequently, and let the grass rot on the surface, for mulch and manure.
“You are speaking now,” said the Deacon, “of bearing apple-orchards. No one recommends keeping a young orchard in grass. We all know that young apple trees do far better when the land is occupied with corn, potatoes, beans, or some other crop, which can be cultivated, than they do on land occupied with wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, or grass and clover. And even with bearing 299 peach trees, I have seen a wonderful difference in an orchard, half of which was cultivated with corn, and the other half sown with wheat. The trees in the wheat were sickly-looking, and bore a small crop of inferior fruit, while the trees in the corn, grew vigorously and bore a fine crop of fruit. And the increased value of the crop of peaches on the cultivated land was far more than we can ever hope to get from a crop of wheat.”
“And yet,” said the Doctor, “the crop of corn on the cultivated half of the peach-orchard removed far more plant-food from the soil, than the crop of wheat. And so it is evident that the difference is not due wholly to the supply of manure in the surface-soil. It may well be that the cultivation which the corn received favored the decomposition of organic matter in the soil, and the formation of nitrates, and when the rain came, it would penetrate deeper into the loose soil than on the adjoining land occupied with wheat. The rain would carry the nitrogen down to the roots of the peach trees, and this will account for the dark green color of the leaves on the cultivated land, and the yellow, sickly-looking leaves on the trees among the wheat.”
A bushel of corn fed to a hen would give no more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in the shape of manure, than a bushel of corn fed to a pig. The manure from the pig, however, taking the urine and solid excrement together, contain 82 per cent of water, while that from the hen contains only 56 per cent of water. Moreover, hens pick up worms and insects, and their food in such case would contain more nitrogen than the usual food of pigs, and the manure would be correspondingly richer in nitrogen. Hence it happens that 100 lbs. of dry hen-manure would usually be richer in nitrogen than 100 lbs. of dry pig-manure. But feed pigs on peas, and hens on corn, and the dry pig-manure would be much richer in nitrogen than the dry hen-manure. The value of the manure, other things being equal, depends on the food and not on the animal.
Let no man think he is going to make his farm any richer by keeping hens, ducks, and geese, than he will by keeping sheep, pigs, and horses.
“Why is it, then,” asked the Deacon, “that hen-dung proves such a valuable manure. I would rather have a hundred lbs. of hen-dung than half a ton of barnyard-manure?”
“And I presume you are right,” said I, “but you must recollect that your hen-manure is kept until it is almost chemically dry. Let 300 us figure up what the half ton of manure and the 100 lbs. of hen-manure would contain. Here are the figures, side by side:
100 lbs. dry Hen-Manure. |
Half ton Cow-Dung with straw. |
|
---|---|---|
Water (estimated) | 12 lbs. | 775 lbs. |
Organic Matter | 51 ” | 203 ” |
Ash | 37 ” | 22 ” |
Nitrogen | 3¼ ” | 3⅖ ” |
Potash | 1¾ ” | 4 ” |
Lime | 4¾ ” | 3 ” |
Phosphoric acid | 3 ” | 1½ ” |
I would, myself, far rather have 100 lbs. of your dry hen-manure than half a ton of your farmyard-manure. Your hens are fed on richer food than your cows. The 100 lbs. of hen-manure, too, would act much more rapidly than the half ton of cow-manure. It would probably do twice as much good—possibly three or four times as much good, on the first crop, as the cow-manure. The nitrogen, being obtained from richer and more digestible food, is in a much more active and available condition than the nitrogen in the cow-dung.
“If you go on,” said the Deacon, “I think you will prove that I am right.”
“I have never doubted,” said I, “the great value of hen-dung, as compared with barnyard-manure. And all I wish to show is, that, notwithstanding its acknowledged value, the fact remains that a given quantity of the same kind of food will give no greater amount of fertilizing matter when fed to a hen than if fed to a pig.”
I want those farmers who find so much benefit from an application of hen-manure, ashes, and plaster, to their corn and potatoes, to feel that if they would keep better cows, sheep, and pigs, and feed them better, they would get good pay for their feed, and the manure would enable them to grow larger crops.
While we have been talking, the Deacon was looking over the tables. (See Appendix.) “I see,” said he, “that wheat and rye contain more nitrogen than hen-manure, but less potash and phosphoric acid.”
“This is true,” said I, “but the way to compare them, in order to see the effect of passing the wheat through the hen, is to look at the composition of the air-dried hen-dung. The fresh hen-dung, according to the table, contains 56 per cent of water, while wheat contains less than 14½ per cent.”
Let us compare the composition of 1,000 lbs. air-dried hen-dung with 1,000 lbs. of air-dried wheat and rye, and also with bran, malt-combs, etc.
301Nitrogen. | Potash. | Phosphoric Acid. |
|
---|---|---|---|
Wheat | 20.8 | 5.3 | 7.9 |
Wheat Bran | 22.4 | 14.3 | 27.3 |
Rye | 17.6 | 5.6 | 8.4 |
Rye Bran | 23.2 | 19.3 | 34.3 |
Buckwheat | 14.4 | 2.7 | 5.7 |
Buckwheat Bran | 27.2 | 11.2 | 12.5 |
Malt-roots | 36.8 | 20.6 | 18.0 |
Air-dry Hen-dung. | 32.6 | 17.0 | 30.8 |
“That table,” said the Doctor, “is well worth studying. You see, that when wheat is put through the process of milling, the miller takes out as much of the starch and gluten as he wants, and leaves you a product (bran), richer in phosphoric acid, potash, and nitrogen, than you gave him.”
“And the same is true,” continued the Doctor, “of the hen. You gave her 2,000 grains of wheat, containing 41.6 grains of nitrogen. She puts this through the mill, together with some ashes, and bones, that she picks up, and she takes out all the starch and fat, and nitrogen, and phosphate of lime, that she needs to sustain life, and to produce flesh, bones, feathers, and eggs, and leaves you 1,000 grains of manure containing 32.6 grains of nitrogen, 17.0 grains of potash, and 30.8 grains of phosphoric acid. I do not say,” continued the Doctor, “that it takes exactly 2,000 grains of wheat to make 1,000 grains of dry manure. I merely give these figures to enable the Deacon to understand why 1,000 lbs. of hen-dung is worth more for manure than 1,000 lbs. of wheat.”
“I must admit,” said the Deacon, “that I always have been troubled to understand why wheat-bran was worth more for manure than the wheat itself, I see now—it is because there is less of it. It is for the same reason that boiled cider is richer than the cider from which it is made. The cider has lost water, and the bran has lost starch. What is left is richer in nitrogen, and potash, and phosphoric acid. And so it is with manure. The animals take out of the food the starch and fat, and leave the manure richer in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash.”
“Exactly,” said I, “Mr. Lawes found by actual experiment, that if you feed 500 lbs. of barley-meal to a pig, containing 420 lbs. of dry substance, you get only 70 lbs. of dry substance in the manure. Of the 420 lbs. of dry substance, 276.2 lbs. are used to support respiration, etc.; 73.8 lbs. are found in the increase of the pig, and 70 lbs. in the manure.”
The food contains 52 lbs. of nitrogenous matter; the increase of pig contains 7 lbs., and consequently, if there is no loss, the manure 302 should contain 45 lbs. of nitrogenous substance = to 7.14 lbs. of nitrogen.
“In other words,” said the Doctor, “the 70 lbs. of dry liquid and solid pig-manure contains 7.14 lbs. of nitrogen, or 100 lbs. would contain 10.2 lbs. of nitrogen, which is more nitrogen than we now get in the very best samples of Peruvian guano.”
“And thus it will be seen,” said I, “that though corn-fed pigs, leaving out the bedding and water, produce a very small quantity of manure, it is exceedingly rich.”
The table from which these facts were obtained, will be found in the Appendix—pages 342-3.
“It will do more good if fermented,” said a German farmer in the neighborhood, who is noted for raising good crops of cabbage, “but I like hog-manure better than cow-dung. The right way is to mix the hog-manure, cow-dung, and horse-manure together.”
“No doubt about that,” said I, “but when you have a good many cows, and few other animals, how would you manage the manure?”
“I would gather leaves and swamp-muck, and use them for bedding the cows and pigs. Leaves make splendid bedding, and they make rich manure, and the cow-dung and leaves, when made into a pile, will ferment readily, and make grand manure for—anything. I only wish I had all I could use.”
There is no question but what cow-manure is better if fermented, but it is not always convenient to pile it during the winter in such a way that it will not freeze. And in this case it may be the better plan to draw it out on to the land, as opportunity offers.
“I have heard,” said Charley, “that pig-manure was not good for cabbage, it produces ‘fingers and toes,’ or club-foot.”
Possibly such is the case when there is a predisposition to the disease, but our German friend says he has never found any ill-effects from its use.
303 “Cows,” said the Doctor, “when giving a large quantity of milk, make rather poor manure. The manure loses what the milk takes from the food.”
“We have shown what that loss is,” said I. “It amounts to less than I think is generally supposed. And in the winter, when the cows are dry, the manure would be as rich as from oxen, provided both were fed alike. See Appendix, page 342. It will there be seen that oxen take out only 4.1 lbs. of nitrogen from 100 lbs. of nitrogen consumed in the food. In other words, provided there is no loss, we should get in the liquid and solid excrements of the ox and dry cow 95.9 per cent of the nitrogen furnished in the food, and a still higher per cent of the mineral matter.”
According to Prof. Wolff’s table of analyses, sheep-manure, both solid and liquid, contain less water than the manure from horses, cows, or swine. With the exception of swine, the solid dung is also the richest in nitrogen, while the urine of sheep is pre-eminently rich in nitrogen and potash.
These facts are in accordance with the general opinions of farmers. Sheep-manure is considered, next to hen-manure, the most valuable manure made on the farm.
I do not think we have any satisfactory evidence to prove that 3 tons of clover-hay and a ton of corn fed to a lot of fattening-sheep will afford a quantity of manure containing any more plant-food than the same kind and amount of food fed to a lot of fattening-cattle. The experiments of Lawes & Gilbert indicate that if there is any difference it is in favor of the ox. See Appendix, page 343. But it may well be that it is much easier to save the manure from the sheep than from the cattle. And so, practically, sheep may be better manure-makers than cattle—for the simple reason that less of the urine is lost.
“As a rule,” said the Doctor, “the dung of sheep contains far less water than the dung of cattle, though when you slop your breeding ewes to make them give more milk, the dung differs but little in appearance from that of cows. Ordinarily, however, sheep-dung is light and dry, and, like horse-dung, will ferment much more rapidly than cow or pig-dung. In piling manure in the winter or spring, special pains should be used to mix the sheep and horse-manure with the cow and pig-manure. And it may be remarked that for any crop or for any purpose where stable-manure is deemed desirable, sheep-manure would be a better substitute than cow or pig-manure.”
304The dry matter of hog-manure, especially the urine, is rich in nitrogen, but it is mixed with such a large quantity of water that a ton of hog-manure, as it is usually found in the pen, is less valuable than a ton of horse or sheep-manure, and only a little more valuable than a ton of cow-manure.
As I have before said, my own plan is to let the store-hogs sleep in a basement-cellar, and bed them with horse and sheep-manure. I have this winter over 50 sows under the horse-stable, and the manure from 8 horses keeps them dry and comfortable, and we are not specially lavish with straw in bedding the horses.
During the summer we aim to keep the hogs out in the pastures and orchards as much as possible. This is not only good for the health of the pigs, but saves labor and straw in the management of the manure. It goes directly to the land. The pigs are good grazers and distribute the manure as evenly over the land as sheep—in fact, during hot weather, sheep are even more inclined to huddle together under the trees, and by the side of the fence, than pigs. This is particularly the case with the larger breeds of sheep.
In the winter it is not a difficult matter to save all the liquid and solid excrements from pigs, provided the pens are dry and no water comes in from the rain and snow. As pigs are often managed, this is the real difficulty. Pigs void an enormous quantity of water, especially when fed on slops from the house, whey, etc. If they are kept in a pen with a separate feeding and sleeping apartment, both should be under cover, and the feeding apartment may be kept covered a foot or so thick with the soiled bedding from the sleeping apartment. When the pigs get up in a morning, they will go into the feeding apartment, and the liquid will be discharged on the mass of manure, straw, etc.
“Dried muck,” said the Deacon, “comes in very handy about a pig-pen, for absorbing the liquid.”
“Yes,” said I, “and even dry earth can be used to great advantage, not merely to absorb the liquid, but to keep the pens sweet and healthy. The three chief points in saving manure from pigs are: 1, To have the pens under cover; 2, to keep the feeding apartment or yard covered with a thick mass of strawy manure and refuse of any kind, and 3, to scatter plenty of dry earth or dry muck on the floor of the sleeping apartment, and on top of the manure in the feeding apartment.”
“You feed most of your pigs,” said the Deacon, “out of doors in the yard, and they sleep in the pens or basement cellars, and it 305 seems to me to be a good plan, as they get more fresh air and exercise than if confined.”
“We do not lose much manure,” said I, “by feeding in the yards. You let a dozen pigs sleep in a pen all night, and as soon as they hear you putting the food in the troughs outside, they come to the door of the pen, and there discharge the liquid and solid excrements on the mass of manure left there on purpose to receive and absorb them. I am well aware that as pigs are often managed, we lose at least half the value of their manure, but there is no necessity for this. A little care and thought will save nearly the whole of it.”
The Deacon and I have just been weighing a bushel of different kinds of manure made on the farm. We made two weighings of each kind, one thrown in loose, and the other pressed down firm. The following is the result:
WEIGHT OF MANURE PER BUSHEL, AND PER LOAD OF 50 BUSHELS.
No. | KIND AND CONDITION OF MANURES. | Weight per Bushel in lbs. |
Weight per Load of 50 bushels. |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Fresh horse-manure free from straw |
37½ | 1875 |
2. | Fresh horse-manure free from straw, pressed |
55 | 2750 |
3. | Fresh horse-manure, as used for bedding pigs |
28 | 1400 |
4. | Fresh horse-manure, as used for bedding pigs, pressed |
46 | 2300 |
5. | Horse-manure from pig cellar |
50 | 2500 |
6. | Horse-manure from pig cellar, pressed |
72 | 3600 |
7. | Pig-manure |
57 | 2850 |
8. | Pig-manure, pressed |
75 | 3750 |
9. | Pig-manure and dry earth |
98 | 4900 |
10. | Sheep-manure from open shed |
42 | 2100 |
11. | Sheep-manure from open shed, pressed |
65 | 3250 |
12. | Sheep-manure from closed shed |
28 | 1400 |
13. | Sheep-manure from closed shed, pressed |
38 | 1900 |
14. | Fresh cow-dung, free from straw |
87 | 4350 |
15. | Hen-manure |
34 | 1700 |
16. | Hen-manure, pressed |
48 | 2400 |
“In buying manure,” said the Deacon, “it makes quite a difference whether the load is trod down solid or thrown loosely into the box. A load of fresh horse-manure, when trod down, weighs half as much again as when thrown in loose.”
“A load of horse-manure,” said Charley, “after it has been used for bedding pigs, weighs 3,600 lbs., and only 2,300 lbs. when it is thrown into the pens, and I suppose a ton of the ‘double-worked’ manure is fully as valuable as a ton of the fresh horse-manure. If so, 15 ‘loads’ of the pig-pen manure is equal to 24 ‘loads’ of the stable-manure.”
306 “A ton of fresh horse-manure,” said the Doctor, “contains about 9 lbs. of nitrogen; a ton of fresh cow-dung about 6 lbs.; a ton of fresh sheep-dung, 11 lbs., and a ton of fresh pig-manure, 12 lbs. But if the Deacon and you weighed correctly, a ‘load’ or cord of cow-manure would contain more nitrogen than a load of pressed horse-manure. The figures are as follows:
A load of 50 bushels of fresh horse-dung, |
12.37 lbs. nitrogen. |
A load of fresh cow-dung |
13.05 lbs. nitrogen. |
A load of fresh sheep-dung |
10.45 lbs. nitrogen. |
A load of fresh pig-dung |
22.50 lbs. nitrogen. |
“These figures,” said I, “show how necessary it is to look at this subject in all its aspects. If I was buying manures by weight, I would much prefer a ton of sheep-manure, if it had been made under cover, to any other manure except hen-dung, especially if it contained all the urine from the sheep. But if buying manure by the load or cord, that from a covered pig-pen would be preferable to any other.”
I have never had any personal experience in the use of liquid manure to any crop except grass. At Rothamsted, Mr. Lawes used to draw out the liquid manure in a water-cart, and distribute it on grass land.
“What we want to know,” said the Deacon, “is whether the liquid from our barn-yards will pay to draw out. If it will, the proper method of using it can be left to our ingenuity.”
According to Prof. Wolff, a ton of urine from horses, cows, sheep, and swine, contains the following amounts of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, and, for the sake of comparison, I give the composition of drainage from the barn-yard, and also of fresh dung of the different animals:
TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORIC ACID, AND POTASH, IN ONE TON OF THE FRESH DUNG AND FRESH URINE OF DIFFERENT ANIMALS, AND ALSO OF THE DRAINAGE OF THE BARN-YARD.
Nitro(gen). | Phos(phoric) Acid. | Pot(ash). |
1 TON FRESH DUNG. | 1 TON FRESH URINE. | |||||
Nitro. | Phos. acid. |
Pot. | Nitro. | Phos. acid. |
Pot. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | |
Horse | 8.8 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 31.0 | 30.0 | |
Cow | 5.8 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 11.6 | 9.8 | |
Sheep | 11.0 | 6.2 | 3.0 | 39.0 | 0.2 | 45.2 |
Swine | 12.0 | 8.2 | 5.2 | 8.6 | 1.4 | 16.6 |
Mean | 9.4 | 6.2 | 4.3 | 22.5 | 0.4 | 25.4 |
Drainage of barn-yard | 3.0 | 0.2 | 9.8 |
307 The drainage from a barn-yard, it will be seen, contains a little more than half as much nitrogen as cow-dung; and it is probable that the nitrogen in the liquid is in a much more available condition than that in the dung. It contains, also, nearly five times as much potash as the dung. It would seem, therefore, that with proper arrangements for pumping and distributing, this liquid could be drawn a short distance with profit.
But whether it will or will not pay to cart away the drainage, it is obviously to our interest to prevent, as far as possible, any of the liquid from running to waste.
It is of still greater importance to guard against any loss of urine. It will be seen that, on the average, a ton of the urine of our domestic animals contains more than twice as much nitrogen as a ton of the dung.
Where straw, leaves, swamp-muck, or other absorbent materials are not sufficiently abundant to prevent any loss of urine, means should be used to drain it into a tank so located that the liquid can either be pumped back on to the manure when needed, or drawn away to the land.
“I do not see,” said the Deacon, “why horse and sheep-urine should contain so much more nitrogen and potash than that from the cow and pig.”
“The figures given by Prof. Wolff,” said I, “are general averages. The composition of the urine varies greatly. The richer the food in digestible nitrogenous matter, the more nitrogen will there be in the dry matter of the urine. And, other things being equal, the less water the animal drinks, the richer will the urine be in nitrogen. The urine from a sheep fed solely on turnips would contain little or no more nitrogen than the urine of a cow fed on turnips. An ox or a dry cow fed on grass would probably void no more nor no poorer urine than a horse fed on grass. The urine that Mr. Lawes drew out in a cart on to his grass-land was made by sheep that had one lb. each of oil-cake per day, and one lb. of chaffed clover-hay, and all the turnips they would eat. They voided a large quantity of urine, but as the food was rich in nitrogen, the urine was doubtless nearly or quite as rich as that analyzed by Prof. Wolff, though that probably contained less water.”
