492 
ANALYSIS OF MANURES. 
the hole a foot or two feet in width, or more, 
if necessary, throwing it inward till you have 
raised the stuff in the hole pz-etty nearly a 
foot higher than it was originally, to allow 
for settling, and then the rough bad stuff will 
be round the tree, but completely under the 
head, where very little would grow even if 
the soil were good. This prevents the rest 
of the soil from being disturbed, and for all 
the good the ground immediately under a 
tree does, there is nothing lost. In after 
growths of the trees the same caution should 
be observed in preventing branches from 
crossing each other, or from growing too 
vigorously and out of form. Few people take 
this pains with standard fruit trees, but it is 
as desirable and as necessary as the training 
and pruning of wall fruit trees ; and they pay 
quite as well for the care it takes to look after 
them properly. 
Trees will begin to bear sometimes in 
three years, but much depends on their state 
when they were planted. The stakes which 
are placed to prevent them from shifting 
when planted may be removed after the first 
season's growth, as the ties would be apt to 
injure the bark if kept on too long. The 
ground between the trees is best laid down in 
grass ; it is any way best for an orchard, but 
of course, if it be wanted for cropping, two 
things are to be minded, one is that the 
ground is not disturbed round each tree, so 
far as the good ground and the bad ground 
beyond it reaches, for the soil would bring 
nothing perfect nor worth notice. 
ANALYSIS OP VARIOUS MANURES. 
Notwithstanding all that has been written 
and said of the various manures which are 
used in the dressing of land, and their effects 
upon crops, scarcely two chemists give the 
same analysis of any compound body, and this 
chiefly because they give the result in diffe- 
rent states, some intelligible, some not, but all 
various. We can hardly illustrate this better 
than by quoting Dr. Ure's analysis of Guano, 
and Voelckel's. The former is as follows : — 
dr. ure's. 
Azotized organic matter, including urate 
of ammonia, and capable of affording 
from 8 to 17 (a pretty large difference) 
per cent, of ammonia by slow decom- 
position in the soil 50 
Water 11 
Phosphate of lime 25 
Ammonia, phosphate of magnesia, phos- 
phate of ammonia and oxalate of am- 
monia, containing from 4 to 9 (another 
trifling difference) per cent, of ammonia 1 3 
Siliceous matter from the crops of birds 1 
100 
voelckel's. 
Urate of ammonia 9-0 
Oxalate of ammonia 10-6 
Oxalate of lime 7*0 
Phosphate of ammonia 6 - 
Phosphate of magnesia and ammonia . 2*6 
Sulphate of potash 5-5 
Sulphate of soda 3 8 
Muriate of ammonia 4-2 
Phosphate of lime 14*3 
Clay and sand 4-7 
Animal substances, with a small quantity 
of salts of iron and water .... 32*3 
100 
We are not now going to allude to the dis- 
crepancy of the quantities, because that does 
not affect the question, but to the discrepancies 
of the terms and the nature of the results. 
Why are not the same tests applied and the 
same items mentioned ? How can any farmer 
or person in any other class not versed in 
chemical affinities and the nature of them, 
imagine that these two results are of the same 
article ? It is as if scientific men were deter- 
mined that common people should never 
understand them. One of these chemists pro- 
duces no less than eleven different items or 
materials ; the other sums up the qualities 
of guano in five. Can this be right ? that is 
to say, can it be right for the guidance of in- 
experience ? One more illustration of this 
and we have done : take the subject of cow 
dung. Three analyses of this animal manure 
by three different chemists are thus given : — 
The author of the Muck Manual says, 
the proportions of organic matter, water, and 
salts, in lOOlbs. of cow dung, are — 
Water 83-600 
Organic matter — 
Hay 14-600 
Bile and resinous biliary matter 1 -275 
Albumen "175 
Silica -140 
Sulphate of potash '050 
Geate of potash -070 
Muriate of soda -080 
Phosphate of lime ..... '230 
Sulphate of lime -120 
Carbonate of lime "120 
*99860 
14 
100-00 
* This is wrong in the addition, because the sum 
should be 100-46, consequently there is 46 over instead 
of a loss of 14. However, this is not material, except 
that it shows carelessness somewhere, but does not 
affect our object, which is to show that hardly two 
chemists agree in their terms, to say nothing of pro- 
portions. 
