88 MASSACHUSETTS AGEICULTURE. 



son's valuation for his chemicals ; when dung is $6.00 a cord, 

 the value of the chemicals is three-fourths of our valuation, 

 or about 14| cents per pound for nitrogen, about 3^ cents for 

 potash, and about lOf cents for phosphoric acid. In a simi- 

 lar manner each person can reckon the value of the salts of 

 his fertilizer, which corresponds with the selling value of his 

 manures. In our district, the Middlesex South, the valua- 

 tion of our dung in practice approaches its value by our 

 theory. 



It will be noticed that I only discuss the relative values of 

 the chemical element in the manure and in the crop. I do 

 not enter into the question of the absolute value of barnyard 

 manure as compared with commercial fertilizers, and I do not 

 commit myself here to any theory of the values or action of 

 manures. The true value of a fertilizer cannot be estimated 

 by these commercial valuations, for in practice so much de- 

 pends on the bulk and the circumstances of the farm. Nor 

 can one analysis give a very just idea of the average compo- 

 sition of our farmyard dung, a substance which is different in 

 each barnyard, according to its source and the practice of 

 each farmer. I simply claim that these calculations of fertil- 

 izing elements and values do furnish reliable data for the com- 

 parison of competing crops, and for the obtaining the relative 

 cost of each crop, by furnishing a tolerably constant standard 

 for estimating the fertility of the soil. Improved practice 

 can diminish the cost of working the land, and of harvesting 

 a crop. It can also increase the efficacy of dung by skill in 

 its manufacture and application ; but it cannot decrease the 

 chemical element of the crop. If then we have a standard of 

 fertility for the soil, as I propose, a definite method of obtain- 

 ing the value of our land for the interest and tax account, we 

 have left the variables of seed, culture, labor, judgment and 

 skill. In these the farmer can justly and profitably compete 

 on equal terms with his neighbor with poorer or richer soil, 

 for soil and value of land is brought to a comparal^le standard. 



If this essay does no more than to call attention to the al- 

 most valueless methods in vogue of recording the facts which 

 enter into the composition of a report of a premium crop, it 

 will have fulfilled a mission. The repetition of useless state- 

 ments does no good to the cause of agriculture, nor the repub- 