If I was going to draw out liquid manure, I should be very careful to spout all the buildings, and keep the animals and manure as much under cover as possible, and also feed food rich in nitrogen. In such circumstances, it would doubtless pay to draw the urine full as well as to draw the solid manure.
308The composition of human excrements, as compared with the mean composition of the excrements from horses, cows, sheep, and swine, so far as the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash are concerned, is as follows:
TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORIC ACID, AND POTASH, IN ONE TON OF FRESH HUMAN EXCREMENTS, AND IN ONE TON OF FRESH EXCREMENTS FROM HORSES, COWS, SHEEP, AND SWINE.
One ton (2000 lbs). |
SOLIDS | URINE | ||||
Nitrogen. | Phosphoric acid. |
Potash. | Nitrogen. | Phosphoric acid. |
Potash. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human | 20.0 lbs. | 21.8 lbs. | 5.0 lbs. | 12.0 lbs. | 3.7 lbs. | 4.0 lbs. |
Mean of horse, cow, sheep, and swine |
9.4 lbs. | 6.2 lbs. | 4.3 lbs. | 22.5 lbs. | 0.4 lbs. | 25.4 lbs. |
One ton of fresh fæces contains more than twice as much nitrogen, and more than three times as much phosphoric acid, as a ton of fresh mixed animal-dung. The nitrogen, too, is probably in a more available condition than that in common barnyard-dung; and we should not be far wrong in estimating 1 ton of fæces equal to 2½ tons of ordinary dung, or about equal in value to carefully preserved manure from liberally-fed sheep, swine, and fattening cattle.
“It is an unpleasant job,” said the Deacon, “but it pays well to empty the vaults at least twice a year.”
“If farmers,” said the Doctor, “would only throw into the vaults from time to time some dry earth or coal ashes, the contents of the vaults could be removed without any disagreeable smell.”
“That is so,” said I, “and even where a vault has been shamefully neglected, and is full of offensive matter, it can be cleaned out without difficulty and without smell. I have cleaned out a large vault in an hour. We were drawing manure from the yards with three teams and piling it in the field. We brought back a load of sand and threw half of it into the vault, and put the other half on one side, to be used as required. The sand and fæces were then, with a long-handled shovel, thrown into the wagon, and drawn to the pile of manure in the field, and thrown on to the pile, not more than two or three inches thick. The team brought back a load of sand, and so we continued until the work was done. Sand or dry earth is cheap, and we used all that was necessary to prevent the escape of any unpleasant gases, and to keep the material from adhering to the shovels or the wagon.”
“Human urine,” said the Doctor, “is richer in phosphoric acid, 309 but much poorer in nitrogen and potash than the urine from horses, cows, sheep, and swine.”
“Some years ago,” said the Deacon, “Mr. H. E. Hooker, of Rochester, used to draw considerable quantities of urine from the city to his farm. It would pay better to draw out the urine from farm animals.”
“The figures given above,” said I, “showing the composition of human excrements, are from Prof. Wolff, and probably are generally correct. But, of course, the composition of the excrements would vary greatly, according to the food.”
It has been ascertained by Lawes and Gilbert that the amount of matter voided by an adult male in the course of a year is—fæces, 95 lbs.; urine, 1,049 lbs.; total liquid and solid excrements in the pure state, 1,144 lbs. These contain:
Dry substance—fæces, 23¾ lbs.; urine, 34½; total, 58¼ lbs. Mineral matter—fæces, 2½ lbs.; urine, 12; total, 14½ lbs. Carbon—fæces, 10 lbs.; urine, 12; total 22 lbs. Nitrogen—fæces, 1.2 lbs.; urine, 10.8; total, 12 lbs. Phosphoric acid—fæces, 0.7 lbs.; urine, 1.93; total, 2.63 lbs. Potash—fæces, 0.24 lbs.; urine, 2.01; total, 2.25 lbs. |
The amount of potash is given by Prof. E. Wolff, not by Lawes and Gilbert.
The mixed solid and liquid excrements, in the condition they leave the body, contain about 95 per cent of water. It would require, therefore, 20 tons of fresh mixed excrements, to make one ton of dry nightsoil, or the entire amount voided by a mixed family of 43 persons in a year.
One hundred lbs. of fresh fæces contain 75 lbs. of water, and 25 lbs. of dry substance.
One hundred lbs. of fresh urine contain 96½ lbs. of water, and 3½ lbs. of dry substance.
One hundred lbs. of the dry substance of the fæces contain 5 lbs. of nitrogen, and 5½ lbs. of phosphates.
One hundred lbs. of the dry substance of the urine contain 27 lbs. of nitrogen, and 10¾ lbs. of phosphates.
These figures are from Lawes and Gilbert, and may be taken as representing the composition of excrements from moderately well-fed persons.
According to Wolff, a ton of fresh human urine contains 12 lbs. of nitrogen. According to Lawes and Gilbert, 18 lbs.
The liquid carted from the city by Mr. Hooker was from well-fed adult males, and would doubtless be fully equal to the figures given by Lawes and Gilbert. If we call the nitrogen worth 20 cents a lb., 310 and the phosphoric acid (soluble) worth 12½ cents, a ton of such urine would be worth, on the land, $1.06.
“A ton of the fresh fæces,” said the Deacon, “at the same estimate, would be worth (20 lbs. nitrogen, at 20 cents, $4; 21¾ lbs. phosphoric acid, at 12½ cents, $2.70), $6.70.”
“Not by a good deal,” said the Doctor. “The nitrogen and phosphoric acid in the urine are both soluble, and would be immediately available. But the nitrogen and phosphoric acid in the fæces would be mostly insoluble. We cannot estimate the nitrogen in the fæces at over 15 cents a lb., and the phosphoric acid at 5 cents. This would make the value of a ton of fresh fæces, on the land, $4.09.”
“This makes the ton of fæces worth about the same as a ton of urine. But I would like to know,” said the Deacon, “if you really believe we could afford to pay $4 per ton for the stuff delivered on the farm?”
“If we could get the genuine article,” said the Doctor, “it would be worth $4 a ton. But, as a rule, it is mixed with water, and dirt, and stones, and bricks, and rubbish of all kinds. Still, it is unquestionably a valuable fertilizer.”
“In the dry-earth closets,” said I, “such a large quantity of earth has to be used to absorb the liquid, that the material, even if used several times, is not worth carting any considerable distance. Dr. Gilbert found that 5 tons of absolutely dry earth, before using, contained 16.7 lbs. of nitrogen.
After being used once, | 5 tons of the dry earth contained | 24.0 lbs. |
After being used twice, | ””” | 36.3 lbs. |
After being used three times, | ””” | 44.6 lbs. |
After being used four times, | ””” | 54.0 lbs. |
After being used five times | ””” | 61.4 lbs. |
After being used six times, | ””” | 71.6 lbs. |
Dr. Vœlcker found that five tons of dry earth gained about 7 lbs. of nitrogen, and 11 lbs. of phosphoric acid, each time it was used in the closets. If we consider each lb. of nitrogen with the phosphoric acid worth 20 cents a lb., 5 tons of the dry earth, after being used once, would be worth $1.46, or less than 30 cents a ton, and after it had been used six times, five tons of the material would be worth $11.98, or about $2.40 per ton.
In this calculation I have not reckoned in the value of the nitrogen the soil contained before using. Soil, on a farm, is cheap.
It is clear from these facts that any earth-closet manure a farmer would be likely to purchase in the city has not a very high value. It is absurd to talk of making “guano” or any concentrated fertilizer out of the material from earth-closets.
311 “It is rather a reflection on our science and practical skill,” said the Doctor, “but it looks at present as though the only plan to adopt in large cities is to use enormous quantities of water and wash the stuff into the rivers and oceans for the use of aquatic plants and fishes. The nitrogen is not all lost. Some of it comes back to us in rains and dews. Of course, there are places where the sewage of our cities and villages can be used for irrigating purposes. But when water is used as freely as it ought to be used for health, the sewage is so extremely poor in fertilizing matter, that it must be used in enormous quantities, to furnish a dressing equal to an application of 20 tons of stable-manure per acre.”
“If,” continued the Doctor, “the sewage is used merely as water for irrigating purposes, that is another question. The water itself may often be of great benefit. This aspect of the question has not received the attention it merits.”
Guano is the manure of birds that live principally on fish.
Fish contain a high percentage of nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and consequently when fish are digested and the carbon is burnt out of them, the manure that is left contains a still higher percentage of nitrogen and phosphoric acid than the fish from which it was derived.
Guano is digested fish. If the guano, or the manure from the birds living on fish, has been preserved without loss, it would contain not only a far higher percentage of nitrogen, but the nitrogen would be in a much more available condition, and consequently be more valuable than the fish from which the guano is made.
The difference in the value of guano is largely due to a difference in the climate and locality in which it is deposited by the birds. In a rainless and hot climate, where the bird-droppings would dry rapidly, little or no putrefaction or fermentation would take place, and there would be no loss of nitrogen from the formation and escape of ammonia.
In a damper climate, or where there was more or less rain, the bird-droppings would putrefy, and the ammonia would be liable to evaporate, or to be leached out by the rain.
Thirty years ago I saw a quantity of Peruvian guano that contained more than 18 per cent of nitrogen. It was remarkably light colored. You know that the white part of hen-droppings consists principally of uric acid, which contains about 33 per cent of nitrogen.
For many years it was not difficult to find guano containing 13 per cent of nitrogen, and genuine Peruvian guano was the cheapest 312 and best source of available nitrogen. But latterly, not only has the price been advanced, but the quality of the guano has deteriorated. It has contained less nitrogen and more phosphoric acid. See the Chapter on “Value of Fertilizers,” Page 324.
“I wish,” said the Deacon, “you would tell us something about the ‘ammonia-salts’ and nitrate of soda so long used in Lawes and Gilbert’s experiments. I have never seen any of them.”
“You could not invest a little money to better advantage than to send for a few bags of sulphate of ammonia and nitrate of soda. You would then see what they are, and would learn more by using them, than I can tell you in a month. You use them just as you would common salt. As a rule, the better plan is to sow them broadcast, and it is important to distribute them evenly. In sowing common salt, if you drop a handful in a place, it will kill the plants. And so it is with nitrate of soda or sulphate of ammonia. Two or three pounds on a square rod will do good, but if you put half of it on a square yard, it will burn up the crop, and the other half will be applied in such a small quantity that you will see but little effect, and will conclude that it is a humbug. Judging from over thirty years’ experience, I am safe in saying that not one man in ten can be trusted to sow these manures. They should be sown with as much care as you sow grass or clover-seed.”
“The best plan,” said the Doctor, “is to mix them with sifted coal-ashes, or with gypsum, or sifted earth.”
“Perhaps so,” said I, “though there is nothing gained by mixing earth or ashes with them, except in securing a more even distribution. And if I was going to sow them myself, I would much prefer sowing them unmixed. Any man who can sow wheat or barley can sow sulphate of ammonia or nitrate of soda.”
“Lawes and Gilbert,” said the Deacon, “used sulphate and muriate of ammonia, and in one or two instances the carbonate of ammonia. Which is the best?”
“The one that will furnish ammonia or nitrogen at the cheapest rate,” said the Doctor, “is the best to use. The muriate of ammonia contains the most ammonia, but the sulphate, in proportion to the ammonia, is cheaper than the muriate, and far cheaper than the carbonate.”
Carbonate of ammonia contains 21½ per cent of ammonia.
Sulphate of ammonia contains 25¾ per cent of ammonia = 21⅕ of nitrogen.
313 Muriate of ammonia contains 31 per cent of ammonia = 25½ of nitrogen.
Nitrate of soda contains 16⅖ per cent of nitrogen.
Nitrate of potash, 13¾ per cent of nitrogen.
From these figures you can ascertain, when you know the price of each, which is the cheapest source of nitrogen.
“True,” said I, “but it must be understood that these figures represent the composition of a pure article. The commercial sulphate of ammonia, and nitrate of soda, would usually contain 10 per cent of impurities. Lawes and Gilbert, who have certainly had much experience, and doubtless get the best commercial articles, state that a mixture of equal parts sulphate and muriate of ammonia contains about 25 per cent of ammonia. According to the figures given by the Doctor, the mixture would contain, if pure, over 28 per cent of ammonia. In other words, 90 lbs. of the pure article contains as much as 100 lbs. of the commercial article.”
As to whether it is better, when you can buy nitrogen at the same price in nitrate of soda as you can in sulphate of ammonia, to use the one or the other will depend on circumstances. The nitrogen exists as nitric acid in the nitrate of soda, and as ammonia in the sulphate of ammonia. But there are good reasons to believe that before ammonia is used by the plants it is converted into nitric acid. If, therefore, we could apply the nitrate just where it is wanted by the growing crop, and when there is rain enough to thoroughly distribute it through the soil to the depth of six or eight inches, there can be little doubt that the nitrate, in proportion to the nitrogen, would have a quicker and better effect than the sulphate of ammonia.
“There is another point to be considered,” said the Doctor. “Nitric acid is much more easily washed out of the soil than ammonia. More or less of the ammonia enters into chemical combination with portions of the soil, and may be retained for months or years.”
When we use nitrate of soda, we run the risk of losing more or less of it from leaching, while if we use ammonia, we lose, for the time being, more or less of it from its becoming locked up in insoluble combinations in the soil. For spring crops, such as barley or oats, or spring wheat, or for a meadow or lawn, or for top-dressing winter-wheat in the spring, the nitrate of soda, provided it is sown early enough, or at any time in the spring, just previous to a heavy rain, is likely to produce a better effect than the sulphate of ammonia. But for sowing in the autumn on winter-wheat the ammonia is to be preferred.
314 “Saltpetre, or nitrate of potash,” said the Deacon, “does not contain as much nitrogen as nitrate of soda.”
“And yet,” said the Doctor, “if it could be purchased at the same price, it would be the cheaper manure. It contains 46½ per cent of potash, and on soils, or for crops where potash is needed, we may sometimes be able to purchase saltpetre to advantage.”
“If I could come across a lot of damaged saltpetre,” said I, “that could be got for what it is worth as manure, I should like to try it on my apple trees—one row with nitrate of soda, and one row with nitrate of potash. When we apply manure to apple trees, the ammonia, phosphoric acid, and potash, are largely retained in the first few inches of surface soil, and the deeper roots get hold of only those portions which leach through the upper layer of earth. Nitric acid, however, is easily washed down into the subsoil, and would soon reach all the roots of the trees.”
Bone-dust is often spoken of as a phosphatic manure, and it has been supposed that the astonishing effect bone-dust sometimes produces on old pasture-land, is due to its furnishing phosphoric acid to the soil.
But it must be remembered that bone-dust furnishes nitrogen as well as phosphoric acid, and we are not warranted in ascribing the good effect of bones to phosphoric acid alone.
Bones differ considerably in composition. They consist essentially of gelatine and phosphate of lime. Bones from young animals, and the soft porous parts of all bones, contain more gelatine than the solid parts, or the bones from older animals. On the average, 1,000 lbs. of good commercial bone-dust contains 38 lbs. of nitrogen.
On the old dairy farms of Cheshire, where bone-dust produced such marked improvement in the quantity and quality of the pastures and meadows, it was usual to apply from 4,000 to 5,000 lbs. per acre, and often more. In other words, a dressing of bone-dust 315 frequently contained 200 lbs. of nitrogen per acre—equal to 20 or 25 tons of barn-yard manure.
“It has been supposed,” said the Doctor, “that owing to the removal of so much phosphoric acid in the cheese sold from the farm, that the dairy pastures of Cheshire had been exhausted of phosphoric acid, and that the wonderful benefits following an application of bone-dust to these pastures, was due to its supplying phosphoric acid.”
“I do not doubt,” said I, “the value of phosphoric acid when applied in connection with nitrogen to old pasture lands, but I contend that the experience of the Cheshire dairymen with bone-dust is no positive proof that their soils were particularly deficient in phosphoric acid. There are many instances given where the gelatine of the bones, alone, proved of great value to the grass. And I think it will be found that the Cheshire dairymen do not find as much benefit from superphosphate as they did from bone-dust. And the reason is, that the latter, in addition to the phosphoric acid, furnished a liberal dressing of nitrogen. Furthermore, it is not true that dairying specially robs the soil of phosphoric acid. Take one of these old dairy farms in Cheshire, where a dressing of bone-dust, according to a writer in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, has caused ‘a miserable covering of pink grass, rushes, and a variety of other noxious weeds, to give place to the most luxuriant herbage of wild clover, trefoil, and other succulent and nutritious grasses.’ It is evident from this description of the pastures before the bones were used, that it would take at least three acres to keep a cow for a year.”
“I have known,” says the same writer quoted above, “many a poor, honest, but half broken-hearted man raised from poverty to comparative independence, and many a sinking family saved from inevitable ruin by the help of this wonderful manure.” And this writer not only spoke from observation and experience, but he showed his faith by his works, for he tells us that he had paid nearly $50,000 for this manure.
Now, on one of these poor dairy farms, where it required 3 acres to keep a cow, and where the grass was of poor quality, it is not probable that the cows produced over 250 lbs. of cheese in a year. One thousand pounds of cheese contains, on the average, about 45½ lbs. of nitrogen; 2½ lbs. of potash, and 11½ lbs. of phosphoric acid. From this it follows, if 250 lbs. of cheese are sold annually from three acres of pasture, less than one lb. of phosphoric acid per acre is exported from the farm in the cheese.
One ton of timothy-hay contains nearly 14½ lbs. of phosphoric 316 acid. And so a farmer who raises a ton of timothy-hay per acre, and sells it, sends off as much phosphoric acid in one year as such a Cheshire dairyman as I have alluded to did in fourteen years.
What the dairymen want, and what farmers generally want, is nitrogen and phosphoric acid. Bone-dust furnishes both, and this was the reason of its wonderful effects.
It does not follow from this, that bone-dust is the cheapest and best manure we can use. It is an old and popular manure, and usually commands a good price. It sells for all it is worth. A dozen years ago, I bought ten tons of bone-dust at $18 per ton. I have offered $25 per ton since for a similar lot, but the manufacturers find a market in New York for all they can make.
Bone-dust, besides nitrogen, contains about 23 per cent of phosphoric acid.
“That does not give me,” said the Deacon, “any idea of its value.”
“Let us put it in another shape, then,” said I. “One ton of good bone-dust contains about as much nitrogen as 8½ tons of fresh stable-manure, and as much phosphoric acid as 110 tons of fresh stable-manure. But one ton of manure contains more potash than 5 tons of bone-dust.”
Bone-dust, like barnyard-manure, does not immediately yield up its nitrogen and phosphoric acid to plants. The bone phosphate of lime is insoluble in water, and but very slightly soluble in water containing carbonic acid. The gelatine of the bones would soon decompose in a moist, porous, warm soil, provided it was not protected by the oil and by the hard matter of the bones. Steaming, by removing the oil, removes one of the hindrances to decomposition. Reducing the bones as fine as possible is another means of increasing their availability.
Another good method of increasing the availability of bone-dust is to mix it with barnyard-manure, and let both ferment together in a heap. I am inclined to think this the best, simplest, and most economical method of rendering bone-dust available. The bone-dust causes the heap of manure to ferment more readily, and the fermentation of the manure softens the bones. Both the manure and the bones are improved and rendered richer and more available by the process.
