Farm- Yard j\Ianurc and its Manao-cincnt 



71 



guano, and tliat we consequently should not feed at all 

 with a view to the improvement of the manure. But 

 if we look a little more closely into this argument we 

 shall find it founded on error, for the use of a ton of 

 oilcake gives us a saving in feeding to the extent 

 calculating 6 lb. of cake per day (to save 120 lb. of 

 swedes per day, which is about the estimate), of 20 

 tons of swedes, or more than an average crop for an 

 acre of land, as well as a large saving in litter, which, 

 together with the production of manure in a form fit to 

 be put on the land (even allowing a beast makes no 

 profit in the feeding), more than overbalances the 

 apparent difference in favour of the guano. We 

 thus come to the conclusion that our system of feed- 

 ing, as far as regards quantities and description of corn 

 or cake used, must, to a great extent, depend upon 

 the contrasting prices between each of them, and roots, 

 hay, and straw, due regard being taken to consider 

 the nutritive value of each separately; for if an 

 artificial manure can be aioplied at a much less cost 

 than the use of a particular kind of food will increase 

 the value of farm-yard manure, it is folly not to 

 apply it in that way, although there is always that 

 practical difficulty of getting so good a distribution, 

 and so great a variety of combinations as we attain in 

 farm-yard manure. Our knowledge also at the present 

 time is far from perfect as to many of the forms of 

 combination in which the various elements of nutrition 

 exist in natural manure, and therefore no artificial 

 manure can be made to imitate it. The exclusive use 

 of tuniips or any other description of green food causes 

 a considerably larger secretion of both solid and liquid 

 excrements in the animal, and, consequently, a pro- 

 portionate increase of litter is required for their ab- 

 sorption, while the manure, although made more 

 bulky, is of less value. By thus feeding, therefore, it 

 is to the disadvantage of the manure, and it is also the 

 means of causing the animal to eat larger quantities of 

 straw. The cost of i-eduction of this bulky material 

 must again be placed to the credit of feeding, to form 

 a good manure, as against purchasing the same in an 

 artificial form. Morton, from experiments and data 

 collected, calculates that the whole of the excrements 

 of cattle fed upon the turnips and straw, amount to 

 three-fourths of the food consumed, the remainder 

 being taken up in the formation of structure and waste : 

 of this the urine weighs one-half more than the solid 

 Jung. Putting the consumption of a full-grown 

 animal at 200 lb. of swedes and 14 lb. of straw per 

 day, we should by this calculation get a proportion of 

 95 lb. of liquid to 65 lb. of solid excrement per 

 diem. Reducing the quantity of swedes to one- 

 half, or 100 lb., and, in addition, giving 5 lb. 

 or 6 lb. of cake, we shall probably find the straw 

 eaten is rather less than in the above instances, say 8 

 lb. or 10 lb., instead of 14 lb. The weight of excre- 

 ments voided from this diet would amount to about 

 90 lb., but it is found that, when a solid or mixed diet 

 is given, the propoi'tion of liquid is smaller to that of 

 solid excrement, and maybe taken as being about one- 



half of it. We should in this case get about 46 lb. of 

 each ; thus, the amount of litter (putting the weight 

 required at about one-third of the liquid excrements) 

 would be, on the turnip and straw diet, about 32 lb. or 

 33 lb. per day, as against 22 lb. or 23 lb. on the mixed 

 dietary, the general weight calculated for box use, al- 

 though one-third of weight of straw to liquid would make 

 it still less. Thus, by adopting the latter method of feed- 

 ing, we should procure a greater value (because a better 

 prepared and more concentrated manure), at this great 

 saving of litter, which would be just sufficient to pro- 

 vide for the wants of half as many again animals, and 

 we should get it at less cost, because the labour, both 

 in supplying and reducing it, would be less. The in- 

 creased amount of straw on the one hand is necessary 

 for the thorough absorption of the larger amount of 

 liquid produced, as well as for the comfort of the 

 animal, but the action of straw is only as a vessel in 

 this i-espect to hold these dilute substances in solution ; 

 the watery matter, in course of time is given off, and 

 the woody fibre of the straw decomposes, forming 

 humic and ulmic acids, which prevent, by their com- 

 bination with ammonia, any escape of it from manure; 

 all straw, in addition to the amount required for this 

 purpose, is not much better than so much waste. The 

 quantity of manure produced in boxes, with mixed 

 food and litter, supplied in the proportions I have 

 named, is about 27 cwt. per month, or at the rate of 

 16 to 17 tons per annum. The quality of this is such 

 that it can be cut out and loaded with a spade, and at 

 once carted to the land, without the slightest deprecia- 

 tion. The principal objection to the box system, I be- 

 lieve, is the expense. At the same time, of course, 

 boxes would not be desirable for the rearing of young 

 stock, but are best fitted for the production of good 

 manure, and the preservation of its fertilizing qualities 

 until carted to the land. The only objection raised to 

 this system is the want of almost sufficient moisture to 

 carry on a proper decomposition. This, however, has 

 no reason to occur except by an injudicious use or an 

 imperfect distribution of litter, which of course is a 

 matter of detail ; but still it is not unfrequently the 

 case in these folds, as well indeed as in open ones, 

 where there is a perfect system of tank drainage, to 

 pump the liquid manure over the mixens in dry 

 weather, or at intervals, in order to promote putrefac- 

 tion, as well as re-absorb the liquid parts of the manure. 

 Why, then, are not tliese superior systems carried out 

 to a greater extent than is now the case? I 

 think I should be answered by those who know 

 more about buildings than I do, ' ' Because it is too 

 expensive, and won't pay." I am not prepared 

 to go into the cost of the matter (not but that I think 

 great modifications might be made on the extravagant 

 estimates often suggested). I don't say again that the 

 alteration of existing buildings to such an extent at 

 once is scarcely compatible with the returns derived 

 from the fair occupation of land, but I say this is a 

 question that should not be lost sight of, for it must 

 be to the interest of an owner of land to have its 



