518 Oil the Growth of Barley by different Manures, &fc. 



nitrogen employed. He then quotes an instance to prove that, 

 ^bere mineral constituents were also added, there was no such 

 .^oss, but a gain from natural sources. 



Below, we give the instance quoted by Baron Liebig as showing 

 a gain, by the side of two other of Kuhlmann's experiments, 

 which he does not quote on this point ; but in both of which 

 vmneral constitiients were also employed. 



Nitrogen in 



Increase for 



100 iu 



Msmure. 



Per cent, of 

 Nitrogen in 

 Increase more 

 or less than 

 in Manure. 



Liebig's example of 15 parts of Nitrogen with Phos-j 

 phates, in Guano, applied in one year, and acting) 

 over three years ) 



30 parts of Nitrogen with Phosphates in the form of I 

 Guano, applied in one year, and acting over three 

 years ) 



Sal-ammoniac containing 176 parts of Nitrogen ■withl 

 Phosphates, applied in the first and third years, 

 and acting over the three years ] 



164'60 



95-66 



•67 



+ 64-60 



-4-34 



-56-33 



The result is then, that the only instance where there is an 

 apparent gain was, where the practically speaking utterly insig- 

 nificant amount of nitrogen in the form of guano, was used in 

 one year, and the increase taken over that and the two succeeding 

 years. Where Kuhlmann used only twice the amount of the 

 very same guano, there was according to Baron Liebig's own 

 method of calculation, a loss of more than 4, instead of a gain 

 of 64 per cent, of the nitrogen employed. Lastly, where sal- 

 ammoniac was used, in amount containing from 11 to 12 times 

 as much nitrogen as the small quantity of guano, but equally 

 •icith it containiiif/ phosp/tates, there was on the same mode of 

 calculation, an apparent loss of 56'3 per cent., or more than half 

 of the nitrogen employed. According to Baron Liebig's own 

 data then, and his own mode of calculation, the farmer, to attain 

 the happy result of no loss of the nitrogen of his manure, must 

 employ it in quantity which is utterly insignificant in any prac- 

 tical point of view. 



It will be seen that in the foregoing comments, we have not at 

 all attempted on our own behalf, to discuss what is the real 

 bearing of the evidence which Kuhlmann's experiments supply. 

 Nor have we time or space to consider further the facts of others 

 on the present occasion. It seemed desirable, however, before 

 recording our own data and conclusions, to direct attention to 

 the applicability of the facts selected, and the reasoning upon 

 them, in reference to the points now in question, which have 

 recently been submitted to the readers of this Journal on such 

 liigh authority as that of Baron Liebig. Still less can we stop 



