58 CHEMICAL MANUJRES. 



which explains why in one case manure is 97 cents and $2.82 in the 

 other. 



It is not necessary to add that in the two tables the loss, which 

 varies from $694.32 to $1768.36, represents the value of the manure 

 for the year. Now, the quantity produced being 710 tons, w*e find, 

 consequently, 97 cents as the arbitrary price, and $2.82 the real price. 

 I told you that the price of $4.94, which we got from M. Schatten- 

 mann, was an exception. His farm being new, he was obliged to buy 

 a considerable quantity of straw at a time when it was very dear. 

 This point considered, we may conclude from the preceding facts that 

 the real cost of the manure was between $2.85 and $3.80 the ton. 

 Let us fix it at $2.85. 



We will now speak of the price of chemical fertilizers. 



In 35,555 pounds of manure there are, as we have already said 



Azote 144 Ibs. 



Phosphoric acid 66 " 



Potash 133 " 



Lime 283 " 



To obtain the equivalent of this manure under the form of 

 chemical manures, we must have recourse to the following products : 



Phosphate of lime 533 Ibs. $ 8.44 



Nitrate of potash 284 " 16.57 



Sulphate of ammonia 497 " 21.29 



Sulphate of lime 377 " 1.43 



$47.73 



So $47.73 are the equivalent of 35,555 pounds of manure. 



A quantity of chemical fertilizers costing $1.18 can take the place 

 of a ton of manure costing at least $1.25. 



Thus, to the advantages already shown in their favor, the chemical 

 fertilizers add that of cheapness. And it is well to remark that the 

 quantity which we consider an equivalent to 35,555 pounds of manure 

 contains, besides, 17 pounds of phosphoric acid. 



What an array of proof! The returns from the chemical fer- 

 tilizers are greater than from manure, and though equal in richness 

 they cost less. 



But could not the price ($1.25 the ton) which I have taken for 

 manure be lessened ? I do not know ; and not being prejudiced, I 

 will thankfully collect all corrections of my estimates which may be 

 given me. 



But these are not the limits of the advantages resulting from the 

 use of chemical fertilizers. 



We will, for a while, set aside all questions of accounts and ex- 

 pense, and see to what condition an agriculturist is reduced who can 

 only manure his land with the manure it produces. I will take the 

 property of Bechelbronn for an example. 



This property is composed of 247 acres, of which 135 that is to 

 say, a little more than the half are in meadow. According to the 