Another method of increasing the availability of bone-dust is by mixing it with sulphuric acid.
317 The phosphate of lime in bones is insoluble in water, though rain water containing carbonic acid, and the water in soils, slowly dissolve it. By treating the bones with sulphuric acid, the phosphate of lime is decomposed and rendered soluble. Consequently, bone-dust treated with sulphuric acid will act much more rapidly than ordinary bone-dust. The sulphuric acid does not make it any richer in phosphoric acid or nitrogen. It simply renders them more available.
“And yet,” said the Doctor, “the use of sulphuric acid for ‘dissolving’ bones, or rather phosphate of lime, introduced a new era in agriculture. It is the grand agricultural fact of the nineteenth century.”
“It is perhaps not necessary,” said I, “to give any direction for treating bones with sulphuric acid. We have got beyond that. We can now buy superphosphate cheaper than we can make it from bones.”
“But is it as good?” asked the Deacon.
“Soluble phosphate of lime,” said I, “is soluble phosphate of lime, and it makes no difference whether it is made from burnt bones, or from phosphatic guano, or mineral phosphate. That question has been fully decided by the most satisfactory experiments.”
“Before you and the Deacon discuss that subject,” said the Doctor, “it would be well to tell Charley what superphosphate is.”
“I wish you would tell me,” said Charley.
“Well,” said the Doctor, “phosphate of lime, as it exists in bones, is composed of three atoms of lime and one atom of phosphoric acid. Chemists call it the tricalcic phosphate. It is also called the basic phosphate of lime, and not unfrequently the ‘bone-earth phosphate.’ It is the ordinary or common form of phosphate of lime, as it exists in animals, and plants, and in the various forms of mineral phosphates.
“Then there is another phosphate of lime, called the dicalcic phosphate, or neutral phosphate of lime, or reverted phosphate of lime. It is composed of one atom of water, two atoms of lime, and one atom of phosphoric acid.
“Then we have what we call superphosphate, or acid phosphate of lime, or more properly monocalcic phosphate. It is composed of two atoms of water, one atom of lime, and one atom of phosphoric acid. This acid phosphate of lime is soluble in water.
“The manufacture of superphosphate of lime is based on these facts. The one-lime phosphate is soluble, the three-lime phosphate is insoluble. To convert the latter into the former, all we have to do is to take away two atoms of lime.
318 “Sulphuric acid has a stronger affinity for lime than phosphoric acid. And when you mix enough sulphuric acid with finely ground three-lime phosphate, to take away two atoms of lime, you get the phosphoric acid united with one atom of lime and two atoms of water.”
“And what,” asked the Deacon, “becomes of the two atoms of lime?”
“They unite with the sulphuric acid,” said the Doctor, “and form plaster, gypsum, or sulphate of lime.”
“The molecular weight of water,” continued the Doctor, “is 18; of lime, 56; of sulphuric acid, 80; of phosphoric acid, 142.
“An average sample of commercial bone dust,” continued the Doctor, “contains about 50 per cent of phosphate of lime. If we take 620 lbs. of finely-ground bone-dust, containing 310 lbs. of three-lime phosphate, and mix with it 160 lbs. of sulphuric acid (say 240 lbs. common oil of vitriol, sp. gr. 1.7), the sulphuric acid will unite with 112 lbs. of lime, and leave the 142 lbs. of phosphoric acid united with the remaining 56 lbs. of lime.”
“And that will give you,” said the Deacon, “780 lbs. of ‘dissolved bones,’ or superphosphate of lime.”
“It will give you more than that,” said the Doctor, “because, as I said before, the two atoms of lime (112 lbs.) are replaced by two atoms (36 lbs.) of water. And, furthermore, the two atoms of sulphate of lime produced, contained two atoms (36 lbs.) of water. The mixture, therefore, contains, even when perfectly dry, 72 lbs. of water.”
“Where does this water come from?” asked the Deacon.
“When I was at Rothamsted,” said I, “the superphosphate which Mr. Lawes used in his experiments was made on the farm from animal charcoal, or burnt bones, ground as fine as possible—the finer the better. We took 40 lbs. of the meal, and mixed it with 20 lbs. of water, and then poured on 30 lbs. of common sulphuric acid (sp. g. 1.7), and stirred it up rapidly and thoroughly, and then threw it out of the vessel into a heap, on the earth-floor in the barn. Then mixed another portion, and so on, until we had the desired quantity, say two or three tons. The last year I was at Rothamsted, we mixed 40 lbs. bone-meal, 30 lbs. water, and 30 lbs. acid; and we thought the additional water enabled us to mix the acid and meal together easier and better.”
“Dr. Habirshaw tells me,” said the Doctor, “that in making the ‘Rectified Peruvian Guano’ no water is necessary, and none is used. The water in the guano and in the acid is sufficient to 319 furnish the two atoms of water for the phosphate, and the two atoms for the sulphate of lime.”
“Such is undoubtedly the case,” said I, “and when large quantities of superphosphate are made, and the mixing is done by machinery, it is not necessary to use water. The advantage of using water is in the greater ease of mixing.”
“Bone-dust,” said the Doctor, “contains about 6 per cent of water, and the sulphuric acid (sp. g. 1.7) contains about one-third its weight of water. So that, if you take 620 lbs. of bone-dust, and mix with it 240 lbs. of common sulphuric acid, you have in the mixture 117 lbs. of water, which is 45 lbs. more than is needed to furnish the water of combination.”
“The superphosphate produced from 620 lbs. of bones, therefore,” continued the Doctor, “would contain:
Phosphoric acid | acid phosphate | 142 lbs. |
Lime | 56 lbs. | |
Water | 36 lbs. | |
Sulphuric acid | sulphate of lime | 160 lbs. |
Lime | 112 lbs. | |
Water | 36 lbs. | |
Organic matter, ash, etc., of the bones* | 335 lbs. | |
Total dry superphosphate | 877 lbs. | |
Moisture, or loss | 45 lbs. | |
Total mixture | 922 lbs. |
* Containing nitrogen, 23½ lbs.
“There is a small quantity of carbonate of lime in the bones,” said I, “which would take up a little of the acid, and you will have a remarkably good article if you calculate that the 620 lbs. of bone-dust furnish you half a ton (1,000 lbs.) of superphosphate. It will be a better article than it is practically possible to make.”
“Assuming that it made half a ton,” said the Doctor, “it would contain 14¼ per cent of soluble phosphoric acid, and 2⅓ per cent of nitrogen.”
“With nitrogen at 20 cents per lb., and soluble phosphoric acid at 12½ c. per lb., this half ton of superphosphate, made from 620 lbs. of good bone-dust, would be worth $22.50, or $45 per ton.”
“Or, to look at it in another light,” continued the Doctor, “a ton of bone-dust, made into such a superphosphate as we are talking about, would be worth $72.58.”
“How much,” asked the Deacon, “would a ton of the bone-dust be considered worth before it was converted into superphosphate?”
“A ton of bone-dust,” replied the Doctor, “contains 76 lbs. of nitrogen, worth, at 18 cents per lb., $13.68, and 464 lbs. phosphoric acid, worth 7 cents per lb., $32.48. In other words, a ton of bone-dust, at the usual estimate, is worth $46.16.”
320 “And,” said the Deacon, “after it is converted into superphosphate, the same ton of bones is worth $72.58. It thus appears that you pay $26.42 per ton for simply making the phosphoric acid in a ton of bones soluble. Isn’t it paying a little too much for the whistle?”
“Possibly such is the case,” said I, “and in point of fact, I think bone-dust, especially from steamed or boiled bones, can be used with more economy in its natural state than in the form of superphosphate.”
Superphosphate can be made more economically from mineral phosphates than from bones—the nitrogen, if desired, being supplied from fish-scrap or from some other cheap source of nitrogen.
But for my own use I would prefer to buy a good article of superphosphate of lime, containing no nitrogen, provided it can be obtained cheap enough. I would buy the ammoniacal, or nitrogenous manure separately, and do my own mixing—unless the mixture could be bought at a less cost than the same weight of soluble phosphoric acid, and available nitrogen could be obtained separately.
A pure superphosphate—and by pure I mean a superphosphate containing no nitrogen—can be drilled in with the seed without injury, but I should be a little afraid of drilling in some of the ammoniacal or nitrogenous superphosphates with small seeds.
And then, again, the “nitrogen” in a superphosphate mixture may be in the form of nitric acid, or sulphate of ammonia, in one case, or, in another case, in the form of hair, woollen rags, hide, or leather. It is far more valuable as nitric acid or ammonia, because it will act quicker, and if I wanted hair, woollen rags, horn-shavings, etc., I would prefer to have them separate from the superphosphate.
Twenty five to thirty years ago, much was said in regard to special manures. Fertilizers were prepared for the different crops with special reference to the composition of the plants.
“But it was known then, as now,” said the Doctor, “that all our agricultural plants were composed of the same elements.”
“True, but what was claimed was this: Some crops contain, for 321 instance, more phosphoric acid than other crops, and for these a manure rich in phosphoric acid was provided. Others contained a large proportion of potash, and these were called ‘potash crops,’ and the manure prescribed for them was rich in potash. And so with the other ingredients of plants.”
“I recollect it well,” said the Doctor, “and, in truth, for several years I had much faith in the idea. It was advocated with consummate ability by the lamented Liebig, and in fact a patent was taken out by the Musgraves, of Liverpool, for the manufacture of Liebig’s Special Manures, based on this theory. But the manures, though extensively used by the leading farmers of England, and endorsed by the highest authorities, did not in the end stand the test of actual farm practice, and their manufacture was abandoned. And I do not know of any experienced agricultural chemist who now advocates this doctrine of special manures.
“Dr. Vœlcker says: ‘The ash-analyses of plants do not afford a sufficiently trustworthy guide to the practical farmer in selecting the kind of manure which is best applied to each crop.’”
“Never mind the authorities,” said the Deacon; “what we want are facts.”
“Well,” replied the Doctor, “take the wheat and turnip crop as an illustration.
“We will suppose that there is twice the weight of wheat-straw as of grain; and that to 10 tons of bulbs there is 3 tons of turnip-tops. Now, 100 lbs. each of the ash of these two crops contain:
Wheat crop. | Turnip crop. | |
---|---|---|
Phosphoric acid | 11.44 | 7.33 |
Potash | 15.44 | 32.75 |
Sulphuric acid | 2.44 | 11.25 |
Lime | 5.09 | 19.28 |
Magnesia | 3.33 | 1.56 |
“There are other ingredients,” continued the Doctor, “but these are the most important.
“Now, if you were going to compound a manure for wheat, say 100 lbs., consisting of potash and phosphoric acid, what would be the proportions?”
The Deacon figured for a few moments, and then produced the following table:
Wheat manure. | Turnip manure. | |
---|---|---|
Phosphoric acid | 42½ lbs. | 18⅓ lbs. |
Potash | 57½ lbs. | 81⅔ lbs. |
100 lbs. | 100 lbs. |
“Exactly,” said the Doctor, “and yet the experiments of Lawes 322 and Gilbert clearly prove that a soil needs to be richer in available phosphoric acid, to produce even a fair crop of turnips, than to produce a large crop of wheat. And the experience of farmers everywhere tends in the same direction. England is the greatest turnip-growing country in the world, and you will find that where one farmer applies potash to turnips, or superphosphate to wheat, a hundred farmers use superphosphate as a special manure for the turnip crop.”
“And we are certainly warranted in saying,” continued the Doctor, “that the composition of a plant affords, in practical agriculture, and on ordinary cultivated soils, no sort of indication as to the composition of the manure it is best to apply to the crop.”
“Again,” continued the Doctor, “if the theory was a correct one, it would follow that those crops which contained the most nitrogen, would require the most nitrogen in the manure. Beans, peas, and clover would require a soil or a manure richer in available nitrogen than wheat, barley, or oats. We know that the very reverse is true—know it from actual, and repeated, and long-continued experiments like those of Lawes and Gilbert, and from the common experience of farmers everywhere.”
“You need not get excited,” said the Deacon, “the theory is a very plausible one, and while I cannot dispute your facts, I must confess I cannot see why it is not reasonable to suppose that a plant which contains a large amount of nitrogen should not want a manure specially rich in nitrogen; or why turnips which contain so much potash should not want a soil or manure specially rich in potash.”
“Do you recollect,” said I, “that crop of turnips I raised on a poor blowing-sand?”
“Yes,” said the Deacon, “it was the best crop of turnips I ever saw grow.”
“That crop of turnips,” said I, “was due to a dressing of superphosphate of lime, with little or no potash in it.”
“I know all that,” said the Deacon. “I admit the fact that superphosphate is a good manure for turnips. What I want to know is the reason why superphosphate is better for turnips than for wheat?”
“Many reasons might be given,” said the Doctor; “Prof. Vœlcker attributes it to the limited feeding range of the roots of turnips, as compared to wheat. ‘The roots of wheat,’ says Prof. Vœlcker, ‘as is well known, penetrate the soil to a much greater depth than the more delicate feeding fibres of the roots of turnips. Wheat, remaining on the ground two or three months longer than 323 turnips, can avail itself for a longer period of the resources of the soil; therefore in most cases the phosphoric acid disseminated through the soil is amply sufficient to meet the requirements of the wheat crop; whilst turnips, depending on a thinner depth of soil during their shorter period of growth, cannot assimilate sufficient phosphoric acid, to come to perfection.’ This is, I believe, the main reason why the direct supply of readily available phosphates is so beneficial to root-crops, and not to wheat.”
“This reason,” said I, “has never been entirely satisfactory to me. If the roots of the turnip have such a limited range, how are they able to get such a large amount of potash?
“It is probable that the turnip, containing such a large relative amount of potash and so little phosphoric acid, has roots capable of absorbing potash from a very weak solution, but not so in regard to phosphoric acid.”
“There is another way of looking at this matter,” said the Doctor. “You must recollect that, if turnips and wheat were growing in the same field, both plants get their food from the same solution. And instead of supposing that the wheat-plant has the power of taking up more phosphoric acid than the turnip-plant, we may suppose that the turnip has the power of rejecting or excluding a portion of phosphoric acid. It takes up no more potash than the wheat-plant, but it takes less phosphoric acid.”
But it is not necessary to speculate on this matter. For the present we may accept the fact, that the proportion of potash, phosphoric acid, and nitrogen in the crop is no indication of the proper proportion in which these ingredients should be applied to the soil for these crops in manure.
It may well be that we should use special manures for special crops; but we must ascertain what these manures should be, not from analyses of the crops to be grown, but from experiment and experience.
So far as present facts throw light on this subject, we should conclude that those crops which contain the least nitrogen are the most likely to be benefited by its artificial application; and the crops containing the most phosphoric acid, are the crops to which, in ordinary practical agriculture, it will be unprofitable to apply superphosphate of lime.
“That,” said the Doctor, “may be stating the case a little too strong.”
“Perhaps so,” said I, “but you must recollect I am now speaking of practical agriculture. If I wanted to raise a good crop of cabbage, I should not think of consulting a chemical analysis 324 of the cabbage. If I set out cabbage on an acre of land, which, without manure, would produce 16 tons of cabbage, does any one mean to tell me that if I put the amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash which 10 tons of cabbage contain, on an adjoining acre, that it would produce an extra growth of 10 tons of cabbage. I can not believe it. The facts are all the other way. Plant growth is not such a simple matter as the advocates of this theory, if there be any at this late day, would have us believe.”
In 1857, Prof. S. W. Johnson, in his Report to the Connecticut Agricultural Society, adopted the following valuation:
Potash | 4 cents per lb. |
Phosphoric acid, insoluble in water | 4½ cents per lb. |
Phosphoric acid, soluble in water | 12½ cents per lb. |
Nitrogen | 17 cents per lb. |
Analyses of many of the leading commercial fertilizers at that time showed that, when judged by this standard, the price charged was far above their actual value. In some cases, manures selling for $60 per ton, contained nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash worth only from $20 to $25 per ton. And one well-known manure, which sold for $28 per ton, was found to be worth only $2.33 per ton. A Bone Fertilizer selling at $50 per ton, was worth less than $14 per ton.
“In 1852,” said the Doctor, “superphosphate of lime was manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co., and sold in New York at $50 per ton of 2,000 lbs. At the same time, superphosphate of lime made from Coprolites, was selling in England for $24 per ton of 2,240 lbs. The late Prof. Mapes commenced making “Improved Superphosphate of Lime,” at Newark, N.J., in 1852, and Mr. De Burg, the same year, made a plain superphosphate of lime in Brooklyn, N.Y. The price, in proportion to value, was high, and, in fact, the same may be said of many of our superphosphate manures, until within the last few years.”
Notwithstanding the comparatively high price, and the uncertain quality of these commercial manures, the demand has been steadily on the increase. We have now many honorable and intelligent 325 men engaged in the manufacture and sale of these artificial manures, and owing to more definite knowledge on the part of the manufacturers and of the purchasers, it is not a difficult matter to find manures well worth the money asked for them.
“A correct analysis,” said I, “furnishes the only sure test of value. ‘Testimonials’ from farmers and others are pre-eminently unreliable. With over thirty years’ experience in the use of these fertilizers, I would place far more confidence on a good and reliable analysis than on any actual trial I could make in the field. Testimonials to a patent fertilizer are about as reliable as testimonials to a patent-medicine. In buying a manure, we want to know what it contains, and the condition of the constituents.”
In 1877, Prof. S. W. Johnson gives the following figures, showing “the trade-values, or cost in market, per pound, of the ordinary occurring forms of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, as recently found in the New York and New England markets:
Cents per pound. | |
Nitrogen in ammonia and nitrates |
24 |
Nitrogen in Peruvian Guano, fine steamed bone, dried and fine ground blood, meat, and fish |
20 |
Nitrogen in fine ground bone, horn, and wool-dust |
18 |
Nitrogen in coarse bone, horn-shavings, and fish-scrap |
15 |
Phosphoric acid soluble in water |
12½ |
Phosphoric acid “reverted,” and in Peruvian Guano |
9 |
Phosphoric acid insoluble, in fine bone and fish guano |
7 |
Phosphoric acid insoluble, in coarse bone, bone-ash, and bone-black |
5 |
Phosphoric acid insoluble, in fine ground rock phosphate |
3½ |
Potash in high-grade sulphate |
9 |
Potash in kainit, as sulphate |
7½ |
Potash in muriate, or potassium chloride |
6 |
“These ‘estimated values,’” says Prof. Johnson, “are not fixed, but vary with the state of the market, and are from time to time subject to revision. They are not exact to the cent or its fractions, because the same article sells cheaper at commercial or manufacturing centers than in country towns, cheaper in large lots than in small, cheaper for cash than on time. These values are high enough to do no injustice to the dealer, and accurate enough to serve the object of the consumer.
“By multiplying the per cent of Nitrogen, etc., by the trade-value per pound, and then by 20, we get the value per ton of the several ingredients, and adding the latter together, we obtain the total estimated value per ton.
“The uses of the ‘Valuation’ are, 1st, to show whether a given lot or brand of fertilizer is worth as a commodity of trade what it costs. If the selling price is no higher than the estimated value, 326 the purchaser may he quite sure that the price is reasonable. If the selling price is but $2 to $3 per ton more than the estimated value, it may still be a fair price, but if the cost per ton is $5 or more over the estimated value, it would be well to look further. 2d, Comparisons of the estimated values, and selling prices of a number of fertilizers will generally indicate fairly which is the best for the money. But the ‘estimated value’ is not to be too literally construed, for analysis cannot always decide accurately what is the form of nitrogen, etc., while the mechanical condition of a fertilizer is an item whose influence cannot always be rightly expressed or appreciated.
