THE 



SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



381 



hold to the sheet anchor of the farmer's home- 

 made manures. 



Respectfully submitted, 



AVM. R. BLAND. 



Mr. Presidext, — I beg leave to review a re- 

 view by my friend, Mr. Bhmd, on my essay read 

 before the club at our July meeting. Perhaps 

 it is unnecessary to say, I do this, not in the spi- 

 rit of controversy, for I am persuaded that both 

 of us are anxious to detect error and elicit truth. 

 It should be distinctly borne in mind while com- 

 paring the relative merits of the guano and the 

 domestic manure systems, that both the stable 

 and farm pen manure as genei-ally made, by the 

 .use of straw, shucks, &c., are common to both 

 systems. Not only that, but also the vegetable 

 matter collected in wet spells and at odd times 

 by the hands and teams, for which a full crop 

 has been pitched, is alike common to both sys- 

 tems. The comparison should be instituted be- 

 tween the cost of extra hands and teams hired 

 or set apart for the especial purpose of raising 

 extra domestic manure, and the cost and risk of 

 a floating capital for guano, and betw^een their 

 relative profits. I make this remark because it 

 was not so clearly brought to view in my essay 

 as it should have been, nor does it appear to have 

 had that prominence in Mr. Bland's review which 

 it is entitled to. 



I will first tender to Mr, Bland my thanks for 

 having brought to view a very palpable error in 

 my essay, which escaped my notice. This oc- 

 curs in my estimate of the domestic system, in 

 which I gave credit for $625, for the increased 

 production of wdieat on the several fields as they 

 come into wdieat. By an obvious mistake I put 

 the increased production at two, instead of one 

 bushel per acre, as w^ritten in my original man- 

 uscript, but the amount carried out w^as |625. 

 After considerable thought and consultation I 

 concluded the increased production from the do- 

 niestic manure system, should be double thenett 

 increased production from the use of guano. 

 But supposing it to be four times as great, it has 

 only |18 the advantage in a rotation of five 

 years, as shown by Mr. Bland's statement. 



The next item to be noticed in Mr. Bland's 

 Review, is as follows : " But it is to be remark- 

 ed that in the estimate in the use of home made 

 manure the sum of $1669 50 in labor was used, 

 in the one case, and $3437 50 worth of guano 

 was used in the other, the profits for guano to 

 be equal to the profit for home-made manure ac- 

 cording to the estimate, ought to be at least 

 $1700, to be in proportion to the amount risked, 

 and much greater if in proportion to the risk 

 incurred." 



In reply to this, I need only say the $1669 50 

 is a permanent investment, while the $687 50 

 per annum is only a floating capital used when 

 the guano is purchased, and replaced wdth in- 

 terest, when the crop is sold. Now suppose on 

 both systems the money had to be borrowed. At 

 the end of the five years the domestic system 



would owe $1060 50 and the guano system 

 would owe nothing, as the principal and inter- 

 est are annually paid from the proceeds of the 

 crop to which it has been applied. This shows 

 one of the most prominent excellencies of the 

 guano system ; for the owner of land so exhaust-' 

 ed that it will not pay for cultivation, can, Avith 

 guano, bring it into cultivation with a profit in 

 the operation, and leave it in an improved con- 

 dition. 



The next in order is as follow^s : " But again, 

 taking Mr. Irby's estimate of cost of improve- 

 ment and profits as the basis of Mdiat I think a 

 fair and just comparison of profits, let us see 

 what will be the resttlt. 



250 acres of land improved at a cost of $1669 50 



Or. By 250 barrels of corn at 

 $3 per bbl. $750 00 



By 700 bushels wheat at 

 $1 25 per bushel, 875 00 ' 



By 250 acres of land, in- 

 creased value at $2, 500 00 2125 00 



Profit on home manure system, $455 50 



$1669 50 at $500 lbs guano 



per acre, the guano at $55 



per ton, will manure 121 1- 



acres. 



121^^ acres at ^ bbl. corn per 



acre, 60| bbls. at $3, 182 25 



243 acres at J bus. Avhich per 



acre is 121} bus. at $1 25 151 87 



I2I2- acres land improved val- 

 ue, at 50 cts. per acre, 60 75 



Profit for $1669 50 of guano, 394 87 



Excess of profit of home manure over 



guano, $60 63 



In relation to the above, I have only to say 

 that Mr. Bland, I suppose by niistake, gives a 

 credit in his home manure system for increased 

 production of 7C0 bushels wheat at $125, amount- 

 ing to, $875 00 

 In my estimate it is 500 bus. 



at $1 25 per bushel, 625 00 



Difference, $250 00 



Showing a bal. in favor of guano sys- 

 tem of $189 37 

 After this is a statement of crops of wheat 

 made on Springfield farm in 1852 and '53, with- 

 out guano at an average of 8:1- bushels for one 

 sow^ed. Also of crops made in 1854, 5 and 0, • 

 with the use of guano — at an average of 5| bus. 

 for one sowed, showdng a loss b}^ the use of 

 guano — and showing also that the land produced 

 less with guano than it did without it. This 

 would militate very much against the guano 

 system without an explanation. But when it is 

 remembered that the years 1852 and 3 were re- 

 markably good wheat years, and that the years 

 1855 and 6, owning to unfcivorable seasons, fly 

 and chinchbug, were remarkably bad ones,— it 



