380 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



Mr. President — Having no satisfactory ex 

 periment in progress for the current year, and 

 believing the subject of manuring, under discus- 

 sion at our July meeting, one of great and 

 commanding importance, and the results ar 

 rived at in the essay submitted by my friend 

 Mr. William Irby, (which seemed to be gene 

 rally considered as conclusive) to be erroneous 

 and likely to mislead in an important matter, I 

 have concluded, in discharge of the duty impos- 

 ed on me by our constitution, to bring that sub 

 ject to your attention again. The subject of 

 discussion was, in substance, the comparative 

 benefits to be derived from the use of home-made 

 manure and guano, or can any other mode of 

 manuring be adopted with profit, in the place of 

 guano. For the purpose of this inquiry I will 

 first take the estimates of Mr. Irby, and then 

 the actual results of my own operations for the 

 last four years. 



Mr. Irby estimates the cost of improv- 

 ing 25 acres of land with home- 

 made manure, cost of labor, inter- 

 est, &c., at 



Or by improved value of 250 

 acres land at $2 per acre. 



By increased product of 

 corn on 250 acres, 1 bbl. 

 per acre, §3, 



By increased product of 

 wheat on 500 acres 2 bu. 

 per acre, 1,000 bushels, 

 at $1 25, 



$1,6G9 50 



$500 00 



750 00 



1,250 00 



2,500 00 



An excess or profit of $830 50 



for liome-made manure over expenditures esti- 

 mated at $205 50, as appears by Mr. Irby's ac- 

 count. This difi'crence arises from what I con- 

 ceive to be an error in Mr. Irby's account of 

 credits to home-made manures ; he makes the 

 credit just one-half of what, according to my 

 understanding of his estimates, it ought to be, 

 he estimates the profits resulting from the use 

 of $3,427 50 worth of guano to be $812 50, and 

 states that the profit from guano exceeds the 

 profits of home-made manures $G0G, whereas 

 the excess ought to have been the other way by 

 the sum of $18. 



But, it is to be remarked, that in the estimate, 

 in the use of home-made manures, the sum of 

 $1,669 50 in labor was used in one case, and 

 $3,427 50 worth of guano was used in the other, 

 the profit for guano to be equal to the profit for 

 home-made manure, according to the estimate, 

 ought to be at least $1,700, to be in proportion 

 to the amount risked, and much greater if in 

 proportion to the risk incurred. 



But again taking Mr. Irby's estimate of cost 

 of improvement and profits as the basis of what 

 I think a fair and just comparison of profits, 

 let us see what will be the result : 

 250 acres land improved at a cost of $1,669 50 

 Or by 250 barrels of corn at 



$3 per barrel, $750 00 



By 700 bushels of wheat at 



$1 25 per bushel, 875 00 



By 250 acres land increas- 

 ed value $2 per acre, 500 00 



2,125 00 



Profit on home-made manure, $455 50 



$1,669 50 at 500 pounds guano per acre, the 

 guano at $55 per ton, will manure 121?r acres. 

 12H' acres at ^ barrel corn per acre, 



60| barrels at $3, $182 25 



243 acres at I- bushel wheat per acre, 



is 12U bushels at $1 25, 151 87 



121 2 acres improved value at 50 cents 



per acre, 60 75 



Profit for $1,669 50 of guano. 

 Profit from $1,669 50 of home ma- 

 nure, 



$394 87 

 455 50 



$60 



Excess of profit of home-made ma- 

 nure over guano, 

 I made at my Springfield farm in 1852, 1,083 

 bushels of wdieat from 143 sowed, a gain of 7J 

 for one, and in 1853, 1,051^ from 120 sowed, a 

 gain of nearly 9 for one ; both these crops were 

 without guano. In 1854, with 3^ tons guano I 

 made 909 bushels from 159 sowed, a gain of not 

 quite 6 for one ; in 1855, using 6 tons of guano, 

 I made 1.122 bushels from 159 sowed, a gain of 

 7 for one, in 1856 using 68 tons guano, not more 

 than 800 bushels from 200 sowed — an estimated 

 gain of 4 for one, or an average gain, for the 

 three years, of about 6 for one. 



Supposing that the guano is entitled to credit 

 for half the product, the account will stand 

 thus : 



Cost of improving 121^- acres with 



$1,669 50 



guano. 



Or by increased product of 

 corn on 121^ acres of 

 land, say 1 bbl. per acre 

 at $3, $364 50 



By increased product of 

 wheat on 243 acres 3 bu. 

 at $1 25, 911 25 



By increase in value of 

 land, 50 cts. peV acre, 60 75 



1,336 50 



Loss from gua,no, $333 00 



Now if you carry the comparison through an- 

 other term of 5 years, the difi'erence w'ill be 

 much greater in favor of home-made manures. 

 For land improved $2 per acre in productive 

 power is in good condition for a rotation; where- 

 as on land improved only to the amount of 50 

 cents per acre, the difference would not be seen 

 in either the land or the crop. 



After all, I am not disposed to say we ought 

 not to use guano, but under all the circumstan- 

 ces, the risk of loss from bad seasons, the risk 

 of adulteration, and the high costs of the arti- 

 cle, we ought to be cautious in its use and still 