“The Agricultural value of a fertilizer is measured by the benefit received from its use, and depends upon its fertilizing effect, or crop-producing power. As a broad general rule it is true that Peruvian guano, superphosphates, fish-scraps, dried blood, potash salts, plaster, etc., have a high agricultural value which is related to their trade-value, and to a degree determines the latter value. But the rule has many exceptions, and in particular instances the trade-value cannot always be expected to fix or even to indicate the agricultural value. Fertilizing effect depends largely upon soil, crop, and weather, and as these vary from place to place, and from year to year, it cannot be foretold or estimated except by the results of past experience, and then only in a general and probable manner.”
“It will be seen,” said the Doctor, “that Prof. Johnson places a higher value on potash now than he did 20 years ago. He retains the same figures for soluble phosphoric acid, and makes a very just and proper discrimination between the different values of different forms of nitrogen and phosphoric acid.”
“The prices,” said I, “are full as high as farmers can afford to pay. But there is not much probability that we shall see them permanently reduced. The tendency is in the other direction. In a public address Mr. J. B. Lawes has recently remarked: ‘A future generation of British farmers will doubtless hear with some surprise that, at the close of the manure season of 1876, there were 40,000 tons of nitrate of soda in our docks, which could not find purchasers, although the price did not exceed £12 or £13 per ton.’”
“He evidently thinks,” said the Doctor, “that available nitrogen is cheaper now than it will be in years to come.”
“Nitrate of soda,” said I, “at the prices named, is only 2½ to 2¾ cents per lb., and the nitrogen it contains would cost less than 18 cents per lb., instead of 24 cents, as given by Prof. Johnson.”
“No. 1 Peruvian Guano, ‘guaranteed,’ is now sold,” said the 327 Doctor, “at a price per ton, to be determined by its composition, at the following rates:
Value per pound. | |
---|---|
Nitrogen (ammonia, 17½ c.) |
21¾ c. |
Soluble phosphoric acid |
10 c. |
Reverted phosphoric acid |
8 c. |
Insoluble phosphoric acid |
2 c. |
Potash, as sulphate and phosphate |
7½ c. |
“The first cargo of Peruvian guano, sold under this guarantee, contained:
Value per ton. | ||
---|---|---|
Ammonia | 6.8 per cent | $23.80 |
Soluble phosphoric acid | 3.8 per cent | 7.60 |
Reverted phosphoric acid | 11.5 per cent | 18.40 |
Insoluble phosphoric acid | 3.0 per cent | 1.20 |
Potash | 3.7 per cent | 5.55 |
Estimated retail price per ton of 2,000 lbs. |
$56.55 | |
Marked on bags for sale |
$56.00 |
The second cargo, sold under this guarantee, contained:
Value per ton. | ||
---|---|---|
Ammonia | 11.5 per cent | $40.50 |
Soluble phosphoric acid | 5.4 per cent | 10.80 |
Reverted phosphoric acid | 10.0 per cent | 16.00 |
Insoluble phosphoric acid | 1.7 per cent | .68 |
Potash | 2.3 per cent | 3.45 |
$71.43 | ||
Selling price marked on bags |
$70.00 |
“It is interesting,” said I, “to compare these analyses of Peruvian guano of to-day, with Peruvian guano brought to England twenty-nine or thirty years ago. I saw at Rothamsted thirty years ago a bag of guano that contained 22 per cent of ammonia. And farmers could then buy guano guaranteed by the dealers (not by the agents of the Peruvian Government), to contain 16 per cent of ammonia, and 10 per cent of phosphoric acid. Price, £9 5s. per ton of 2,240 lbs.—say $40 per ton of 2,000 lbs.
The average composition of thirty-two cargoes of guano imported into England in 1849 was as follows:
Ammonia | 17.41 per cent. |
Phosphoric acid | 9.75 per cent. |
Alkaline salts | 8.75 per cent. |
At the present valuation, adopted by the Agents of the Peruvian guano in New York, and estimating that 5 per cent of the phosphoric acid was soluble, and 4 per cent reverted, and that there was 2 lbs. of potash in the alkaline salts, this guano would be worth:
328Value per ton of 2,000 lbs. |
||
Ammonia | 17.41 per cent | $60.93 |
Soluble phosphoric acid | 5.00 per cent | 10.00 |
Reverted phosphoric acid | 4.00 per cent | 6.40 |
Insoluble phosphoric acid | .75 per cent | .30 |
Potash | 2.00 per cent | 3.00 |
$80.63 | ||
Selling price per ton of 2,000 lbs. |
$40.00 |
Ichaboe guano, which was largely imported into England in 1844-5, and used extensively as a manure for turnips, contained, on the average, 7½ per cent of ammonia, and 14 per cent of phosphoric acid. Its value at the present rates we may estimate as follows:
Ammonia, 7½ per cent | $26.25 |
Soluble Phosphoric acid, 4 per cent |
8.00 |
Reverted Phosphoric acid, 10 per cent |
16.00 |
$50.25 | |
Selling price per ton of 2,000 lbs. |
$21.80 |
The potash is not given, or this would probably add four or five dollars to its estimated value.
“All of which goes to show,” said the Deacon, “that the Peruvian Government is asking, in proportion to value, from two to two and a half times as much for guano as was charged twenty-five or thirty years ago. That first cargo of guano, sold in New York under the new guarantee, in 1877, for $56 per ton, is worth no more than the Ichaboe guano sold in England in 1845, for less than $22 per ton!
“And furthermore,” continued the Deacon, “from all that I can learn, the guano of the present day is not only far poorer in nitrogen than it was formerly, but the nitrogen is not as soluble, and consequently not so valuable, pound for pound. Much of the guano of the present day bears about the same relation to genuine old-fashioned guano, as leached ashes do to unleached, or as a ton of manure that has been leached in the barn-yard does to a ton that has been kept under cover.”
“True, to a certain extent,” said the Doctor, “but you must recollect that this ‘guaranteed’ guano is now sold by analysis. You pay for what you get and no more.”
“Exactly,” said the Deacon, “but what you get is not so good. A pound of nitrogen in the leached guano is not as available or as valuable as a pound of nitrogen in the unleached guano. And this fact ought to be understood.”
“One thing,” said I, “seems clear. The Peruvian Government is charging a considerably higher price for guano, in proportion to its actual value, than was charged 20 or 25 years ago. It may 329 be, that the guano is still the cheapest manure in the market, but at any rate the price is higher than formerly—while there has been no corresponding advance in the price of produce in the markets of the world.”
On land where fish, fish-scrap, or guano, has been used freely for some years, and the crops exported from the farm, we may expect a relative deficiency of potash in the soil. In such a case, an application of unleached ashes or potash-salts will be likely to produce a decided benefit.
Clay or loamy land is usually richer in potash than soils of a more sandy or gravelly character. And on poor sandy land, the use of fish or of guano, if the crops are all sold, will be soon likely to prove of little benefit owing to a deficiency of potash in the soil. They may produce good crops for a few years, but the larger the crops produced and sold, the more would the soil become deficient in potash.
We have given the particulars of Lawes and Gilbert’s experiments on barley. Mr. Lawes at a late meeting in London, stated that “he had grown 25 crops of barley one after the other with nitrogen, either as ammonia or nitrate of soda, but without potash, and that by the use of potash they had produced practically no better result. This year (1877), for the first time, the potash had failed a little, and they had now produced 10 or 12 bushels more per acre with potash than without, showing that they were coming to the end of the available potash in the soil. This year (1877), they obtained 54 bushels of barley with potash, and 42 bushels without it. Of course, this was to be expected, and they had expected it much sooner. The same with wheat; he expected the end would come in a few years, but they had now gone on between 30 and 40 years. When the end came they would not be sorry, because then they would have the knowledge they were seeking for.”
Dr. Vœlcker, at the same meeting remarked: “Many soils contained from 1½ to 2 per cent of available potash, and a still larger quantity locked up, in the shape of minerals, which only gradually came into play; but the quantity of potash carried off in crops did not exceed 2 cwt. per acre, if so much. Now 0.1 per cent of any constituent, calculated on a depth of six inches, was equivalent to one ton per acre. Therefore, if a soil contained only 0.1 per cent of potash, a ton of potash might be carried off from a 330 depth of 6 inches. But you had not only 0.1 per cent, but something like 1½ per cent and upwards in many soils. It is quite true there were many soils from which you could not continuously take crops without restoring the potash.”
“In all of which,” said the Doctor, “there is nothing new. It does not help us to determine whether potash is or is not deficient in our soil.”
“That,” said I, “can be ascertained only by actual experiment. Put a little hen-manure on a row of corn, and on another row a little hen-manure and ashes, and on another row, ashes alone, and leave one row without anything. On my farm I am satisfied that we need not buy potash-salts for manure. I do not say they would do no good, for they may do good on land not deficient in available potash, just as lime will do good on land containing large quantities of lime. But potash is not what my land needs to make it produce maximum crops. It needs available nitrogen, and possibly soluble phosphoric acid.”
The system of farming adopted in this section, is much more likely to impoverish the soil of nitrogen and phosphoric acid than of potash.
If a soil is deficient in potash, the crop which will first indicate the deficiency, will probably be clover, or beans. Farmers who can grow large crops of red-clover, need not buy potash for manure.
On farms where grain is largely raised and sold, and where the straw, and corn-stalks, and hay, and the hay from clover-seed are retained on the farm, and this strawy manure returned to the land, the soil will become poor from the lack of nitrogen and phosphoric acid long before there would be any need of an artificial supply of potash.
On the other hand, if farmers should use fish, or guano, or superphosphate, or nitrate of soda, and sell all the hay, and straw, and potatoes, and root-crops, they could raise, many of our sandy soils would soon become poor in available potash. But even in this case the clover and beans would show the deficiency sooner than wheat or even potatoes.
“And yet we are told,” said the Deacon, “that potatoes contain no end of potash.”
“And the same is true,” said I, “of root-crops, such as mangel-wurzel, turnips, etc., but the fact has no other significance than this: If you grow potatoes for many years on the same land and manure them with nitrogenous manures, the soil is likely to be speedily impoverished of potash.”
“But suppose,” said the Deacon, “that you grow potatoes on the 331 same land without manure of any kind, would not the soil become equally poor in potash?”
“No,” said I, “because you would, in such a case, get very small crops—small, not from lack of potash, but from lack of nitrogen. If I had land which had grown corn, potatoes, wheat, oats, and hay, for many years without manure, or an occasional dressing of our common barnyard-manure, and wanted it to produce a good crop of potatoes, I should not expect to get it by simply applying potash. The soil might be poor in potash, but it is almost certain to be still poorer in nitrogen and phosphoric acid.”
Land that has been manured with farm-yard or stable-manure for years, no matter how it has been cropped, is not likely to need potash. The manure is richer in potash than in nitrogen and phosphoric acid. And the same may be said of the soil.
If a farmer uses nitrogenous and phosphatic manures on his clayey or loamy land that is usually relatively rich in potash, and will apply his common manure to the sandy parts of the farm, he will rarely need to purchase manures containing potash.
A relation of mine, who already possessed a very considerable estate, consisting of light land, about twenty years ago purchased a large property adjoining it at a very high price. These were days when farmers were flourishing, and they no more anticipated what was in store for them in the future, than the inhabitants of the earth in the days of Noah.
Times have changed since then, and bad seasons, low prices of wheat, and cattle-disease, have swept off the tenants from these two estates, so that my relation finds himself now in the position of being the unhappy owner and occupier of five or six farms, extending over several thousand acres—one farm alone occupying an area of two thousand four hundred acres. Fortunately for the owner, he possesses town property in addition to his landed estates, so that the question with him is not, as it is with many land owners, how to find the necessary capital to cultivate the land, but, having found the capital, how to expend it in farming, so as to produce a proper return.
It is not very surprising that, under these circumstances, my opinion should have been asked. What, indeed, would have been the use of a relation, who not only spent all his time in agricultural experiments, but also pretended to teach our neighbors how to farm on the other side of the Atlantic, if he could not bring his science to bear on the land of an adjoining county! Here is the land—my relation might naturally say—here is the money, and I have so much confidence in your capacity that I will give you carte-blanche to spend as much as you please—what am I to do?
An inspection of the property brought out the following facts—that all the land was very light, and that you might walk over the fresh plowed surface in the wettest weather without any clay sticking to your boots: still a portion of the soil was dark in color, and therefore probably contained a sufficient amount of fertility to make cultivation profitable, provided the management could be conducted with that care and economy which are absolute essentials in a business where the expenditure is always pressing closely upon the income.
333 Upon land of this description meat-making is the backbone of the system, which must be adopted, and a large breeding flock of sheep the first essential towards success.
Science can make very little improvement upon the four-course rotation—roots, barley, clover, and wheat, unless, perhaps, it may be by keeping the land in clover, or mixed grass and clover, for two or three years.
A good deal of the land I was inspecting was so light, that, in fact, it was hardly more than sand, and for some years it had been left to grow anything that came up, undisturbed by the plow.
To a practised eye, the character of the natural vegetation is a sure indication of the fertility of the soil. Where herds of buffaloes are to be seen—their sides shaking with fat—it is quite evident that the pastures upon which they feed cannot be very bad; and in the same way, where a rank growth of weeds is found springing up upon land that has been abandoned, it may be taken for certain that the elements of food exist in the soil. This ground was covered with vegetation, but of the most impoverished description, even the “Quack” or “Couch-grass” could not form a regular carpet, but grew in small, detached bunches; everything, in fact, bore evidence of poverty.
Possibly, the first idea which might occur to any one, on seeing land in this state, might be: Why not grow the crops by the aid of artificial manures?
Let us look at the question from two points of view: first, in regard to the cost of the ingredients; and, secondly, in regard to the growth of the crop.
We will begin with wheat. A crop of wheat, machine-reaped, contains, as carted to the stack, about six pounds of soil ingredients in every one hundred pounds; that is to say, each five pounds of mineral matter, and rather less than one pound of nitrogen, which the plant takes from the soil, will enable it to obtain ninety-four pounds of other substances from the atmosphere. To grow a crop of twenty bushels of grain and two thousand pounds of straw, would require one hundred and sixty pounds of minerals, and about thirty-two pounds of nitrogen; of the one hundred and sixty pounds of minerals, one-half would be silica, of which the soil possesses already more than enough; the remainder, consisting of about eighty pounds of potash and phosphate, could be furnished for from three to four dollars, and the thirty-two pounds of nitrogen could be purchased in nitrate of soda for six or eight dollars. 334 The actual cost of the ingredients, therefore, in the crop of twenty bushels of wheat, would be about ten to twelve dollars. But as this manure would furnish the ingredients for the growth of both straw and grain, and it is customary to return the straw to the land, after the first crop, fully one-third of the cost of the manure might, in consequence, be deducted, which would make the ingredients of the twenty bushels amount to six dollars. Twenty bushels of wheat in England would sell for twenty-eight dollars; therefore, there would be twenty-two dollars left for the cost of cultivation and profit.
A French writer on scientific agriculture has employed figures very similar to the above, to show how French farmers may grow wheat at less than one dollar per bushel. At this price they might certainly defy the competition of the United States. It is one thing, however, to grow crops in a lecture room, and quite another to grow them in a field. In dealing with artificial manures, furnishing phosphoric acid, potash, and nitrogen, we have substances which act upon the soil in very different ways. Phosphate of lime is a very insoluble substance, and requires an enormous amount of water to dissolve it. Salts of potash, on the other hand, are very soluble in water, but form very insoluble compounds with the soil. Salts of ammonia and nitrate of soda are perfectly soluble in water. When applied to the land, the ammonia of the former substance forms an insoluble compound with the soil, but in a very short time is converted into nitrate of lime; and with this salt and nitrate of soda, remains in solution in the soil water until they are either taken up by the plant or are washed away into the drains or rivers.
Crops evaporate a very large amount of water, and with this water they attract the soluble nitrate from all parts of the soil. Very favorable seasons are therefore those in which the soil is neither too dry nor too wet; as in one case the solution of nitrate becomes dried up in the soil, in the other it is either washed away, or the soil remains so wet that the plant cannot evaporate the water sufficiently to draw up the nitrates which it contains.
The amount of potash and phosphoric acid dissolved in the water is far too small to supply the requirements of the plant, and it is probable that what is required for this purpose is dissolved by some direct action of the roots of the plant on coming in contact with the insoluble phosphoric acid and potash in the soil.
335 In support of this view, I may mention that we have clear evidence in some of our experiments of the wheat crop taking up both phosphates and potash that were applied to the land thirty years ago.
To suppose, therefore, that, if the ingredients which exist in twenty bushels of wheat and its straw, are simply applied to a barren soil, the crop will be able to come in contact with, and take up these substances, is to assume what certainly will not take place.
I have often expressed an opinion that arable land, could not be cultivated profitably by means of artificial manures, unless the soil was capable of producing, from its own resources, a considerable amount of produce; still the question had never up to this time come before me in a distinct form as one upon which I had to decide one way or the other. I had, however, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, that grain crops could never be grown at a profit upon my relation’s land, and that consequently, for some years, it would be better to give up the attempt, and try to improve the pasture.
After what I have said about the insolubility of potash and phosphoric acid, it may possibly be asked—why not give a good dose of these substances at once, as they do not wash out of the soil—say enough to grow sixty crops of grain, and apply the nitrate, or ammonia every year in just sufficient amounts to supply the wants of the crop?
The objections to this plan are as follows: assuming the most favorable conditions of climate, and the largest possible produce, the wheat could certainly not take up the whole of the thirty-two pounds of nitrogen applied, and the crop which requires nearly one pound of nitrogen in every one hundred pounds of gross produce, would be certainly less than three thousand two hundred pounds, if supplied with only thirty-two pounds of nitrogen. If we take the total produce of the best and worst wheat crop, grown during the forty years of our experiments, we shall arrive at a better understanding in the matter. The following are the figures:
Straw and Grain. | |
---|---|
1863 | 9330 lbs. |
1879 | 3859 lbs. |
In order to ascertain the increase due to the nitrogen of the salts of ammonia or nitrate of soda, we must deduct from the 336 crop the produce obtained, where mineral manures without nitrogen were used. In 1863 this amount was three thousand pounds, and in 1879 it was one thousand two hundred pounds. Deducting these amounts from the gross produce in each case, leaves six thousand three hundred and thirty as the produce due to the nitrogen in the season of 1863, and two thousand six hundred and fifty-nine as the produce due to the nitrogen in 1879.
But in each case we applied the same amount of nitrogen, eighty-seven pounds; and as the amount of nitrogen in a wheat crop, as carted from the field, contains less than one per cent. of nitrogen, it is evident that if all that was contained in the manure had been taken up by the plant, the increased crop should have weighed eight thousand seven hundred pounds instead of six thousand three hundred and thirty. Thus even in our best year, some of the nitrogen applied failed to produce growth; and when we come to the bad year we find that only twenty-six and a half pounds were taken up out of the eighty-seven pounds applied, thus leaving more than two-thirds of the whole unaccounted for.
Seasons are only occasionally either very bad or very good. What we call an average season does not differ very much from the mean of the best and worst years, which in this case would be represented by a crop of four thousand four hundred and ninety-four pounds, containing nearly forty-five pounds of nitrogen. I may say that, although I have employed one per cent. to avoid fractions in my calculations, strictly speaking three-quarters of a per cent. would more nearly represent the real quantity. If, however, on the average, we only obtain about forty-five pounds from an application of about eighty-seven pounds of nitrogen, it is evident that not more than one-half of the amount applied enters into the crop.
