AGRICULTURAL DISCUSSION". 



335 



discussion. He referred to Joseph Harris, of the 

 Country Gentleman. 



Mr. lI.«Ris agreed with Mr. Robinson that Peru- 

 vian guano is the cheapest and best concentrated fer- 

 tilizer at present in the market, for wheat, corn, and 

 other cereals. Mr. R. had not attempted to prove 

 that "no farmer could aflord to draw manure oue 

 mile." He had simply endeavored to show that 

 Peruvian guano, salt, <te., were cheaper sources of 

 fertilizing matter than barn-yard manure. The ques- 

 tion to be decided, was the relative value of Peru- 

 vian guano and barn-yard manure. Chemical analy- 

 sis affords much light on the point. Peruvian guano 

 contains all the elements of barn-yard manure. The 

 difference between them is mainly in the relative pro- 

 portion of these elements. Barn-yard manure con- 

 tains an immense amount of carbonaceous matter, 

 silica, &c., while Peruvian guano contains very little. 

 But these substances are of little manurial value. 

 The most valuable ingredient in Peruvian guano is 

 ammonia; and we may take the quantity of this sub- 

 stance as indicating the relative value of the two 

 manures. Certainly this method would not under- 

 rate the ultimate value of barn-yard manure. Good 

 Peruvian guano contains twenty-five times as much 

 ammonia or nitrogen as good barn-yard manure. 

 According to this method of estimating their relative 

 manurial value, one ton of Peruvian guano is equal 

 to twenty-five tons of barn-yard manure. If Peru- 

 vian guano sells for $50 per ton, barn-yard manure 

 is worth $2 per ton. He would leave farmers to 

 decide whether they could afford to draw it one mile 

 for this, or not 



Mr. H. was greatly in favor of Peruvian guano, 

 yet its value might be over-estimated. In England 

 3 cwt. of good Peruvian guano gives an increase in 

 the wheat crop of 10 bushels per acre. At present 

 prices this would cost $10; and it follows that if 

 wheat sells for $1 per bushel, little is gained by its 

 use; but if wheat sells for $2, the application of 

 guano will be quite profitable. Those who are con- 

 tinually holding up to our imitation the high farming 

 of England, appear to forget that English farmers 

 obtain a higher price for their produce. He believed, 

 that for the production of wheat, this climate is supe- 

 rior to that of England, and that if he could obtain 

 English prices, — if he could obtain S3 per bushel for 

 wheat, — he could annually raise 50 bushels per acre. 



Gen. Hj«rmon, of Wheatland, thought this could 

 not be done, and offered to pay the gertleman $3 

 per bushel for all the wheat he could raise in crops 

 of 50 bushels per acre. 



Mr. Harris believed that this climate would ena- 

 ble him to raise such crops if a sufliciency of mineral 

 and ammoniacal manures were supplied; but had he 

 anticipated Gen. Harmo.n's proposition, he would 

 have said 40 bushels, in order to be within safe 

 bounds. Last year, Mr. Lawes, of Rothamsted, 

 England, produced 55 bushels of wheat per acre on 

 land that had grown 12 crops of wheat in 12 succes- 

 sive years. This result was due in a great measure 

 to the dryness of the season. Had the same amount 

 of fertilizing matter been supplied in a wet year, the 

 crop would have been all straw. A dry, hot season, 

 is what good English wheat growers desire. The 

 nearer their summer approximates to ours in rain 

 and temperature, the better their wheat crops. 



Mr. ViCK, of the Genesee Farmer, said that it is 

 known that in England 336 ibs. of guano give an 

 increase of 10 bushels of wheat; but it is stated here 

 by Mr. Robinson, that he has seen 200 lbs. of guano 

 give an increase of 13 bushels of wheat in this coun- 

 try; and Mr. Wetherell states a case where 300 

 lbs. gave 30 bushels. Now, Mr. President, to what 

 must we attribute this great difference? Is it, sir, 

 because ours is a great tountry, or because we are 

 fond of great stories. 



Mr. Harris said he believed, aa a general rule, no 

 such results would be obtained. 



An animated discussion followed, on the value of 

 salt as manure. 



Judge Cheever said he applied a quart of salt to 

 each of his plum trees, and it killed every one of them. 



L. Wetherell thought salt was good for plum 

 trees, and he had been informed that it would cure 

 the black knot. 



This was emphatically denied by many gentlemen 

 present Salt had been repeatedly used for the black 

 knot, and proved of no use. 



Mr. VicK was opposed to such loose and wild 

 statements as were made here this evening. We are 

 too apt to jump at conclusions, and to believe rash 

 statements without sufficient evidence. One experi- 

 ment can not conclusively establish a theory in agri- 

 culture. He said he knew an old English farmer in 

 the neighborhood of Rochester, who was determined 

 to prove that salt was a good manure. He had a 

 theory to prove, (and I fear that in this respect he is 

 not alone,) and he had been zealously endeavoring to 

 prove it for the last seven or eight years. A few 

 months since I asked him if he had yet proved salt 

 to be a good manure. He said he had. The salt 

 killed the grubs and worms of all kinds, and their 

 decaying carcasses manured the land! 



