253 PREPARATION OF MANURE. 



make such pr();Tress as to occasion very great loss. Experience has 

 shown that the thickness of a dung--heap ought not to exceed from 

 about four feet and a half to six feet and a half; it ought certainly 

 never to exceed the latter amount. 



With a view to prevent the drying of the dung-heap and its con- 

 sequences, too great a rise in temperature and destruction of manure, 

 it is the practice in some places to arrange the dung-heap on the 

 north side of a building, which is undoubtedly advantageous, but not 

 always to be realized, especially in connection with a farm of some 

 magnitude, where the immediate vicinity of a large mass of matter 

 in a state of putrid fermentation is not only unpleasant, but may he 

 unwholesome. In the north of France, the dung-heap is somelimes 

 shaded from the sun by means of a row of elms, and the shelter thus 

 secured is vastly preferable to that which it has been proposed to 

 obtain by means of a roof or shed, which, besides other inconveni- 

 ences, would be found costly at first, liable to speedy decay, &c. 

 If circumstances, su(;h as the smallness of the farm, the permeable 

 nature of the soil, d:c., prevent the construction of a reservoir, there 

 is risk of the dung-water being quite lost ; but such waste may be 

 prevented by covering the bottom of the pit or stance for the dung- 

 heap with a bed of sand, peat marl, or any other dry and porous sub- 

 stance capable of absorbing liquids. This practice is often followed 

 by the farmers of>Alsacc. 



In some farms, the ditfcrcnt kinds of dung are piled apart from 

 one another in particular heaps; that of the stable being put by it- 

 self, as well as that of the cow-house, that of the hog-stye, and that 

 of the sheep-pen. In great establishments, such a separation is 

 often one of necessity ; but the advantages which are ascribed to it 

 are questionable at least, and the remarks that have been made upon 

 it by writers do not appear founded on any accurate observation. 

 Without denying that certain crops answer better when special ina- 

 lures are employed, it still seems to me more advantageous to pile 

 ^very kind of manure together, when the difficulties of the situation 

 are not such as to make this cither particularly inconvenient or ex- 

 pensive. In this way, indeed, a dung-heaj) of medium constitution 

 is obtained, which is regarded with reason ;is that, the application 

 of which to the soil is attended with the greatest advantages in the 

 majority of instances. The distinction which some have sought to 

 make between the relative qualities of manures of ditferent ori^^ins 

 is fir too abstdute ; and this is the reason, without doubt, wliich 

 renders it so diflicult to bring the observations of dilFerent agricultu- 

 rists to agree. Thus, according to Sinclair, the dung of the hog- 

 stye is the most active of all, the richest in fertilizing principles ; 

 according to Schwertz, ou the contrary, it is the most indifferent 

 manure of the farm-yard. 



The fact is, that manures, which are the produce of the same 

 animals, often present greater differences in regard to quality, tjjan 

 manures which proceed from dif'^rent sources I shall show by 

 and by that the value of manure il<,»cnds especially upon the feeding, 

 the age, and the condition in which the animal is placed that pro- 