Now in dealing with a substance of so costly a nature as ammonia, or nitrate of soda—the nitrogen contained in which substances cannot cost much less than twenty-five cents per pound by the time it is spread upon the land, it becomes a question of importance to know what becomes of the other half, or the residue whatever it may be, which has not been taken up by the crop. Part is undoubtedly taken up by the weeds which grow with the wheat, and after the wheat has been cut. Part sinks into the sub-soil and is washed completely away during the winter.
I, myself, am disposed to think that the very great difference 337 in the size of the Indian corn crops, as compared with the wheat crops in the States, is partly accounted for by their greater freedom from weeds, which are large consumers of nitric acid, and, in the case of the wheat crop, frequently reduce the yield by several bushels per acre. It must, however, be borne in mind that, though the wheat is robbed of its food where there are weeds, still if there were no weeds, the amount of nitric acid which the crop could not get hold of, would, in all probability, be washed out of the soil during the ensuing winter. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that the nitrogen alone, which would be required to produce one bushel of wheat, would cost not much less than fifty cents; and that, in consequence, wheat-growing by means of artificial manures, will not pay upon very poor land.
I have said that the land, about which I was consulted, had not been plowed for several years, and that although nature had done all she could to clothe the soil with vegetation, the most disheartening feature in the case was, the poverty of the weeds. A thistle may be a giant or a dwarf, according to circumstances; here they were all dwarfs. The plaintain, which I believe is sometimes sown in these districts for food, has a very deep root; here the plants were abundant, but the leaves were very small and lay so close to the ground, that, as the manager informed me, “the sheep were often injured from the amount of sand which they swallowed with the leaves when feeding.”
At Rothamsted, the analyses of the rain water passing through the ordinary soil of one of my fields, which has been kept free from vegetation, have shown that the amount of nitric acid liberated in a soil, and washed out each year, is very large. Taking the ten years during which these special experiments have been in progress, I should think that the loss of nitrogen would be equal to, or possibly exceed, the amount of that substance removed by the average crops grown in the United States.
The results obtained by the rain gauges, are further completely confirmed by those in an adjoining field, where wheat and fallow have been grown alternately for twenty-seven years. The liberation of nitric acid, during the year of rest, produced for a time a large growth of wheat, but it was done at a very great waste of the fertility of the soil, and the produce is now, in proportion, considerably lower than that grown on the continuously unmanured land.
338 These results, if they are to be accepted as correct, must bring about a very considerable change in the generally received views in regard to fertility. We not only see more clearly the connection between a former vegetation and the stored up fertility in our soil, but we also see the importance of vegetation at the present day, as the only means by which the loss of nitric acid is prevented. The more completely the land is covered with vegetation, and the more growth there is, the greater will be the evaporation of water, and the less will be the loss of nitric acid by drainage.
I was not at all surprised to find, that the surface soil of a wood on my farm, was poorer in nitrogen than the soil of an old permanent pasture, to which no manure had been applied for twenty-five years, though during the whole period, the crop of hay had been removed every year from the land. The wood to which I refer is covered with oak, centuries old, and the foliage is so dense that but little underwood or other vegetation can grow beneath it. If both the wood and the pasture were put into arable cultivation, I have no doubt that the pasture would prove much more fertile than the wood land.
In our experiments on permanent pasture, it has been observed that the character of the herbage is mainly dependent on the food supplied. Weeds, and inferior grasses, can hold their own as long as poverty exists, but with a liberal supply of manure, the superior grasses overgrow and drive out the bad grasses and weeds. In consequence of the low price of wheat a good deal of land in England has been laid down to permanent pasture, and much money has been spent in cleaning the land preparatory to sowing the grass-seeds. I have on more occasions than one, suggested that the money employed in this process would be better expended in manure, by which the weeds would be “improved” off the face of the land. While walking over the abandoned portion of these estates I explained my views upon this point to the manager. They were, however, received with the usual skepticism, and the rejoinder that “there was only one way of getting rid of the weeds, which was by the plow and fire.”
There is nothing that speaks to me so forcibly as color in vegetation; when travelling by rail, I do not require to be told that such a farm is, or is not, in high condition, or that we are passing through a fertile or infertile district. There is a peculiar green color in vegetation which is an unmistakable sign that it is living upon the fat of the land. I need hardly say 339 that, in this case, the color of the vegetation gave unmistakable signs of the poverty of the soil; but in the midst of the dingy yellowish-green of the herbage, I came upon one square of bright green grass. In answer to my enquiry I was told that, a “lambing-fold had been there last year,” and my informant added his opinion, “that the manure would be so strong that it would kill anything!” It had certainly killed the weeds, but in their place, some good grasses had taken possession of the soil.
The plan I proposed to adopt was, to spend no more money on tillage operations, but to endeavor to improve the pasture by giving to it the food necessary to grow good grasses, sowing at the same time a small quantity of the best seeds. I further suggested that a flock of sheep should be allowed to run over the whole of the land by day, and be folded there every night—about one pound of cotton-seed cake per head being allowed daily. By this means, as the fold would be moved every day, the amount of manure deposited on the soil could be estimated.
If there were a hundred sheep, receiving one pound of decorticated cotton-seed cake per head, daily, and the hurdles were arranged to enclose a space of twenty-five by twenty yards, in the course of ten days an acre of land would have received manure from one thousand pounds of cake; which amount would supply seventy-seven pounds of nitrogen, sixty-eight pounds of phosphate of lime, and thirty-two pounds of potash. This amount of cake would cost about sixteen dollars.
As regards the value of the cake as a food, it is somewhat difficult to form an estimate; but it takes nine or ten pounds of dry food—say roots, cake, and hay—to produce an increase of one pound of live weight in sheep. The cake has certainly a higher feeding value, than either hay or roots, but I will here give it only the same value, and consider that one hundred and ten pounds of increase of the animal was obtained by the consumption of the one thousand pounds of cake. The value of the increase of the live weight would be in England fully eleven dollars, leaving five dollars as the cost of the manure. Now the cake furnished seventy-seven pounds of nitrogen alone, which, if purchased in an artificial manure, would have cost nineteen dollars; and the other substances supplied by the cake, would have cost from four to five dollars more. The manures required, therefore, would be obtained much more cheaply by this than by any other process.
340 Labor would be saved by not cultivating the land. Manure would be saved by substituting vegetation which grows under or above ground, almost all the year round. And, by feeding the stock with cake, the necessary fertility would be obtained at the lowest possible cost.
It is probable that the land would require this treatment to be repeated for several years, before there would be a fair growth of grass. The land might then be broken up and one grain crop be taken, then it might again be laid down to grass.
Hitherto, I have considered a case where fertility is almost absent from the land, this, however, is an exception, as agriculture generally is carried on upon soils which contain large stores of fertility, though they may be very unequally distributed. By analysis of the soil we can measure the total amount of fertility which it contains, but we are left in ignorance in regard to the amount of the ingredients which are in such a form that the crops we cultivate can make use of them.
At Rothamsted, among my experiments on the growth of continuous wheat, at the end of forty years, the soil supplied with salts of ammonia has yielded, during the whole time, and still continues to yield, a larger produce than is obtained by a liberal supply of phosphates and alkaline salts without ammonia.
When we consider that every one hundred pounds of wheat crop, as carted to the stack, contains about five per cent. of mineral matter, and one per cent. of nitrogen, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that my soil has a large available balance of mineral substances which the crop could not make use of for want of nitrogen. The crop which has received these mineral manures now amounts to from twelve to thirteen bushels per acre, and removes from the land about sixteen pounds of nitrogen every year.
Analyses of the soil show that, even after the removal of more than thirty crops in succession, without any application of manure containing ammonia, the soil still contains some thousands of pounds of nitrogen. This nitrogen is in combination with carbon; it is very insoluble in water, and until it becomes separated from the carbon, and enters into combination with oxygen, does not appear to be of any use to the crop.
The combination of nitrogen with oxygen, is known as nitric acid. The nitric acid enters into combination with the lime of the soil, and in this form becomes the food of plants.
From its great importance in regard to the growth of plants, nitric acid might be called the main spring of agriculture, but 341 being perfectly soluble in water, it is constantly liable to be washed out of the soil. In the experiment to which I have referred above—where wheat is grown by mineral manures alone—we estimate that, of the amount of nitric acid liberated each year, not much more than one-half is taken up by the crop.
The wheat is ripe in July, at which time the land is tolerably free from weeds; several months, therefore, occur during which there is no vegetation to take up the nitric acid; and even when the wheat is sown at the end of October, much nitric acid is liable to be washed away, as the power of the plant to take up food from the soil is very limited until the spring.
The formation of nitric acid, from the organic nitrogen in the soil, is due to the action of a minute plant, and goes on quite independent of the growth of our crops. We get, however, in the fact an explanation of the extremely different results obtained by the use of different manures. One farmer applies lime, or even ground limestone to a soil, and obtains an increase in his crops; probably he has supplied the very substance which has enabled the nitrification of the organic nitrogen to increase; another applies potash, a third phosphates; if either of these are absent, the crops cannot make use of the nitric acid, however great may be the amount diffused through the soil.
It may possibly be said that the use of mineral manures tends to exhaust the soil of its nitrogen; this may, or may not, be true; but even if the minerals enable the crop to take up a larger amount of the nitric acid found in the soil year by year, this does not increase the exhaustion, as the minerals only tend to arrest that which otherwise might be washed away.
We must look upon the organic nitrogen in the soil, as the main source of the nitrogen which grows our crops. Whatever may be the amount derived from the atmosphere, whether in rain, or dew; or from condensation by the soil, or plants, it is probable that, where the land is in arable cultivation, the nitrogen so obtained, is less than the amount washed out of the soil in nitric acid. Upon land which is never stirred by the plow, there is much less waste and much less activity.
The large increase in the area of land laid down to permanent pasture in England, is not due alone to the fall in the price of grain. The reduction of fertility in many of the soils, which have been long under the plow, is beginning to be apparent. Under these circumstances a less exhausting course of treatment becomes necessary, and pasture, with the production of meat, milk, and butter, takes the place of grain fields.
342York, Pa., March 16, 1876.
Joseph Harris, Esq., Moreton Farm, Rochester, N.Y.:
Dear Sir—Your favor of the 22d of last month came safely to hand, and I am truly obliged to you for the reply to my question.—You ask, can I help you with facts or suggestions, on the subject of manure? I fear not much; but it may be useful to you to know what others need to know. I will look forward to the advent of “Talks on Manures” with much interest, hoping to get new light on a subject second to none in importance to the farmer.
I have done a little at composting for some years, and am now having a pile of about forty cords, made up of stable-manure and earth taken from the wash of higher lands, turned and fined. The labor of digging and hauling the earth, composting in thin layers with manure, turning, and fining, is so great, I doubt whether it pays for most farm crops—this to be used for mangel-wurzel and market-garden.
The usual plan in this county is to keep the stable-manure made during winter, and the accumulation of the summer in the barn-yard, where it is soaked by rain, and trampled fine by cattle, and in August and September is hauled upon ground to be seeded with wheat and grass-seeds. I do not think there is much piling and turning done.
My own conclusions, not based on accurate experiments, however, are, that the best manure I have ever applied was prepared in a covered pit on which cattle were allowed to run, and so kept well tramped—some drainage into a well, secured by pouring water upon it, when necessary, and the drainage pumped and distributed over the surface, at short intervals, particularly the parts not well tramped, and allowed to remain until it became a homogeneous mass, which it will do without having undergone so active a fermentation as to have thrown off a considerable amount of gas.
The next best, composting it with earth, as above described, piled about five or six feet high, turned as often as convenient, and kept moist enough to secure fermentation.
Or, to throw all the manure as made into a covered pit, until it is thoroughly mixed and made fine, by allowing hogs to run upon it and root at will; and when prepared for even spreading, apply it as a top-dressing on grass-land—at any convenient time.
As to how many loads of fresh manure it takes to make one of well-rotted manure, it may be answered approximately, three to one, but that would depend a good deal on the manner of doing it, and the amount of rough material in it. If well trodden by cattle under cover, and sufficient drainage poured over it, to prevent any violent fermentation, the 343 loss of weight, I think, would not be very great, nor the bulk lessened over one-half.
Many years ago an old and successful farmer said to me, “if you want to get the full benefit of manure, spread it as a top-dressing on some growing crop,” and all my experience and observation since tend to confirm the correctness of his advice.
While on this subject, allow me to protest against the practice of naming the quantity of manure applied to a given space, as so many loads, as altogether too indefinite. The bushel or cord is a definite quantity, which all can understand.
The average price of good livery stable horse-manure at this place has been for several years four dollars a cord.
With two and a half miles to haul, I am trying whether keeping a flock of 50 breeding ewes, and feeding liberally with wheat bran, in addition to hay and pasture, will not produce the needed manure more cheaply.
Respectfully yours,
Edward Jessop.
P.S.—You ask for the average weight of a cord of manure, such as we pay four dollars for.
I had a cord of horse-stable manure from a livery stable in York which had been all the time under cover, with several pigs running upon it, and was moist, without any excess of wet, loaded into a wagon-box holding an entire cord, or 128 cubic feet, tramped by the wagoner three times while loading.
The wagon was weighed at our hay-scales before loading, and then the wagon and load together, with a net result for the manure of 4,400 lbs. I considered this manure rather better than the average. I had another load, from a different place, which weighed over 5,000 lbs., but on examination it was found to contain a good deal of coal ashes. We never buy by the ton. Harrison Bros. & Co., Manufacturing Chemists, Philadelphia, rate barnyard-manure as worth $5.77 per ton, and say that would be about $7.21 per cord, which would be less than 1½ tons to the cord. If thrown in loosely, and it happened to be very dry, that might be possible.
Waring, in his “Handy Book of Husbandry,” page 201, says, he caused a cord of well-trodden livery stable manure containing the usual proportion of straw, to be carefully weighed, and that the cord weighed 7,080 lbs.
The load I had weighed, weighing 4,400 lbs., was considered by the wagoner and by myself as a fair sample of good manure. In view of these wide differences, further trials would be desirable. Dana, in his “Muck Manual,” says a cord of green cow-dung, pure, as dropped, weighs 9,289 lbs.
Farmers here seldom draw manure with less than three, more generally with four horses or mules; loading is done by the purchaser. From the barn-yard, put on loose boards, from 40 to 60 bushels are about an average load.
In hauling from town to a distance of three to five miles, farmers generally make two loads of a cord each, a day’s work. From the barn-yard, 344 a very variable number, per day. In my own case, two men with three horses have been hauling six and seven loads of sixty bushels, fine compost, a distance of from one-half to three-fourths of a mile, up a long and rather steep hill, and spreading from the wagon, as hauled, upon grass-sod.
Our larger farmers often have one driver and his team, two wagons, one loading, while the other is drawn to the field; the driver slips off one of the side-boards, and with his dung-hook draws off piles at nearly equal distances, to be spread as convenient.
Edward Jessop.
South Framingham, Mass., April 2, 1876.
Friend Harris—Manure about Boston is sold in various ways. First, according to the number of animals kept; price varying so much, that I do not venture to name the figures. By the cord, to be trodden over while loading; never by weight, so far as I can learn—price from 0 to $12.00 per cord, according to season, and various accidental circumstances. During the past winter, manure has been given away in Boston. Handling, hauling to the railroad, and freight costing $4 per cord for carrying 30 miles out. Market-gardeners usually haul manure as a return freight on their journeys to and from market. About South Framingham, price stiff at $8 a cord in the cellar, and this may be considered the ruling suburban price.
Very friendly yours,
E. Lewis Sturtevant.
New York, Nov. 9, 1876.
My Dear Harris—I don’t know what I can write about manures, that would be of use. I have strong faith in humus, in ashes, leached and unleached, in lime, gas-lime, plaster, bones, ammonia ready formed, nitrates ready formed, not much in meat and blood, unless they are cheap. Nevertheless, they often are cheap, and produce splendid effects. I believe in sulphuric acid, with organic nitrogenous manures; the composting of meat, blood, hair, etc., with peat and muck, and wetting it down with dilute sulphuric acid. I believe in green-manuring, heartily, and in tillage, tillage, tillage. Little faith in superphosphates and compounded manures, at selling prices. Habirshaw’s guano is good enough. So much for my creed.
Truly yours,
M. C. Weld.
New York, Oct. 26, 1876.
Mr. Joseph Harris:
Dear Sir—If you will refer to my work “Gardening for Profit,” New Edition, page 34, you will get about all the information I possess on Manures, except that I do not say anything about price. In a general way it might be safe to advise that whenever a ton (it is always best to speak of manures by weight) of either cow, horse, hog, or other stable-manure can be laid on the ground for $3, it is cheaper than commercial fertilizers of any kind at their usual market rates. This $3 per ton, I 345 think, would be about the average cost in New York, Boston, or Philadelphia. We never haul it on the ground until we are ready to plow it in. If it has to be taken from the hog or cattle yards, we draw it out into large heaps, convenient to where it is to be put on the land, turning it, to keep it from burning or “fire-fanging,” if necessary. None of our farmers or market-gardeners here keep it under cover. The expense of such covering and the greater difficulties in getting at it, for the immense quantities we use, would be greater than the benefits to be derived from keeping it under cover—benefits, in fact, which, I think, may be greatly overrated.
Very truly yours,
Peter Henderson.
“Canada Farmer” Office, Toronto, March 29, 1876.
J. Harris, Esq.:
Dear Sir—Yours of the 25th inst. is to hand, and I shall be most happy to render you any assistance in my power. The work you undertake is in able hands, and I have every confidence that, when completed, it will form an invaluable acquisition to the agricultural literature of the day.
Manure in this city is usually sold by the two-horse load—about 1½ tons—at the rate of $1 per load, or 66 cents per ton. The load contains just about a cord of manure, consequently a cord will weigh about 1½ tons.
With reference to the general management of manure in Canada, I may say that the system followed differs in no material respect from that of New York and the other Eastern States. It is usually kept over winter in the open barn yard (rarely under cover, I am sorry to say), laid out on the land about the time of disappearance of last snow, and plowed in. In some cases it is not carted out until the land is ready for immediate plowing. With some of our more advanced farmers, the system has lately been adopted of keeping manure under cover and sprinkling it thoroughly at intervals with plaster and other substances. Tanks are also becoming more common than formerly, for the preservation of liquid manure, which is usually applied by means of large, perforated hogs-heads, after the manner of street-watering.
You ask, how the manure is managed at Bow Park, Brantford. That made during fall and winter is carefully kept in as small bulk as possible, to prevent exposure to the weather. In February and March it is drawn out and put in heaps 8 feet square, and well packed, to prevent the escape of ammonia. In spring, as soon as practicable, it is spread, and plowed under immediately. Manure made in spring and summer is spread on the field at once, and plowed under with a good, deep furrow.
Very truly yours,
J. M. B. Anderson, Ed. Canada Farmer.
Old Westbury, Long Island, April 6, 1876.
Joseph Harris, Esq.:
Dear Sir—The great number of dealers in manure in New York precludes 346 accuracy, yet Mr. Skidmore (who has been testifying voluminously before the New York Board of Health in relation to manure and street dirt), assures me that the accompanying figures are nearly correct. I enclose statement, from two roads, taken from their books, and the amount shipped over the other road I obtained verbally from the General Freight Agent, and embody it in the sheet of statistics.
