COMPARISON OF MANURES. 203 



dener the trouble of studj-ing out for himself the kind of combina- 

 tion that his crop needs, mixtures are offered to him, ready made 

 up, for each crop. 



Abundant as these commercial supplies are, they do not seem 

 fully to answer the purpose ; for I doubt if the demand for animal 

 manures is any less urgent now than it was before commercial 

 manures became the important articles of trade that tliey now are. 

 Yet, in agricultural operations, superphosphates, bone meal, nitrate 

 of soda, and the like have, in some few cases, been made to take 

 the place, entirely, of stable manure, with profit. 



Perhaps you have heard the histor}' of Mr. Front's farm in 

 England. Mr. Prout bought this farm in 1861 ; it comprised 

 four hundred and fifty acres, and its cultivation in the manner 

 to be described was, therefore, no small plot experiment. It 

 was, when taken in hand, in a low condition of fertility ; the 

 owner asked the aid of the eminent agricultural chemist of 

 England, the late Dr. Voelcker, as to the best wa}^ to bring 

 the farm into good condition again. The advice was to dress 

 it well with stable manure. After doing this with unsatis- 

 factor}- results for two j-ears application was again made to 

 the chemist, who told the owner to use more stable manure ; he 

 said he could not aflford it ; then the chemist visited the farm again, 

 examined it carefull}', and suggested the use of commercial fertil- 

 izers after a certain plan. The plan was followed, and bone dust, 

 superphosphate, dissolved guano, and nitrate of soda were the 

 only manures used from that time on. The crops, — clover, hay, 

 grain, straw, and everything, — were all sold standing; only an 

 insignificant quantity of manure was made, the cultivation being 

 almost entirel}' by steam. This system has now been carried on 

 for more than twenty years. The estate cost the purchaser in the 

 beginning, $74,500 ; enough more was spent upon it in improve- 

 ments to make the total cost about $100,000. The annual clear 

 profits have been, on an average, about $4,500 ; and it was esti- 

 mated that the farm could be sold, eight years after it was taken, 

 for twice what it had cost. Last fall the crops were reported in 

 the " English Agricultural Gazette " as looking well, and the 

 system was spoken of as continuing to succeed, although with the 

 qualification that some fallows had been found necessary. 



This is not the only instance on record of this kind of farming. 

 Other cases have been reported where the system has been followed 

 for forty years, in Germany. I give these few details in regard to 



