1847.] wishes, and Lime or Gyp.mm. 165 



The lime, it will be observed, in this analysis, foi-ms nearly one- 

 half of the whole ash; hence we consider it safe to affirm that 

 lime in this instance is not a poison to the plant. This analysis 

 we deem correct in the main; but as we had only five grains of 

 ash to woik upon, we may find some slight errors to be corrected. 

 But that those errors, if any, will affect the doctrine we have at- 

 tempted to establish in this article, we do not expect nor believe. 



The subject and the inquiry is an important one; and hence 

 ought to be pursued until agriculturists can feel that they have 

 a sure basis of practice, in the use of lime and calcareous ma- 

 nures. If they feel uncertain as it regards the use of lime; if 

 they feel that their plants are in danger of being poisoned by its 

 use — certainly itM'ill be a long time before lime will be employed 

 to that extent in husbandry which we think it ought. 



Besides, if the charge of poisoning is untrue, it ought to be 

 freed from the charge. If not true, an indictment ought not to 

 stand on the books of the agriculturists, without good and suffi- 

 cient reason. 



WHY ARE ASHES MORE VALUABLE AS FERTIL- 

 IZERS THAN LIME OR GYPSUM? 



Our neighbors of Long Island have become famous for their 

 trade in ashes. They send their boats the entire length of the 

 Mohawk valley, and they would push their enterprize as far as 

 the Black river valley, if the Black River valley canal was com- 

 pleted ; and they could well afford to transport not merely the live 

 ash, but the refuse ash which has been exhausted of its potash. 

 They have been in the habit of buying the refuse of the asheries 

 of Albany and Troy, and paying as much for it as the soap-maker 

 paid originally for the live ash. In looking about for a fertilizer, 

 the Long Islanders have found by experience that they form the 

 best which they can employ. The question we have propounded 

 demands an answer; we therefore proceed to state, that ashes owe 

 their value to their composition. Our reader will perhaps say 

 that he knew this before. Very well. We say again, and more 

 to the point, that ashes, spent and unspent, owe their principal 

 value to the potash in the first instance, and to the phosphates, and 

 to lime and magnesia, in the second. We design to speak mainly 

 of spent ashes; though we believe farmers had much better keep 

 all their ashes for their corn and wheat lands, rather than sell 

 them for one shilling per bushel. 



Spent ashes, then, we repeat, are valuable for the phosphates 

 they contain, together with the lime and magnesia, which are in 

 a state of great subdivision. Besides the foregoing elements, 