The Ash report I know is correct, as I had access to the books showing the business, for over ten years. I have made numerous applications, verbally, and by letter, to our largest market gardeners, but there seems to exist a general and strong disinclination to communicate anything worth knowing. I enclose the best of the replies received. Speaking for some of our largest gardeners, I may say that they cultivate over one hundred acres, and use land sufficiently near to the city to enable them to dispense with railroad transportation in bringing manure to their places and marketing crops. I have noticed that one of the shrewdest gardeners invariably composts horn-shavings and bone-meal with horse-manure several months before expecting to use it. A safe average of manure used per acre by gardeners, may be stated at ninety (90) tubs, and from two hundred to twenty hundred pounds of fertilizer in addition, according to its strength, and the kind of crop.
The following railroad manure statistics will give a generally correct idea of the age of manure, when used:
Over F.N.S.&C.R.R. | Over Southern R.R. | |
---|---|---|
January | 1,531 tubs. | 5,815 tubs. |
February | 4,357 ” | |
March | 740 ” | 12,217 ” |
April | 12,122 ” | 7,055 ” |
May | 7,383 ” | 3,049 ” |
June | 5,725 ” | 1,365 ” |
July | 6,473½ ” | 685 ” |
August | 6,370½ ” | 2,911 ” |
September | 3,197 ” | 14,702 ” |
October | 880 ” | 660 ” |
November | 512 ” | 840 ” |
December | 1,406 ” | 4,923 ” |
46,340 tubs. | 57,679 tubs. |
A tub is equal to 14 bushels.
Hobson, Hurtado & Co. report the amount of Peruvian guano sold in this country last year at thirty thousand tons.
Estimated number of horses in New York city, 100,000.
Estimated product of manure per horse. Four cords.
Estimated proportion of straw to pure excrement. One-half.
Amount shipped direct from stables. Nearly all.
Amount shipped on vessels. One-half.
Length of time the unshipped manure remains in heaps. From three to four months.
Average cost per horse, annually. $3.
Greatest distance of shipment. Virginia.
347 Average amount shipped via L.I.R.R. 60,000 tubs.
Price of manure per tub delivered on cars or vessel. 80 cents.
Average amount put on car. 40 tubs.
Statistics of Ash Trade.—Time when ashes are delivered. From middle of June to middle of October.
Places from which they are mostly shipped. Montreal, Belleville, and Toronto (Canada).
Method of transportation. Canal boats.
Average load per boat. About 8,000 bushels.
Average amount annually sold. 360,000 bushels.
Average cost delivered to farmers. 20½ cents per bushel.
Per Acre, about. | |
---|---|
Amount used by farmers for potatoes |
60 tubs. |
Amount used by farmers for cabbage (late) |
50 ” |
Amount used by farmers for corn |
12 ” |
Amount of guano used on Long Island, as represented by the books of Chapman & Vanwyck, and their estimate of sales by other firms, 5,000 tons.
The fertilizers used on the Island are bought almost exclusively by market gardeners or farmers, who do a little market gardening, as it is the general conviction that ordinary farm-crops will not give a compensating return for their application. Most market gardeners keep so little stock that the manure made on the place is very inconsiderable. Our dairy farmers either compost home-made manures with that from the city, spread it on the land for corn in the spring, or rot it separate, to use in the fall for wheat, on land that has been cropped with oats the same year. The manure put on for potatoes is generally estimated to enrich the land sufficient for it to produce one crop of winter grain, and from five to seven crops of grass, when it is again plowed and cultivated in rotation with, first, corn, second, potatoes or oats, and is reseeded in autumn of the same year.
Fish and fish guano are largely used on land bordering the water, and adjacent to the oil-works. The average price for guano in bulk at oil-works is $12 per ton. The average price for fish on wharf is $1.50 per thousand, and it is estimated that, as a general average, 6,000 fish make a ton of guano. The fish, when applied to corn, are placed two at each hill, and plowed under at any time after the corn is large enough to cultivate. Seaweed is highly prized by all who use it, and it will produce a good crop of corn when spread thickly on the land previous to plowing.
Very respectfully,
J. H. Rushmore.
Newtown, Long Island, N.Y., March 2nd, 1876.
Mr. G. H. Rushmore:
Dear Sir.—Some farmers and market-gardeners use more, and some less, manure, according to crops to be raised. I use about 30 good two-horse wagon-loads to the acre, to be applied in rows or broad-casted, as best for certain crops. I prefer old horse-dung for most all purposes. 348 Guano, as a fertilizer, phosphate of bone and blood are very good; they act as a stimulant on plants and vegetation, and are highly beneficial to some vegetation—more valuable on poor soil than elsewhere, except to produce a thrifty growth in plants, and to insure a large crop.
By giving you these few items they vary considerably on different parts of the Island; judgment must be used in all cases and all business. Hoping these few lines may be of some avail to Mr. Harris and yourself,
I remain, yours, etc.,
John E. Backus.
Jenkintown, Montgomery Co., Pa., April 18th, 1876.
My Dear Friend Harris.—Stable-manure in Philadelphia, costs by the single four-horse-load, about $9 or $10. Mostly, the farmers who haul much of it, have it engaged by the year, and then it can be had for from $7 to $8 per load. Mostly, four horses are used, though we frequently see two and three-horse teams, and occasionally, five or six horses are used. I have never seen any kind of dung hauled but that of horses. Cow-manure would be thought too heavy to haul so long a distance. Sugar-house waste, spent hops, glue waste, etc, are hauled to a small extent. We live about 9 miles from the center of the city, and the road is very hilly, though otherwise a good one, being made of stone.
The loads vary from 2½ to 3½ or 4 tons for four horses, according to the dryness of the manure. The wagons are made very strong, and weigh from 1,600 lbs. to 2,300 or 2,400 lbs., according to the number of horses that are to be used to them. I cannot say how many cords there are in an average load, but probably not less than two cords to four horses. One of my neighbors has a stable engaged by the year. He pays $2.50 per ton, and averages about three tons per load, and the distance from the stable in the city to his place, can not be less than 12 miles. His team goes empty one way and of course can not haul more than a load a day. In fact, can not average that, as it would be too hard on his horses. The horses used for the purpose are large and strong. Fifteen or twenty years ago, there was kept on most farms of 75 to 100 acres, a team purposely for hauling manure from the city. But it is different now, many of the farmers using artificial manures, as it costs so much less; and others are keeping more stock, and so making their own manure. Still, there is a great deal hauled yet. And some of it to a distance of 20 miles. Though when hauled to this distance, the teams are loaded both ways. For instance, they will start to the city with a load of hay (35 to 50 cwt.), on Monday afternoon (Tuesday is the day of the Hay Market); and when they have their load of hay off on Tuesday, they load their manure and drive out five or six miles and put up for the night. Next morning they start about 3 o’clock, arriving home before noon, having been away two days. On Thursday afternoon, they start again. You can see that manuring in this way is very expensive. But farmers about here well know that if they do not manure well they raise 349 but little. Probably about four loads are used per acre on the average. Each load is generally thrown off the wagon in one large heap near where wanted, and is allowed to lie until they use it. I can not tell how much it loses in bulk by lying in the heap.
As to what crops it is used on, farmers do not think that they could go amiss in applying it to anything except oats. But it is probably used more for top-dressing mowing land, and for potatoes, than for anything else.
The usual rotation is corn, potatoes, or oats, wheat seeded to clover and timothy, and then kept in grass from two to four years. Those who haul stable-manure, usually use bone-dust or superphosphate to a greater or less extent.
Last December I built a pig-pen, 20 ft. × 40 ft., 1½ stories high. The upper story to be used for litter, etc. There is a four feet entry on the north side, running the length of the building. The remainder is divided into five pens, each 8 ft. × 16 ft. It is made so that in cold weather it can be closed up tight, while in warmer weather it can be made as open as an out-shed. I am very much pleased with it. The pigs make a great deal of manure, and I believe that it can be made much cheaper than it can be bought and hauled from Philadelphia.
Joseph Heacock, Jr.
Middletown, Md., May 11th, 1876.
Joseph Harris, Esq.:
I herewith proceed to answer questions asked.
Wheat and corn are principal crops. Corn is fed now altogether to stock for the manure.
There is but little soiling done. The principal method of making manure is: Feeding all the corn raised, as well as hay, oats, and roots, to cattle; using wheat straw, weeds, etc., as bedding, throwing the manure in the yard (uncovered), and to cover the pile with plaster (by sowing broadcast), at least once a week. To this pile is added the manure from the hog-pens, hen-house, etc., and worked over thoroughly at least twice before using. It is then applied to corn by plowing under; to wheat, as a top-dressing. For corn it is usually hauled to the field, thrown off in heaps 25 feet each way, a cart-load making two heaps. Spread just before the plow. For wheat, spread on directly after plowing, and thoroughly harrowed in. Applied broadcast for potatoes. Composts of different kinds are made and used same as in other localities, I presume. Artificial manures are going into disrepute (justly too). This is the plan now adopted by the farmers in this county (Frederick). Where woods are accessible, leaves and mould are hauled in and added to the manure-heap; in fact, every substance that can be worked into the manure-heap is freely used. Well-rotted stable-manure is worth from $1.50 to $2.50 per cord, according to condition and locality.
Very Respectfully Yours,
Herman L. Routzahn.
350
Kansas State Agricultural College,
Manhattan, Kansas, May 5, 1876.
Dear Sir.—In reply to your first question, I would say that stable-manure in this vicinity, is held in very light estimation. Indeed, by the householders of this city, and quite generally by the farmers, manure is regarded as one of those things—like drouth and grasshoppers—with which a mysterious Providence sees fit to clog the operations of the husband-man. The great bulk of the stable-manure made in this city is, every spring, carted into ravines and vacant lots—wherever, in short, with least expense it can be put out of reach of the senses.
It must not be understood by this that manure has little influence on the growing crops in Kansas. Nowhere have I seen such excellent results from application of home-made fertilizers, as in Kansas. For those sterile wastes known as “Alkali lands,” and “Buffalo wallows,” manure is a speedy and certain cure. During two years of severe drouth, I have noticed that wherever manure had been supplied, the crop withstood the effects of dry weather much better than where no application had been made. Four years ago, a strip across one of our fields was heavily manured; this year this field is into wheat, and a dark band that may be seen half a mile shows where this application was made.
These facts the better class of our farmers are beginning to appreciate. A few days ago, a neighbor, a very intelligent farmer, assured me that from manuring eight to ten acres every year, his farm was now in better condition than when be broke up the prairie fifteen years ago.
I know of no analysis of stable or farmyard-manure made in Kansas. Concerning the weight of manures, I can give you a few facts, having had occasion during the past winter to weigh several loads used for experimental purposes. This manure was wheeled into the barnyard, chiefly from the cattle stalls, during the winter of 1874-5. It lay in the open yard until February last, when it was weighed and hauled to the fields. I found that a wagon-box, 1½ × 3 × 9 feet, into which the manure was pitched, without treading, held with slight variations, when level full, one ton. At this rate a cord would weigh very close to three tons.
The greatest difficulty that we have to encounter in the management of manure grows out of our dry summers. During our summer months, unless sufficient moisture is obtained, the manure dries out rapidly, becomes fire-fanged and practically worthless. My practice upon the College farm has been to give the bottom of the barn-yard a “dishing” form, so that it holds all the water that falls upon it. The manure I keep as flat as possible, taking pains to place it where the animals will keep it trod down solid. I have adopted this plan after having tried composting and piling the manure in the yards, and am satisfied that it is the only practical way to manage manures in this climate.
There is no particular crop to which manure is generally applied 351 in this State, unless, perhaps, wheat. The practice of applying manure as a top-dressing to winter-wheat, is rapidly gaining ground here. It is found that the manure thus applied, acting as a mulch, mitigates the effects of drouth, besides improving the quality of the grain.
Very Respectfully Yours,
E. M. Shelton.
Sheffield Scientific School of Yale
College,
New Haven, Conn., April 14th, 1876.
Joseph Harris, Esq., Rochester, N.Y.:
My Dear Sir.—I have made inquiries relating to “the price of stable-manure in New Haven, and how far the farmers and gardeners haul it, etc.” I have not been to the horse-car stables, but I have to several livery stables, and they are all essentially the same.
They say that but little is sold by the cord or ton, or by any weight or measure. It is sold either “in the lump,” “by the month,” “by the year,” or “per horse.” Some sell it at a given sum per month for all their horses, on a general estimate of their horses—thus, one man says, “I get, this year, $25 per month for all my manure, he to remove it as fast as it accumulates; say one, two, or three times per week. He hauls it about five miles and composts it all before using.”
Another says, he sells per horse. “I get, this year, $13 per horse, they to haul it.” The price per horse ranges from $10 to $15 per year, the latter sum being high.
From the small or private stables, the manure is generally “lumped” by private contract, and is largely used about the city. It is hauled sometimes as much as 10 miles, but usually much less.
But the larger stables often sell per shipment—it is sent by cars up the Connecticut Valley to Westfield, etc., where it is often hauled several miles from the railroad or river.
Much manure is sent by boat from New York to the Connecticut Valley tobacco lands. Boats (“barges”) are even loaded in Albany, go down the Hudson, up the Sound to Connecticut, to various places near Hartford, I am told. Two or three years ago, a man came here and exhibited to us pressed masses of manure—a patent had been taken out for pressing it, to send by R.R. (stable manure). I never heard anything more about it—and he was confident and enthusiastic about it.
Yours truly,
The following table is given by Mr. J. B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, showing the relation of the increase, manure, and loss by respiration, to the food consumed by different animals:
Food In Food. 100 I In 100 lbs. Increase. Man. In Manure. Resp. In Respiration, etc. Inc. In Increase. Stored Amount of each constituent stored up for 100 of it consumed. |
The main header of the printed table is difficult to understand; the
typesetter may have misread the original. I have taken my best
guess about its intended meaning.
Table Header as Printed
OXEN. |
||||||||
250 lbs. Oil-cake 600 lbs. Clover-chaff 3500 lbs. Swede turnips produce 100 lbs. increase and supply: |
100 Total Dry Substance of Food supply. |
S t o r e d |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food | 100 I | Man. | Resp. | Inc. | Man. | Resp. | ||
lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | |||||
Nitrogenous substance |
218 | 9.0 | 323.0 | 636 | 0.8 | 29.1 | 57.3 | 4.1 |
Non-Nitrogenous substance |
808 | 58.0 | 5.2 | 7.2 | ||||
Mineral Matter | 83 | 1.6 | 81.4 | .. | 0.2 | 7.4 | .. | 1.9 |
Total dry substance |
1109 | 68.6 | 404.4 | 636 | 6.2 | 36.5 | 57.3 | .. |
SHEEP. |
||||||||
250 lbs. Oil-cake 300 lbs. Clover-chaff 4000 lbs. Swede turnips produce 100 lbs. increase and supply: |
100 Total Dry Substance of Food supply. |
S t o r e d |
||||||
Food | 100 I | Man. | Resp. | Inc. | Man. | Resp. | ||
lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | |||||
Nitrogenous substance |
177 | 7.5 | 229 | 548.5 | 0.8 | 25.1 | 60.1 | 4.2 |
Non-Nitrogenous substance |
671 | 63.0 | 7.0 | 9.4 | ||||
Mineral Matter | 64 | 2.0 | 62 | .. | 0.2 | 6.8 | .. | 3.1 |
Total dry substance |
912 | 72.5 | 291 | 548.5 | 8.0 | 31.9 | 60.1 | .. |
PIGS. |
||||||||
500 lbs. Barley meal |
100 Total Dry Substance of Food supply. |
S t o r e d |
||||||
Food | 100 I | Man. | Resp. | Inc. | Man. | Resp. | ||
lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | |||||
Nitrogenous substance |
52 | 7.0 | 59.8 | 276.2 | 1.7 | 14.3 | 65.7 | 13.5 |
Non-Nitrogenous substance |
357 | 66.0 | 15.7 | 18.5 | ||||
Mineral Matter | 11 | 0.8 | 10.2 | .. | 0.2 | 2.4 | .. | 7.3 |
Total dry substance |
420 | 73.8 | 70.0 | 276.2 | 17.6 | 16.7 | 65.7 | .. |
In the last edition of his book on Manure, “Praktische Düngerlehre,” Dr. Emil Wolff, gives the following tables:
Of 100 lbs. of dry substance in the food, there is found in the excrements:
Dry Substance. | Cow | Ox | Sheep | Horse | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the Dung |
38.0 lbs. | 45.6 lbs. | 46.9 lbs. | 42.0 lbs. | 43.1 lbs. |
In the Urine |
9.1 ” | 5.8 ” | 6.6 ” | 3.6 ” | 6.3 ” |
Total dry substance in the Manure |
47.1 ” | 51.4 ” | 53.5 ” | 45.6 ” | 49.4 ” |
Of 100 lbs. of organic substance in the food, there is found in the excrements:
Organic Substance. | Cow | Ox | Sheep | Horse | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the Dung |
36.5 lbs. | 43.9 lbs. | 45.6 lbs. | 38.2 lbs. | 41.0 lbs. |
In the Urine |
6.0 ” | 3.2 ” | 3.9 ” | 2.5 ” | 3.9 ” |
Total organic substance in Manure |
42.5 ” | 47.1 ” | 49.5 ” | 40.7 ” | 44.9 ” |
Of 100 lbs. of nitrogen in the food, there is found in the excrements:
Nitrogen. | Cow | Ox | Sheep | Horse | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the Dung |
45.5 lbs. | 51.0 lbs. | 43.7 lbs. | 56.1 lbs. | 49.1 lbs. |
In the Urine |
18.3 ” | 38.6 ” | 51.8 ” | 27.3 ” | 34.0 ” |
Total Nitrogen in Manure |
63.8 ” | 89.6 ” | 95.5 ” | 83.4 ” | 83.1 ” |
Of 100 lbs. mineral matter in the food, there is found in the excrements:
Mineral Matter. | Cow | Ox | Sheep | Horse | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the Dung |
53.9 lbs. | 70.8 lbs. | 63.2 lbs. | 85.6 lbs. | 68.4 lbs. |
In the Urine |
43.1 ” | 46.7 ” | 40.3 ” | 16.3 ” | 35.1 ” |
Total mineral matter in Manure |
97.0 ” | 117.5 ” | 103.5 ” | 101.9 ” | 103.5 ” |
The excess of mineral matter is due to the mineral matter in the water drank by the animals.
The following tables of analyses are copied in full from the last edition (1875), of Dr. Emil Wolff’s Praktische Düngerlehre.
The figures differ materially in many cases from those previously published. They represent the average results of numerous reliable analyses, and are sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes connected with the subject of manures. In special cases, it will be well to consult actual analyses of the articles to be used.
354
W Water. N Nitrogen. A Ash. P Potash. S Soda. |
L Lime. M Magnesia. PA Phosphoric Acid. SA Sulphuric Acid. SS Silica and Sand. |
The following table is shown in “thumbnail” form. The full-width version is given in a separate file.
W Water. OS Organic Substance. A Ash. N Nitrogen. P Potash. S Soda. |
L Lime. M Magnesia. PhA Phosphoric Acid. SA Sulphuric Acid. S&S Silica and Sand. C&F Chlorine and Florine. |
* It is estimated that in the case of horses, cattle, and swine, one-third of the urine drains away. The following is the amount of wheat-straw used daily as bedding for each animal. Horse, 6 lbs.; Cattle, 8 lbs.; Swine, 4 lbs., and sheep, 0.6 lbs.
