.51 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[February, 
Walks and Talks on the Farm— No, 86. 
It is curious what notions even intelligent 
men have in regard to making manure. The 
Deacon thinks corn-stalks are worth a great ileal 
more for manure than straw — simply, I imagine, 
because they do not rot so soon and make a 
r heap of manure in Hie spring. But the 
most popular error— and one that is constantly 
cropping out at all Fanners' Clubs, and in the 
columns of our agricultural papers — is the idea 
that the animal "makes" the manure. There 
is a sense, of course, in which this is true. A 
stove makes ashes, and a still makes whiskey; 
and to the same extent it is true that an animal 
makes manure. But, in fact, it is the wood that 
makes the ashes, and the corn that produces the 
whiskey, and the food that makes the manure. 
The amount and value of the ashes will be reg- 
ulated by the quantity and quality of the wood 
consumed, and this is equally true of the man- 
ure. Its value depends on the food. The ani- 
mal adds nothing to it. 
The editor of one of our agricultural papers 
was here a short time ago, and has given some 
account of my farming. He says : "All the 
manure made on the farm is carefully saved, 
as far as can he done, without expensive appli- 
ances and arrangements for housing. The pig- 
pens, barns, and stables surround a dishing yard 
three or four feet deeper in the centre than on 
the sides. Into this the manure from the pig- 
pens and stables is wheeled, and underdraws 
from the same [to carry off the liquid from the 
animals] empty into it. [There are separate 
underdrains for carrying all the water from the 
buildings and conducting it off without letting 
it come in contact with the manure.] Nothing 
that will make manure is sold from the farm, 
but large quantities »f provender, meal, spout- 
feed, bran, and oil-cake are purchased, and find 
their way after being steamed with one of 
Pi indie's agricultural steamers, through the 
stock and farm reservoir on to the farm. Yet 
stock enough to do much in this way toward ' high 
farming ' is not kept." 
Here is the old idea that it is the stock that 
makes the manure. Now the truth is, that if I 
kept three times as much stock as I now keep, 
I should not make, unless I bought more food, 
one particle more manure than I now make — 
with this exception: If I bought animals in 
good condition and kept them until they got 
thin, the amount of flesh lost might be food in 
the manure ; or if any of the animals died I 
might get an increase of manure from their 
carcass. But this is rather an expensive method 
of getting manure, though I am sorry to say 
not a very uncommon one. In England, where 
the farms are nearly all rented to tenants, the 
landlords sometimes insert a clause in the lease 
prohibiting the taking of two grain crops in 
succession from the same field, and others com- 
pel the farmer to raise acertain number of acres 
every year of turnips and feed them out; others 
will not allow the tenant to break up old pas- 
ture land or permanent meadows. Mr. Lawes, 
who has studied the matter very thoroughly, 
proposes that all such restrictions should be 
done away with; and in order to prevent the 
tenant from impoverishing the farm from over 
cropping, that he should be compelled to pro- 
duce on the farm every year a certain amount 
of Jlesh meat. If he does this he may crop the 
land as he pleases, and sell wdiat he pleases, and 
it will be utterly impossible for him to impover- 
ish the farm. The test of good fanning is not 
the amount of stock you keep, but the amount 
of beef, mutton, wool, pork, poultry, eggs, but- 
ter, and cheese you produce in a year. You 
may make manure without making meat, but 
3'ou cannot make meat without making manure. 
If I feed out everything raised on the farm, 
except wheat, barley, and clover seed, which is 
my rule, and spend more money in buying 
bran, oil-cake, and corn than I get from the 
grain and seed sold, I am at a loss to know how 
keeping more stock, unless I bought more food, 
would enable me to make more manure. It is 
the quantity and quality of the food fed out 
that determines the quantity and value of the 
manure and not the number of animals. I keep 
about 40,000 lbs. of live-stock on the farm; and 
an animal will eat about 3 lbs. of hay per day, 
or its equivalent for each 100 lbs. of live weight. 
According to this my stock eats 219 tons of hay 
per annum, or its equivalent in grass, grain, 
straw, or stalks. Leaving out wood and waste 
land, I have only about 220 acres actually in 
grass or under cultivation, so that I am feeding 
out at the rate of about one ton of hay per acre. 
" How is that for high ?" 
But it is true that I told my friend the editor 
that I was adopting the slow system of farming 
instead of the "high" or fast system. The 
truth is, I am adopting the one in hopes of 
sooner or later being able to adopt the other; 
and I have been flattering myself that I have 
already got nearly half way towards high 
farming. 
There can be no really profitable farming in 
this country, when labor is so high, without 
raising large crops per acre. There can bo no 
exception to this rule. It is as true at the West 
as at the East, at the South as at the North. 
