ANALYSItJ OF MANURES. 359 



but all various. We can hardly illustrate this better than by 

 quotinc^- Dr. Ure's analysis of Guano, and Voelckel's. The 

 former is as follows : — 



DR. ure's. 



Azotized organic matter, including urate 

 of ammonia, and capable of affording 

 from 8 to 17 (a pretty large difference) 

 per cent, of ammonia by slow decom- 

 position in the soil 50 



Water 11 



Phosphate of lime 25 



Ammonia, phosphate of magnesia, phos- 

 phate of ammonia and oxalate of am- 

 monia, containing from 4 to 9 (another 

 trifling difference) per cent, of ammonia 1 3 

 Siliceous matter from the crops of bii'ds . 1 



100 



VOELCKELS. 



Urate of ammonia 9 "0 



Oxalate of ammonia 10*6 



Oxalate of lime 7*0 



Phosphate of ammonia 6*0 



Phosphate of magnesia and ammonia . . 2*6 



Sulphate of potash 5'5 



Sulphate of soda 3-8 



Muriate of ammonia 4*2 



Phosphate of lime 14*3 



Clay and sand 4*7 



Animal substances, mth a small quantity 



of salts of iron and water 32*3 



100-0 



We are not now going to allude to the discrepancy of the 

 quantities, because that does not affect the question, but of 

 the discrepancies of the terms and the nature of the results. 

 Why are not the same tests applied and the same items men- 

 tioned 1 How can any farmer or person in any other class 

 not versed in chemical af3finities and the nature of them, 



