FERTILIZERS. 11 



Why should we farmers insist upon it, that bulk is 

 necessary in manure ? We do not so insist when we use 

 ashes, lime, or plaster; but then, we look upon them- 

 at least, the two latter as agricultural miracles, though 

 there is nothing miraculous about them. If bulk is so 

 desirable in feeding crops, then why not, in feeding our- 

 selves corn, eat stalk, cob, and husk ? or, with the kernel 

 of wheat, eat the straw and husk which grew with it? 

 Just as the store of the apothecary, in the neat jars and 

 phials on his long, narrow shelves, supplies us all that is 

 really valuable in a mass of medicinal herbs that in their 

 natural state would fill his shop solid full many times 

 over, so in commercial fertilizers we find concentrated all 

 that is valuable as plant-food in a mass of barn manure a 

 hundred times as bulky. 



The objection sometimes urged against the use of fer- 

 ^iizers, that they do not leave so much food in the ground 

 lor the crop that follows, is, I consider, an argument for 

 them The plant-food in them is in so digestible a condi- 

 tion, that the crop we plant can get about all of it : whereas, 

 in using barn manure, the food is not all in such condition ; 

 and to get the same result the first season, we must put 

 on more manure than the crop would need, provided the 

 ingredients became plant-food the same season. Fertilizers 

 in some form can be made to last, like barn manure, and 

 feed several successive crops with a single application, if it 

 is desired. For instance, in ashes and bone we have all 

 the three elements for a complete manure. Now apply an 

 extra quantity of the ashes, and apply a portion of the 

 bone in a coarse state. Ashes are always enduring in 

 their effect ; and the coarse bone will be years in decaying, 

 and setting free nitrogen and phosphoric acid. 