360
DS Dry Substance. N Nitrogen. A Ash. P Potash. |
L Lime. M Magnesia. PhA Phosphoric Acid. |
Name of Material. | DS | N | A | P | L | M | PhA | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | ||||
1.—Brewing. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Barley, contain |
855 | 15.2 | 22.23 | 4.48 | 0.58 | 1.92 | 7.71 | |||
15 lbs. Hops contain |
13.2 | .. | 1.00 | 0.345 | 0.167 | 0.056 | 0.168 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
Water | .. | .. | 1.23 | 0.852 | 0.039 | 0.045 | 0.234 | |||
Malt-Sprouts |
33 | 1.38 | 2.43 | 0.749 | 0.069 | 0.066 | 0.653 | |||
Brewers’ Grains |
269 | 8.74 | 13.08 | 0.580 | 1.474 | 1.134 | 3.631 | |||
Spent Hops |
9 | .. | 0.54 | 0.032 | 0.160 | 0.055 | 0.062 | |||
Yeast | 30 | 2.94 | 2.27 | 0.643 | 0.097 | 0.185 | 1.349 | |||
Beer | .. | 2.14 | 3.65 | 1.998 | .. | 0.484 | 0.939 | |||
2.—Distillery. | ||||||||||
a. 1000 lbs. Potatoes, contain |
250 | 3.2 | 9.43 | 5.69 | 0.24 | 0.44 | 1.63 | |||
40 lbs. Kiln-Malt |
37 | 0.56 | 1.06 | 0.184 | 0.040 | 0.088 | 0.388 | |||
20 lbs. Yeast-Malt |
18.5 | 0.28 | 0.53 | 0.092 | 0.020 | 0.044 | 0.194 | |||
The Slump, contains |
125 | 4.04 | 11.02 | 5.966 | 0.300 | 0.572 | 2.212 | |||
(b.) Grain Spirits. |
||||||||||
800 lbs. Rye, contain |
684 | 14.08 | 14.32 | 4.501 | 0.376 | 1.648 | 6.710 | |||
200 lbs. Kiln-Malt, contain |
184 | 2.82 | 5.12 | 0.883 | 0.195 | 0.429 | 1.526 | |||
50 lbs. Yeast-Malt, contain |
46 | 0.71 | 1.28 | 0.221 | 0.049 | 0.107 | 0.382 | |||
The Slump, contains |
443 | 17.61 | 20.72 | 5.605 | 0.620 | 2.184 | 8.618 | |||
3.—Yeast Manufacture. | ||||||||||
700 lbs. bruised Rye, contain |
599 | 12.32 | 12.53 | 3.941 | 0.329 | 1.444 | 5.876 | |||
300 lbs. Barley-Malt, contain |
276 | 4.23 | 7.67 | 1.325 | 0.293 | 0.643 | 2.801 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
Yeast | 45 | 4.60 | 3.41 | 1.273 | 0.192 | 0.367 | 2.672 | |||
Grains and Slump |
325 | 11.95 | 16.79 | 3.993 | 0.430 | 1.720 | 6.005 | |||
4.—Starch Manufacture. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Potatoes, contain |
250 | 3.20 | 9.43 | 5.69 | 0.24 | 0.44 | 1.63 | |||
The remains in the Fibre |
75 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.086 | 0.266 | 0.042 | 0.133 | |||
The remains in the Water |
45 | 2.60 | 8.89 | 5.604 | .. | 0.398 | 1.497 | |||
5.—Milling. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Wheat, contain |
857 | 20.80 | 16.88 | 5.26 | 0.57 | 2.02 | 7.94 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
Flour (77.5 per cent) |
664 | 14.65 | 5.50 | 1.980 | 0.154 | 0.458 | 2.862 | |||
Mill-feed ( 6.5 per cent) |
58 | 1.64 | 1.80 | 0.648 | 0.050 | 0.148 | 0.936 | |||
Bran(16.0 per cent) |
135 | 4.51 | 9.60 | 2.762 | 0.396 | 1.394 | 4.102 | |||
6.—Cheese-Making. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Milk, contain |
125 | 4.80 | 6.10 | 1.505 | 1.333 | 0.186 | 1.735 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
Cheese | 65 | 4.53 | 2.84 | 0.247 | 0.687 | 0.028 | 1.515 | |||
Whey | 60 | 0.27 | 3.26 | 1.258 | 0.646 | 0.158 | 0.584 | |||
7.—Beet-Sugar Manufacture. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Roots, contain |
184 | 1.60 | 7.10 | 3.914 | 0.379 | 0.536 | 0.780 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
Tops and Tails (12 per cent of roots) |
19 | 0.24 | 1.15 | 0.336 | 0.108 | 0.132 | 0.144 | |||
Pomace (15 per cent of roots) |
46 | 0.44 | 1.71 | 0.585 | 0.390 | 0.105 | 0.165 | |||
Skimmings (4 per cent of roots) |
24 | 0.60 | 1.20 | 0.380 | 8.640 | 0.240 | 0.384 | |||
Molasses (3 per cent of roots) |
25 | 0.32 | 2.47 | 1.741 | 0.141 | 0.009 | 0.015 | |||
Sugar and loss |
85 | .. | 0.57 | 0.872 | .. | 0.040 | 0.072 | |||
8. Flax Dressing. | ||||||||||
1000 lbs. Flax-Stalks, contain |
860 | .. | 30.36 | 9.426 | 6.751 | 1.995 | 3.990 | |||
Distribution of the Ingredients: |
||||||||||
In the Water |
215 | .. | 25.15 | 9.175 | 4.100 | 1.850 | 3.400 | |||
Stems or Husks |
460 | .. | 4.03 | 0.171 | 2.052 | 0.096 | 0.474 | |||
Flax and Tow |
155 | .. | 1.22 | 0.054 | 0.648 | 0.054 | 0.126 |
Absorptive Powers of Soils, |
217 |
Ammonia Absorbed by Soil from the Atmosphere, |
219 |
Ammonia and Superphosphate, |
242 |
Ammonia, and Weeds, |
254 |
Ammonia, Converted into Nitric Acid in the Soil, |
313 |
Ammonia, for Oats, |
253-254 |
Ammonia, for Potatoes, |
261 |
Ammonia, for Wheat, |
192-213 |
Ammonia, in Fresh Horse-dung, |
96 |
Ammonia, in Limed and Unlimed Soils, |
220 |
Ammonia, in the Soil Liberated by Lime, |
221 |
Ammonia, Locked Up in the Soil, |
221 |
Ammonia, Loss of by Fermenting Manure, |
98 |
Ammonia, on Grass Land, |
273 |
Ammonia, Potential, |
31 |
Ammonia, Quantity of to Produce One Bushel of Wheat, |
211-212 |
Ammonia, Required to Produce a Bushel of Barley, |
240-242 |
Ammonia, Retained by the Soil, |
218 |
Ammonia, Salts, Composition of, |
312 |
Ammonia Salts, How to Apply, |
286-312 |
Ammonia Salts, for Private Gardens, |
297 |
Anderson, J. M. B., Letter from, |
345 |
Animals, Composition of Manure from Different, |
306 |
Animals, What They Remove from the Food, |
301 |
Apple Trees, Nitrate of Soda for, |
314 |
Artificial Manures, Will They Pay, |
214 |
Ashes, Burnt Earth, |
72 |
Ashes, Coal, |
72 |
Ashes, for Barley, |
241 |
Ashes, for Indian Corn, |
279 |
Ashes, for Oats, |
253 |
Ashes, for Potatoes, |
259 |
Ashes, of Manure for Wheat, |
173 |
Ashes, on Long Island, |
346 |
Ashes, Plaster and Hen-dung for Potatoes, |
255 |
Ashes, Wood, |
104 |
Barley After Ten Crops of Turnips, |
250 |
Barley, a Large Yield of, |
242 |
Barley, and Clover after a heavily-manured Root-crop, |
287 |
Barley, Best Soil for, |
227 |
Barley, Cost of Raising With and Without Manure, |
245 |
Barley, Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, |
227 |
Barley, Potash Increases the Crop of at Rothamsted, |
329 |
Barley, Profits of Raising in Poor Seasons, |
243 |
Barley, Quality and Price of, |
242 |
Barley, Yield Per Acre, |
11 |
Barn-yard Manure, Difference in Quality of, |
246 |
Bean-straw for Manure, |
48 |
Beets, Sugar, Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, |
288 |
Beets, Sugar, Manure for, |
286 |
Blood, |
32 |
Bone-dust, |
314 |
Bone-dust, Composition of Compared with Stable Manure, |
316 |
Bone-dust, Fermented with Manure, |
316 |
Bone-dust, Made into Superphosphate, |
319 |
Bone-dust, on Dairy Farms, |
315 |
Bones as Manure, |
102 |
Bran, |
26 |
Bran, for Manure, |
102 |
Bran, Richer in Plant-food than Wheat, |
301 |
Brewer, Prof. W. H., Letter from, |
341 |
Cabbage and Barn-yard Manure, Composition of, |
292 |
Cabbage, Composition of, |
290-292 |
Cabbage, Hog and Cow Manure for, |
302 |
Cabbage, Lime for, |
292 |
Cabbage, Manure for, |
275-290 |
Cabbage, Manure for Early and Late, |
291 |
Cabbage, Needs a Large Supply of Nitrogen in the Soil. Though it Removes but Little, |
293 |
Cabbage, Potash for, |
292 |
Cabbage, Special Manure for, |
323 |
Cabbage, Yield of per Acre, |
291 |
Cattle vs. Sheep as Manure-makers, |
303 |
Cheese, from a Ton of Hay, |
111 |
Cheese, Plant-food in, |
101 |
Cheese, versus Beef, |
110 |
Clay Retains Ammonia, |
219 |
Clover and Indian Corn, |
275 |
Clover, as a Renovating and Exhausting Crop, |
277 |
Clover, as Manure, |
119-122 |
Clover, as Manure for Wheat, |
158 |
Clover, Does it Get Nitrogen from the Atmosphere, |
133-138 |
362,
Clover, Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments on, |
135 |
Clover, for Wheat, |
126 |
Clover, Gathers Up Manure from the Sub-soil, |
287 |
Clover, Hay, Composition of, |
129-137 |
Clover, Hay, English and German, for Manure, |
47 |
Clover, How to Make a Farm Rich by Growing, |
133-163 |
Clover, Letting it Rot on the Surface as Manure, |
134 |
Clover, Nitrogen as a Manure for, |
141 |
Clover, Pasturing by Sheep versus Mowing for Hay, |
137 |
Clover, Plowing Under versus Feeding Out, |
123 |
Clover, Roots, Amount of per Acre, |
143-144-155 |
Clover, Roots, Composition of, |
145-147 |
Clover, Seed, Amount of Roots per Acre, |
162 |
Clover, Water Evaporated by, |
132 |
Clover, Why it Enriches Land, |
131 |
Coal-ashes to Mix with Artificial Manures, |
312 |
Composting Cow-manure with Muck, Leaves, etc, |
302 |
Compost of Stable-manure and Earth, |
342 |
Corn, as a Renovating Crop, |
275 |
Corn, Ashes for, |
279 |
Corn, Barn-yard Manure for, |
284 |
Corn, Cost of Raising, |
9 |
Corn, Crop, Composition of, |
25 |
Corn, Experiments on, |
279 |
Corn, Guano for, |
279-284 |
Corn, Manure for, |
275 |
Corn, Meal for Manure, |
185 |
Corn, Superphosphate for, |
279-284 |
Corn, Fodder, |
275 |
Corn Fodder, vs. Mangel-wurzels, |
288 |
Corn Fodder, Plaster for, |
277 |
Corn Fodder, vs. Wheat, Yield per acre, |
276 |
Cotton-seed Cake, |
46-339 |
Cow-manure, |
86-100 |
Cow-manure, and How to Use it, |
302 |
Cow-manure, Composition of, |
306 |
Cows, Feeding Grain to, |
110-113 |
Cows, Feeding in Winter for Manure, |
256 |
Crops Best to Apply Manure to, | 265 |
Crops, How to Get Larger, |
28-36 |
Crops, Raised and Sold from the Farm, |
27 |
Crops, Rotation of, |
116-168 |
Crops, We Must Raise Larger per Acre, |
266 |
Crops, Why so Poor, |
28 |
Dairy Farms, Bone-dust on, |
315 |
Drainage from Barn-yard, |
306 |
Dry Earth for Pig Pens, |
304 |
Earth-closet Manure, |
310 |
Earth-closet Manure, on Grass, |
225 |
Fallow, Fall, |
12 |
Fallow, for Wheat, How to—Mr. Lawes’ Experiments, |
35 |
Fallow, Summer, for Wheat, |
15-34 |
Farm Dairy, Receipts and Expenses of, |
109 |
Farm, Hon. George Geddes’, |
119 |
Farm, Hon. Joseph Shull’s, |
109 |
Farm, John Johnston’s, |
76-81-120 |
Farm, Mr. Dewey’s, |
39 |
Farm, Mr. Joseph O. Sheldon’s, |
15 |
Farm, to Restore a Worn Out, |
37 |
Farming, a Poor Business, |
9 |
Farming, Difference Between High and Good, |
11 |
Farming, Faith in Good, |
14 |
Farming, Good Does Not Lead to Over Production, |
14 |
Farming, Slow Work, |
17 |
Fermenting Manure to Kill Weed-Seeds, |
97 |
Fish as Manure, |
347 |
Food, Nothing Added to it by the Animal, |
42 |
Gardens, Manure for Private, |
296 |
Geddes, Hon. George, |
17-117 |
Grains, Malt, English and German, |
47 |
Grass a Saving’s Bank, |
41 |
Grass, Importance of Rich, |
113 |
Grass, Manure for, |
120 |
Guano as a Top-dressing for Wheat, |
270 |
Guano, for Barley, |
240 |
Guano, for Oats, |
253 |
Guano, for Peas, |
17 |
Guano, for Potatoes, |
255-258 |
Guano, on Wheat, |
120-180-184 |
Guano, Peruvian, Composition of, |
311 |
Guano Peruvian, for Onions, |
294 |
Guano Peruvian, Price and Composition of Now and 30 Y’rs Ago, |
327 |
Guano Peruvian, Rectified for Turnips, |
286 |
Guano Peruvian, What it is, |
311 |
Gypsum, |
104-116-126 |
Gypsum, for Oats, |
254 |
Gypsum, for Peas, |
17 |
Gypsum, for Potatoes, |
255-259 |
Harison, T. L., Letter from, |
115 |
Hay, Best Manure for, |
274 |
Hay, Plant-food in, |
101 |
Heacock, Joseph, Letter from, |
348 |
Henderson, Peter, Letter from, |
344 |
Hen Manure, |
43-104-301 |
Hen Manure, for Potatoes, |
255 |
High Farming, |
12 |
High Farming, versus Good Farming, |
11 |
Hops, Manure for, |
274 |
Horse-manure, Composition of, |
306 |
Hot-beds, Manure for, |
297 |
Human Excrements, Composition of, |
308 |
Indian Corn. See Corn. | |
Irrigation on Market Gardens, |
295 |
Jessup, Edward, Letter from, |
342 |
Johnson, Prof. S. W., on the Value of Fertilizers, |
324 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Barley, |
227 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Oats, |
252 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Permanent Meadows, |
271 |
363,
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on the Amount of Excrements Voided by Man, |
309 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Sugar beets and Mangel-wurzels, |
288 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on Wheat, |
170 |
Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments, Potash Beneficial for Barley, |
329 |
Lawes’ Table, Showing Composition and Value of Foods, |
45 |
Lettuce, Manure for, |
289 |
Lettuce, Superphosphate for, |
290-293 |
Lewis, Hon. Harris, Letter from, |
103 |
Liebig’s Special Manures, |
321 |
Lime as Manure, |
215 |
Lime, Beneficial Effect of for Thirty Years, |
216 |
Lime, Changes the Chemical and Physical Character of the Soil, |
224 |
Lime, Composting with Old Sods, |
224 |
Lime, for Cabbage, |
292 |
Lime, Hastens the Maturity of the Crop, |
222 |
Lime, Impoverishes the Soil, |
222 |
Lime, in Connecticut, |
224 |
Lime, in Delaware, |
223 |
Lime, in New Jersey, |
223 |
Lime, in Pennsylvania, |
224 |
Lime, Mixed with Barn-yard Manure, |
222 |
Lime, on Grass Land, |
223 |
Lime, on Lime-stone Land, |
217 |
Lime, Quantity per Acre, |
216 |
Lime, Sets Free Ammonia in the Soil, |
221 |
Lime, Silicate Absorbs Ammonia from Atmosphere, |
219 |
Lime, When to Apply, |
223 |
Lime, Why Beneficial, |
220 |
Liquid Manure, |
306 |
Lowland, Draining, |
30 |
Malt-combs, |
46 |
Mangel-wurzels for Manure, |
48 |
Mangel-wurzels, Manure for, |
103-286-288 |
Mangel-wurzels, Yield per Acre, |
11 |
Manure Absorbing Liquid, |
115 |
Manure, Amount from Feed and Bedding, |
78 |
Manure, Amount Made by a Horse, |
50-346 |
Manure, Amount, Made by Horses, Cows, Sheep, and Pigs, |
51 |
Manure, Amount Made on a 250-acre Farm, |
257 |
Manure, Amount of Rain Required to Dissolve, |
267 |
Manure, Amount of Straw in Horse, |
346 |
Manure, and Rotation of Crops, |
246 |
Manure, Applying Artificial, |
312 |
Manure, Applying Near the Surface, |
267 |
Manure, Applying on the Surface, |
173 |
Manure, as Top-dressing, |
269 |
Manure, Barn-yard for Barley, |
240 |
Manure, Barn-yard vs. Artificial for Indian Corn, |
284 |
Manure, Basin for, |
92 |
Manure, Best for Hay, |
274 |
Manure, Bone-dust, |
314-316 |
Manure, Brings in Red Clover, |
82 |
Manure, Buying, |
306 |
Manure, Buying by Measure or Weight, |
305 |
Manure, Buying by the Load or Ton, |
306 |
Manure, Cellar, |
114 |
Manure, Cheapest a Farmer Can Use, |
127 |
Manure, Clover as, |
119-122 |
Manure, Clover-seed as, |
127 |
Manure, Comes from the Land, |
42 |
Manure, Common Salt as, |
200 |
Manure, Composition of Fresh Barnyard, |
51 |
Manure, Composition of from Different Animals, |
306 |
Manure, Composition of Heap at Different Periods, |
57 |
Manure, Corn-meal for, |
185 |
Manure, Cost of Hauling, |
342 |
Manure, Cost of Loading and Drawing, |
77 |
Manure, Cow, |
87-100 |
Manure, Dairy-farm, How to Save and Apply, |
114 |
Manure, Dr. Vœlcker’s Experiments on, |
51 |
Manure, Drawing Out to the Field, |
89 |
Manure, English Plan of Keeping, |
69 |
Manure, Equivalent to Water, |
296 |
Manure, Farm-yard for Potatoes, |
261 |
Manure, Fermenting in Winter, |
85-92-93 |
Manure, Fermenting, Shrinkage in, |
116 |
Manure, Fire-fang, |
84-98 |
Manure, Fish, as, on Long Island, |
347 |
Manure, Foods which Make Rich, |
45 |
Manure, for Cabbage, Parsnips, Onions, Carrots, Lettuce, etc, |
289 |
Manure, for Corn, |
80 |
Manure, for Grass, |
82 |
Manure, for Hops, |
274 |
Manure, for Hot-beds, |
297 |
Manure, for Indian Corn, |
275 |
Manure, for Mangel-wurzels and Sugar-beets, |
287 |
Manure, for Market Gardens, |
294 |
Manure, for Oats, |
252 |
Manure, for Potatoes, |
255 |
Manure, for Seed-growing Farms, |
296 |
Manure, for Sorghum or Chinese Sugar-cane, |
283 |
Manure, for Tobacco, |
275 |
Manure, for Turnips, |
285-322 |
Manure, for Wheat, |
167 |
Manure, from Cows, |
302 |
Manure, from Earth-closet, |
310 |
Manure, from Oxen, |
303 |
Manure, from Pigs, Mr. Lawes’ Experiments, |
301 |
Manure, from Sheep, |
303 |
Manure, Grain Farms, Management of, |
117 |
Manure, Guano, Price of Now and Thirty Years Ago, |
328 |
Manure, Guano, Rectified Peruvian, |
319 |
Manure, Gypsum and Clover as, |
125 |
Manure, Heap, Changes in, |
67 |
364,
Manure Heap, Fermenting, |
38 |
Manure Heap, in Winter, |
84 |
Manure Heap, Piling in Field, |
88-89-90 |
Manure Heap, Turning, |
88 |
Manure, Hen, |
43-104-301 |
Manure, Horse, |
32-86 |
Manure, Horse and Farm-yard, |
50 |
Manure, How and When it Should be Applied, |
267 |
Manure, How John Johnston Manages it, |
76 |
Manure, How Made and Used in Maryland, |
349 |
Manure, How the Deacon Makes it, |
74 |
Manure, How to Make, |
41 |
Manure, How to Make More, |
256 |
Manure, How to Make More and Better on Dairy Farms, |
105 |
Manure, How to Make Poor, Rich, |
274-293 |
Manure, How to Make Richer, |
257 |
Manure, How Much it Shrinks by Fermentation, |
342 |
Manure, How Much Nitrogen in a Load of, |
306 |
Manure, in Kansas, |
340 |
Manure, in Philadelphia, Interesting Facts, |
338 |
Manure, Keeping Under Cover, |