No matter whether land is worth five or five 
hundred dollars per acre, you must grow large 
crops, or the cost of cultivation will eat out all 
the profits. But the system of farming most 
profitable will depend a great deal on the price 
of land. Where land is high you must adopt 
high farming— that is, you must raise large 
crops erery year, or two or three large crops in 
a year. And this can only be done by using 
large quantities of manure. But when land is 
cheap, and where, it may be, the mere carting 
out of the manure would cost double the fee- 
simple of the land, we must raise large crops 
with little or no manure. If we cannot get 
maximum crops every 3 r ear, we must get them 
every other year, or every three years, or every 
four years. Large crops wo must have, or we 
cannot pay high wages, or realize any profit 
from our own labor and capital. And this is 
what I mean by slow farming. In high farming, 
as Liebig once said, before he adopted the so- 
called mineral manure theory, "Ammonia is 
Time" — in slow farming Time is Ammonia. If, 
as on Mr. Lawes' experimental wheat-field, the 
atmosphere, rain, dews, and the decomposition 
of organic matter in the soil will giva us am- 
monia sufficient every year to produce 15 bush- 
els of wheat per acre, we must so contrive to 
husband this ammonia as to grow a crop of 
wheat every three years of 45 bushels per acre. 
I will not say that this can actually be done in 
all cases. But at any rate it is what we should 
aim at. It is the essential idea of slow 
farming. 
Here is a letter, this moment received, since 
the above was written, that refers to a branch 
of this subject. It is from that clear-headed, 
true-hearted, noble-minded veteran of the agri-' 
cultural and horticultural press, J. J. Thomas: 
"Dear Friend, — There are some questions in 
connection with that of obtaining the best 
market for farm grain, that I would like to see 
fully treated in the ' Walks and Talks on the 
Farm.' The simplest and least economical 
mode is, I suppose, to sell the threshed grain at 
its cash price per bushel in market. But the 
more approved mode is to convert it into flesh, 
and sell that. We get our pay in two shapes — 
manure for the land, and cash for the meat. 
This is well understood by many. But which 
of the three animals do the best work for us — 
cattle, sheep, or swine ? 
" We plow in green crops, because it saves 
us the labor of harvesting, drawing, feeding, 
and drawing out and spreading. The question 
is, do we gain or lose most in this way ? We 
gain in labor, but lose in the cash for the flesh, 
which a part of the feed will manufacture. The 
circumstances of prices of labor, distance, and 
cost of drawing, etc., will vary the results; but 
1 would like much to see a fair average of these 
reduced to accurate figures. 
" In using animals to make manure, the hard- 
eating and thin-fleshed breeds will pass through 
more and assimilate less of the rough material, 
and will consequently make the most manure; 
but this manure will be costly, as a part of it is 
what would otherwise be more valuable flesh. 
It is like plowing in the green crop, without 
the advantages of saving, drawing, etc., just, 
mentioned. This brings me to the question I 
wish to ask — Which ot the three animals men- 
tinned, cattle, sheep, or swine, are the most pro- 
fitable manufacturers of flesh, and the best mark- 
eters of grain, taking into consideration that 
some of them must have their food in finer con- 
dition than others? 
"One more question — What is the best breed, 
or mixture of breeds of swine, for ordinary 
farmers in Western New York, taking into con- 
sideration such as are common and accessible ? 
If a small farmer wishes to raise G to 10 ani- 
mals, or thereabouts, how can he best secure a 
yearly supply for pork? Keep both sow and 
boar? 
" Please excuse me for these questions, and 
answer in the Agriculturist such as may be 
convenient only." 
To answer the questions as they deserve to 
bo answered, would require a volume. They 
take hold of the fundamental principles of good 
farming. 
As to whether it is best to sell grain or feed it 
to animals on the farm depends on the price of 
the grain, the price of the meat, butter, cheese, 
or wool, and the value of the manure on that 
particular farm, and on what it would cost to 
buy it, Take pigs, for instance. Seven bushels 
of corn, fed properly to good pigs, will give us 
on the average 100 lbs. increase in live weitrht. 
The manure from this seven bushels of coin 
(420 lbs.) is worth $1.40, or 20 cents per bushel. 
I know fanners who have sold their corn this 
season at 70 cents per bushel. Deducting the 
value of the manure, this would be 50 cents 
net; so that the actual cost of the pork (live 
weight) would be 3'fs cents per lb. We are 
now grumbling, (and I think justly !) because 
ordinary fat pigs are only worth 7 cents per lb. 
live weight. Still, even at this rate, it is clear 
enough that we had better feed our corn to pigs 
than sell it at 70 cents per bushel. 
I am inclined to think that we can feed grain 
to cattle and sheep with more profit than to 
swine at the present price of pork. And yet it 
is true that neither cattle nor sheep will gain as 
fast in proportion to the food consumed as a 
well-bred pig. But cattle and sheep have much 
