FARMERS' REGISTER— FERMENTATION OF MANURES. 



501 



" ever, very prejudicial to the composite manure 

 " in the dunghill; it is better that there should be 

 " no tt?rmentation at all, heibre the manure is used, 

 " than that it should he carried too iln: The ex- 

 " cess of tcrmcntation tends to the destruction and 

 " dissipation of the most useful parts of the ma- 

 " nure; and the ultimate results of this process 

 " are like those of cotnbustion. 



" It is a common practice amongst farmers to 

 " sutltjr their liu'm-yard dung to ferment till the 

 " fibrous texture of the vegetable matter is entirely 

 " broken down; and till the manure becomes per- 

 " lectly cold, and so soft as to be easily cut by the 

 " spade.* Independent of the general theoretical 

 " views unfavorable to this practice, fiiunded upon 

 " the nature and composition of vegetable sub- 

 " stances, there are many arguments and facts 

 '■ which show that it is j'.rejudicial to the interests 

 " of the farmer. 



" During the violent fermentation which is ne- 

 " cessary lor reducing farm-yard manure to the 

 " state in which it is called short muck, not only a 

 " large quantity of fluid, but likewise of gaseous 

 " matter is lost; so much so, that the dung is 

 " reduced one-half, or two-thirds in weight; and 

 " the principal elastic matter disengaged, is car- 

 " bonic acid with some ammonia; and both of 

 " these, if retained by the moisture of the soil, 

 " are capable of becoming a useful nourishment 

 " of plants." A chemical experiment is then 

 detailed, which shows, satisfactorily, the amount 

 and kind of the licpiid and gaseous products of a 

 certain small quantity of termenling manure — and 

 in another, the gaseous matter, as produced, being 

 conveyed under the roots of growing plants, show- 

 ed its value as manure, by increasing their luxu- 

 riance. The author then states, that decided ad- 

 vantage would be also gained in usuig unfer- 

 mented manure, by the heat from their subsequent 

 fermentation being disengaged, and the conse- 

 quent new combinations made within the soil, and 

 in contact with the roots of growing plants. In 

 addition to the testimony of many scientific agri- 

 culturists, cited generally in favor of the use of 

 unfermented manure, and a number of proofs 

 within his own knowledge, Davy quotes particu- 

 larly the opinion of one, whom he says (and all of 

 us will admit) will be considered as the highest 

 authority. "Mr. Coke [of Holkham] within the 

 " last seven years, has entirely given up the sys- 

 " tem, formerly adopted on his farm, of applying 

 " fermented dung; and he informs me, that his 

 " crops have since been as good as they ever were, 

 " and that his manure goes nearly twice as far." 



Davy's argument against the fermentation of 

 manure previous to its application, is founded on 

 his having proved by analysis, that manures con- 

 tain more enriching principles before than after 

 fermentation — and, therefore, certainly lose more 

 or less of them hy going through that process. 

 All this must be admitted, and yet the inference 

 may be false, that fermentation, jirevious to apply- 

 ing manures, lessens their ultimate value. The 

 unfermented matter contains most food, it is true 

 • — but, for nmch the greater part, in a state unfit 



* The old practice of short diin^ farmers in Vir- 

 ginia, is to keep tfie dung in the neap, even six or 

 nine months after this cessation of fermentation, wait- 

 ing for the beginning of the next corn crop. 



for the use and sustenance of the plant: and so 

 must it contiiaie unfit and useless, until rendered 

 soluble by a sufficient degree of fermentation. 

 Whether most waste u- ill be incurred by that 

 necesi=:ary fermentation taking place in the farm- 

 yard, or the dunghill, or in the soil alter being ap- 

 plied, is the question to be decided. Raw meat 

 and vegetables contain more nutritive matter for 

 the human stomach, than atler the loss necessarily 

 sustained by their being cooked: yet the remainder, 

 after this process, is fitted for the sustenance of 

 man, and therefore is more valuable than the 

 whole was before the change, and the waste, 

 caused by cooking. The food of plants requires 

 more complete ])reparation than that for men, or 

 even for inltmts: and in either case, the fitness of 

 the food for use is ev^en more important than its 

 quantify of matter capable of being converted to 

 Ibod by future chemical changes, which mMj take 

 place, but which we have not" the ability to direct, 

 or to govern. The chemist cannot pursue the 

 investigation of the waste by fermenration, after 

 the manure is buried in the soil — and (with our 

 I'rcsent imperfect sources of light) the experience 

 of farmers must be the best guide as to the com- 

 parative value of this practice, and that of fer- 

 menting previously. Still, whichever course is 

 adopted, the lights of chemistry will best serve to 

 warn us of the risk, and teach us how to lessen, if 

 we cannot avoid, the losses that attend on both 

 modes. Unfortunately, however, the testimony of 

 many of the most enlightened farmers, as well as 

 of the most ignorant, is entirely contradictor}-, as 

 to the comparative value of fermented and unfer- 

 mented manures. 



In addiiion to the oj inion of Davy, I might 

 add not only the arguments of Arthur Young, 

 but a number of proofs drawn from the practical 

 experience of many fiirmers of their increased 

 profits from using manures unfermented, and 

 which he has slated at length in his Essay on 

 Manures, and other work.<. Our own distinguish- 

 ed agriculturist Taylor, is equally decided in 

 favor of the same opinion and practice, though 

 the contents of his fiirm-yard, being principaTly 

 corn stalks, were necessarily more coarse, woody, 

 and unmanageable, before fermenting. He thus 

 condemns the opposite practice. "In obedience 

 " to the old English authorities, I have in various 

 " ways compounded dunghills, kept them through 

 " the summer, and covered with earth and with 

 " bushes the manure of the farm-pen; and the 

 " loss has been regularly graduated by the fer- 

 " mentation produced, fi-om a moiety to three- 

 " fourths; being invariably greater, the better the 

 " litter was rotted, or the greater the degree of 

 " fermenlation. 



It will not be necessary to quote so particularly 

 the opposite op.inions of Judge Peters, and other 

 distinguished advocates for fermenting farm-yard 

 manures before using them, because" such con- 

 tinues to be the general course (though with every 

 variety of practice) both in Britain and this coun- 

 Xvy. Robert Brown, the very intelligent and prac- 

 tical farmer, who wrote the'able article "Agricul- 

 ture" in the Edinburgh Encyclopa?dia, has there 

 described at length what he deemed the best prac- 

 tice of managing farm-yard manure, by heaping, 

 &c., to ensure ils fermentation before being used: 

 yet throughout, he does not bestow a single"oppos- 

 ing argument, nor does he even notice the existence 