59 |
Manure, Lime as, |
215 |
Manure, Liquid, |
306 |
Manure, Management of in Canada, |
335 |
Manure, Mr. Lawes’ Experiments with, |
95 |
Manure, Loss from Leaching, |
99 |
Manure, Management of, |
94 |
Manure, Market Value of, |
104 |
Manure, Mixed with Lime, |
222 |
Manure, Natural, |
23 |
Manure, Night soil as, |
308 |
Manure, Nitrate of Soda as, |
134 |
Manure, Not Available, |
95 |
Manure, on Dairy Farm, |
101 |
Manure, on Permanent Meadows and Pastures, |
271 |
Manure, Preserved by the Soil, |
177 |
Manure, Pigs’, |
86 |
Manure, Piling, |
116 |
Manure, Potash as, |
329 |
Manure, Price of in Boston, |
344 |
Manure, Maryland, |
339 |
Manure, New Haven, |
341 |
Manure, New York, |
334 |
Manure, per Horse in New York, |
336 |
Manure, Quantity Made on a Farm, |
12 |
Manure, Quantity of Used on Long Island. Interesting Statistics, |
336 |
Manure, Reduced by Fermentation, |
297 |
Manure, Richer in Plant-food than the Food from which it is Derived, |
301 |
Manure, Sea-weed as, |
337 |
Manure, Sheep, |
86 |
Manure, Should be Broken Up Fine, |
268 |
Manure, Soluble Phosphates in, |
72 |
Manure, Special, |
140-320 |
Manure, Specific Gravity of from Different Animals, |
305 |
Manure, Spread in Open Yard, |
63 |
Manure, Stable, Management, |
333 |
Manure, Straw and Chaff as, |
200 |
Manure, Superphosphate, How Made, |
317 |
Manure, Swamp-Muck as, |
29 |
Manure, Tank, |
115 |
Manure, the Author’s Plan of Managing, |
83 |
Manure, Tillage as, |
32-121-225 |
Manure, Top-dressing for Wheat in Kansas, |
350 |
Manure Top-dressing, on Growing Crops, |
343 |
Manure, to What Crops Should it be Applied, |
265 |
Manure, Value of, |
78 |
Manure, Value of Depends on the Food, Not on the Animal, |
43 |
Manure, Value of Straw as, |
123 |
Manure, Water in, |
124 |
Manure, Weeds as, |
24 |
Manure, Weight of, |
343-350 |
Manure, Well-rotted, Composition of, |
65 |
Manure, Well-rotted, Loss from Leaching, |
65 |
Manure, What is it?, |
19-22 |
Manure, Why Do We Ferment?, |
94 |
Market Gardens, Irrigation in, |
295 |
Market Gardens, Manure for, |
294 |
Market Gardens, Pig-manure on, |
295 |
Meadows, Manure for, |
271 |
Night soil, |
225-308 |
Nitrate of Potash, |
312 |
Nitrate of Soda, |
134 |
Nitrate of Soda, Acts Quicker than Ammonia, |
313 |
Nitrate of Soda, as a Top-dressing for Wheat, |
270 |
Nitrate of Soda, Composition of, |
312 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Apple Trees, |
314 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Barley, |
243 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Oats, |
252 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Onions, |
294 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Sugar-Beets, |
289 |
Nitrate of Soda, for Wheat, |
159 |
Nitrate of Soda, How to Apply, |
312 |
Nitric Acid, |
341 |
Nitrogen, Amount per Acre in the Soil, |
28-162 |
Nitrogen, as Manure, |
28 |
Nitrogen, in Soils, |
106-226-336-341 |
Nitrogen, Makes Poor Manure Rich, |
246 |
Nurserymen, Manure for, |
297 |
Oats, Experiments on in Virginia, |
253 |
Oats, Experiments on at Moreton Farm, |
254 |
Oats, Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, |
252 |
Oats, Manures for, |
252 |
Oil-cake for Sheep, |
76 |
Onions, Manure for, |
294 |
Peas for Pigs, |
17 |
Pea-straw for Manure, |
48 |
365, Peat, Composition of, | 31 |
Phosphates, |
27 |
Phosphates, Exhaustion of on Dairy Farms, |
101 |
Phosphates, Soluble in Barn-yard Manure, |
72 |
Phosphoric Acid in Soils, |
106-226 |
Phosphoric Acid, per Acre in Soils, |
162 |
Phosphoric Acid, Retained by the Soil, |
219 |
Phosphoric Acid, Removed from the Farm by Hay, and by Milch Cows, |
316 |
Pig Manure, |
43-86 |
Phosphoric Acid, Composition of, |
306 |
Phosphoric Acid, for Cabbage, |
302 |
Pigs as Manure-Makers for Market Gardeners, |
295 |
Pigs’ Bedding, |
31 |
Pigs’ Bedding, for Enriching Pasture-Land, |
304 |
Pigs’ Bedding, How to Save Manure from, |
304 |
Pigs’ Bedding, Manure from, |
301-304 |
Piling Manure, |
97 |
Plant-food, |
21-105 |
Plant-food, Amount of in an Acre, |
24-39 |
Plant-food, in New and Cultivated Land, |
39 |
Plaster for Indian Corn, |
277 |
Plowing in the Fall, |
17 |
Potash, Amount of in the Soil, |
25-329 |
Potash, as Manure, |
329 |
Potash, as Manure for Wheat, |
215 |
Potash, for Cabbages, |
292 |
Potash, for Potatoes, |
255-260 |
Potash, for Potatoes and Root-Crops, |
330 |
Potash, How to Ascertain when the Soil Needs, |
330 |
Potash, in Nitrate of Potash, |
314 |
Potash, Not a Special Manure for Turnips, |
322 |
Potash, on Grass Land, |
273 |
Potash, our Soils not so likely to be Deficient in, as of Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid, |
330 |
Potash, Retained by the Soil, |
219 |
Potash, Value of in Artificial Manures, |
326 |
Potatoes, after Root-Crops, |
287 |
Potatoes, Ammonia for, |
261 |
Potatoes, Cost of Raising, |
10 |
Potatoes, Experiments on at Moreton Farm, |
259 |
Potatoes, for Manure, |
48 |
Potatoes, How to Raise a Large Crop, |
255 |
Potatoes, Manures for, |
255 |
Potatoes, Mr. Hunter’s Experiments on in England, |
260 |
Potatoes, on Rich Land, |
263 |
Potatoes, Profits of Using Artificial Manures on, |
263 |
Potatoes, Will Manure Injure, Quality of, |
264 |
Rape-cake, |
46 |
Rape-cake, as Manure for Hops, |
274 |
Roots, Amount of Left in Soil by Different Crops, |
164 |
Root-crops, |
17 |
Rotation of Crops and Manures, |
246 |
Rushmore, J. H., Letter from, |
345 |
Routzahn, H. L., Letter from, |
349 |
Salt as a Manure for Wheat, |
270 |
Salt, Common as Manure for Wheat, |
200 |
Salt, for Mangel-wurzels, |
104 |
Saw-dust for Bedding, |
103 |
Season, a Poor, Profitable for Good Farmers, |
213 |
Season, and Manure for Oats, |
253 |
Season, Influence of on the Growth of Wheat, |
210 |
Season, Profit in Raising Oats in a Poor, |
253 |
Season, Profit in Raising Barley in a Poor, |
243 |
Seasons, Influence on Crops, |
21 |
Seed Growers, Manures for, |
296 |
Sewage, |
308 |
Sheep-Manure, |
303-333-339 |
Sheep-Manure, Composition of, |
306 |
Sheep, vs. Oxen as Manure Makers, |
303 |
Shelton, Prof. E. M., Letter from, |
350 |
Soil, Composition of, |
144-150 |
Soil, Exhaustion of, |
23-27-332 |
Soil, from Earth-closet, |
225 |
Soil, Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid in, |
226 |
Soil, Plant-food in, |
105 |
Soil, Weight of per Acre, |
221 |
Soils Absorb Ammonia from Atmosphere, |
219 |
Soils, Absorptive Powers of, |
217 |
Sorghum, Manures for, |
283 |
Special Manures, |
320 |
Straw, |
26 |
Straw, Amount of Manure from, |
124 |
Straw, and Chaff for Manure, |
200 |
Straw, for Manures, |
48 |
Straw, on Grain Farms, |
118 |
Straw, Selling, |
123 |
Sturtevant, Dr. E. L., Letter from, |
344 |
Superphosphate, |
116 |
Superphosphate, for Barley, |
241 |
Superphosphate, for Indian Corn, |
279 |
Superphosphate, for Potatoes, |
259 |
Superphosphate, for Private Gardens, |
296 |
Superphosphate, for Turnips, |
285-322 |
Superphosphate, for Wheat, |
168-169 |
Superphosphate, from Bones, Composition of, |
319 |
Superphosphate, from Mineral Phosphates, |
320 |
Superphosphate, How Applied, |
320 |
Superphosphate, on Dairy Farms, |
315 |
Superphosphate, on Grass Land, |
273 |
Superphosphate, Value of as Compared with Bone-Dust, |
319 |
Superphosphate, What Crops Best for, |
243 |
Superphospate of Lime, Doctor Tells How it is Made, |
317 |
Superphosphate of Lime, When First Made in the United States, |
324 |
Surface Application of Manure, |
70-268 |
Swamp-muck, |
29 |
Swamp-muck, Composition of, |
31 |
Swine, see Pigs. |
366, Thomas, J. J., Remarks on the Application of Manures, | 269 |
Tillage is Manure, |
32-121-163-225 |
Tobacco, Manure for, |
275 |
Top dressing with Manure, |
269 |
Turnips, Do They Absorb Nitrogen from the Atmosphere, |
250 |
Turnips, Impoverish the Soil More than Grain, |
250 |
Turnips, Manure for, |
285 |
Turnips, and Wheat, Special Manures for, |
321 |
Urine from Farm Animals Richer than Human, |
309 |
Urine, vs. Solid Manure, |
294 |
Valuation of Fertilizers, |
324 |
Water, Amount Given Off by Plants During Their Growth, |
131 |
Water Equivalent to Manure, |
296 |
Weeds, |
15-41-189 |
Weed-seeds in Manure, |
97 |
Weld, Col. M. C., Letter from, |
344 |
Wheat, Ammonia for, |
192 |
Wheat, Artificial Manures for Should be Drilled in with Seed, |
168-169 |
Wheat, Common Salt as Manure for, |
200 |
Wheat, Crop, Composition of, |
26-129-138-340 |
Wheat, Effect of Manure on, in Poor Season, |
213 |
Wheat, Influence of Season on, |
210 |
Wheat, is it Deteriorating? |
189 |
Wheat, Larger Crops per Acre, |
122 |
Wheat, Lawes’ and Gilbert’s Experiments on, |
140-170-333 |
Wheat, Manures for, |
167 |
Wheat, Mr. Lawes’ Experiments on, |
122 |
Wheat, Nitrogen as Manure for, |
141 |
Wheat, Plant-food in, |
101 |
Wheat, Potash as Manure for, |
215 |
Wheat, Straw and Chaff as a Manure for, |
200 |
Wheat, Summer Fallowing for, |
35-168 |
Wheat, the 20th Crop on Same Land, |
213 |
Wheat, Top-dressing for, |
270 |
Wheat, vs. Corn, Comparative Yield of, |
276 |
Wheat, Well-rotted Manure for, |
267 |
Wheat, Why Our Crops are so Poor, |
214 |
Wheat, Yield per Acre, |
11 |
SENT FREE ON APPLICATION |
Descriptive Catalog
|
CONTAINING 128 8vo PAGES, PROFUSELY
Farm and Garden Poultry, Pigeons and Bees Hunting, Shooting, etc. |
PUBLISHERS AND IMPORTERSOrange Judd Company315-321 Fourth Avenue NEW YORK |
Books will be Forwarded, Postpaid, on Receipt of Price |
Feeding Farm Animals
By Professor Thomas Shaw. This book is intended alike for the student and the farmer. The author has succeeded in giving in regular and orderly sequence, and in language so simple that a child can understand it, the principles that govern the science and practice of feeding farm animals. Professor Shaw is certainly to be congratulated on the successful manner in which he has accomplished a most difficult task. His book is unquestionably the most practical work which has appeared on the subject of feeding farm animals. Illustrated. 5½ × 8 inches. Upward of 500 pages. Cloth. $2.00
Profitable Dairying
By C. L. Peck. A practical guide to successful dairy management. The treatment of the entire subject is thoroughly practical, being principally a description of the methods practiced by the author. A specially valuable part of this book consists of a minute description of the far-famed model dairy farm of Rev. J.D. Detrich, near Philadelphia, Pa. On the farm of fifteen acres, which twenty years ago could not maintain one horse and two cows, there are now kept twenty-seven dairy cattle, in addition to two horses. All the roughage, litter, bedding, etc., necessary for these animals are grown on these fifteen acres, more than most farmers could accomplish on one hundred acres. Illustrated. 5 × 7 inches. 200 pages. Cloth. $0.75
Practical Dairy Bacteriology
By Dr. H. W. Conn, of Wesleyan University. A complete exposition of important facts concerning the relation of bacteria to various problems related to milk. A book for the classroom, laboratory, factory and farm. Equally useful to the teacher, student, factory man and practical dairyman. Fully illustrated with 83 original pictures. 340 pages. Cloth. 5½ × 8 inches. $1.25
Modern Methods of Testing Milk and Milk Products
By L. L. VanSlyke. This is a clear and concise discussion of the approved methods of testing milk and milk products. All the questions involved in the various methods of testing milk and cream are handled with rare skill and yet in so plain a manner that they can be fully understood by all. The book should be in the hands of every dairyman, teacher or student. Illustrated. 214 pages. 5 × 7 inches. $0.75
(13)Animal Breeding
By Thomas Shaw. This book is the most complete and comprehensive work ever published on the subject of which it treats. It is the first book which has systematized the subject of animal breeding. The leading laws which govern this most intricate question the author has boldly defined and authoritatively arranged. The chapters which he has written on the more involved features of the subject, as sex and the relative influence of parents, should go far toward setting at rest the wildly speculative views cherished with reference to these questions. The striking originality in the treatment of the subject is no less conspicuous than the superb order and regular sequence of thought from the beginning to the end of the book. The book is intended to meet the needs of all persons interested in the breeding and rearing of live stock. Illustrated. 405 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.50
Forage Crops Other Than Grasses
By Thomas Shaw. How to cultivate, harvest and use them. Indian corn, sorghum, clover, leguminous plants, crops of the brassica genus, the cereals, millet, field roots, etc. Intensely practical and reliable. Illustrated. 287 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.00
Soiling Crops and the Silo
By Thomas Shaw. The growing and feeding of all kinds of soiling crops, conditions to which they are adapted, their plan in the rotation, etc. Not a line is repeated from the Forage Crops book. Best methods of building the silo, filling it and feeding ensilage. Illustrated. 364 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.50
The Study of Breeds
By Thomas Shaw. Origin, history, distribution, characteristics, adaptability, uses, and standards of excellence of all pedigreed breeds of cattle, sheep and swine in America. The accepted text book in colleges, and the authority for farmers and breeders. Illustrated. 371 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.50
Clovers and How to Grow Them
By Thomas Shaw. This is the first book published which treats on the growth, cultivation and treatment of clovers as applicable to all parts of the United States and Canada, and which takes up the entire subject in a systematic way and consecutive sequence. The importance of clover in the economy of the farm is so great that an exhaustive work on this subject will no doubt be welcomed by students in agriculture, as well as by all who are interested in the tilling of the soil. Illustrated. 5 × 7 inches. 337 pages. Cloth. Net. $1.00
(14)Land Draining
A handbook for farmers on the principles and practice of draining, by Manly Miles, giving the results of his extended experience in laying tile drains. The directions for the laying out and the construction of tile drains will enable the farmer to avoid the errors of imperfect construction, and the disappointment that must necessarily follow. This manual for practical farmers will also be found convenient for reference in regard to many questions that may arise in crop growing, aside from the special subjects of drainage of which it treats. Illustrated. 200 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.00
Barn Plans and Outbuildings
Two hundred and fifty-seven illustrations. A most valuable work, full of ideas, hints, suggestions, plans, etc., for the construction of barns and outbuildings, by practical writers. Chapters are devoted to the economic erection and use of barns, grain barns, horse barns, cattle barns, sheep barns, cornhouses, smokehouses, icehouses, pig pens, granaries, etc. There are likewise chapters on birdhouses, doghouses, tool sheds, ventilators, roofs and roofing, doors and fastenings, workshops, poultry houses, manure sheds, barnyards, root pits, etc. 235 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.00
Irrigation Farming
By Lute Wilcox. A handbook for the practical application of water in the production of crops. A complete treatise on water supply, canal construction, reservoirs and ponds, pipes for irrigation purposes, flumes and their structure, methods of applying water, irrigation of field crops, the garden, the orchard and vineyard, windmills and pumps, appliances and contrivances. New edition, revised, enlarged and rewritten. Profusely illustrated. Over 500 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $2.00
Forest Planting
By H. Nicholas Jarchow, LL. D. A treatise on the care of woodlands and the restoration of the denuded timberlands on plains and mountains. The author has fully described those European methods which have proved to be most useful in maintaining the superb forests of the old world. This experience has been adapted to the different climates and trees of America, full instructions being given for forest planting of our various kinds of soil and subsoil, whether on mountain or valley. Illustrated. 250 pages. 5 × 7 inches. Cloth. $1.50