The Conservation of Farm-yard Manure. 
833 
close stalls ; though he admits some practical difficulty arising 
from the horns when cattle are too closely packed in a loose box. 
The danger of accidents from this source he believes, however, to be 
overrated, and he points out that a light operation on young stock 
will prevent the horns from sprouting ( empeche les comes de pousser). 
The loss of organic substance undergone by dung after a long accu- 
mulation in such boxes does not exceed 12 or 15 per cent. — a very 
much smaller loss than is found in dung-heaps. “ On the whole the 
system of deep boxes seems, then, the most advantageous ; but for 
various reasons it is not applicable on all holdings, and more fre- 
quently the farmer is obliged to mix together the dung of the stall 
and the stable in the farm-yard, and to leave it to rest there for a 
longer or shorter period. Under these conditions it undergoes very 
notable losses.” These losses may be obviated by direct cartage on 
to the land ; but even if this were always practicable, it involves, 
argues M. Grandeau, the loss of the advantages of ready availability, 
tfcc., to be derived from fermentation in the heap. In fact, the 
problem is, how to gain the advantages of fermentation in the heap, 
and at the same time to minimise the losses incidental thereto. 
To effect this, when we have to deal with yard manure, made into 
the ordinary dung-heap, we must use preservative agents ( agents de 
conservation). “ These preservative agents for dung may act,” says 
M. Grandeau, “ in two essentially different ways. First, they may 
allow the dung to undergo normal fermentation (which results in 
rendering the half-rotten manure more valuable than the fresh dung), 
but at the same time may prevent the loss of the products of decom- 
position by fixing them in the heap. Secondly, they may hinder 
this fermentation, and retain the dung in its fresh condition. 
“ Preservative agents, properly so called, belong to the latter class; 
those, on the other hand, which belong to the former class ought 
rather to be called ‘ absorbing ’ agents. . . . These (absorbing 
agents) ought to be much preferred by farmers to real ‘ preservative ’ 
agents. 
“ This observation eliminates at once all antiseptic methods of 
treatment, which do not result in any improvement of the manure.’ 
Then follows in detail the examination of the action of various 
absorbing agents as investigated in the excellent researches 
of Holdefleiss, Director of the Agricultural Institute at Proskau, 
which are well worth the attention of every practical farmer, and 
for the popularisation of which in France the paper under review 
has been mainly written. 
The first method investigated is the somewhat time-honoured one 
of preservation by means of earth. 
“ Six tons of dung, produced during one week by oxen, were 
removed from the feeding boxes and heaped, in the ordinary way, 
on a water-tight floor in a mass (roughly) 3 yards long and if yards 
wide. . . . The heap was covered with earth (some two or three 
tons) on June 12. On January 6 following, i.e., after twenty-nine 
weeks, the earth was removed, the mass was weighed and a com- 
plete analysis made of the half -rotten dung.” 
VOL. IV. T. S. — 16 3 I 
