VoL. I. AUGUSTA, Ga., AUGUST 30, 1843. Ko. 18. 
MANURES'G, A SCIENCE. 
If there is one department of agricultural sci- 
ence more neglected by the practical farmer than 
another, it is that of manuring. Chemists have 
made calculation after calculation, experiment 
after experiment, but all to little or no purpose. 
The fanner— I mean the vorking tanner — who 
is one from necessity, has derived little or no 
benefit from the ho.st of eminent individuals who 
have concentrated their whole attention on ag- 
ricultural chemistiy. Why is this! Why is 
it that the great and all-important discoveries oi 
Daiy, are still laughed at by many — but slight- 
ly attended to by all; at least by all those who 
would reap the greatest profit from them? 'Tis 
true that a wonderful progress has been made in 
agriculture within the last few years; and much 
has been done in the improvement of stock, per- 
fection of machinery, &c., but very little in the 
science of manuring. And the circumstance 
appears to be still more unaccountable when we 
call to mind the fact, that there are greater 
means of improvement in this particular branch 
of husbandry, than any other; in no other de- 
partment are the rudiments so well understood 
and so generally circulated, as in this. We 
know the constitution of every agricultural 
plant; we have analyses of every description ol 
soils; we are well versed in the respective com- 
positions of air and water; we have abundant 
means of ascertaining the constitution of all 
manures; indeed, we know and perceive all but 
the peculiar operation of the vital principle, 
and yet we are daily applying matter to soils in 
which a sufficiency already exists. Why is all 
this? Why is it that in some departments agri- 
culture is rapidly advancing — in' others, making 
no perceptible progress? It is unpleasant, and 
by no means the choice of the writer, to give the 
cause of this anomaly; but ‘facts are stubborn 
things,’ and it becomes no one to conceal the 
truth. 
It is well known that the improvements which 
have been made in stock, are owing to the exer- 
tions of experimental farmers, and those who 
farm for example; independent of which it re- 
quires little or no calculation to improve stock; 
there are no scientific rules to be pursued and 
committed to memory; it can be accomplished 
as well by a man of mediocre ability, as by one 
of a high order of intellectual capacity, provided 
he has perseverance. _ It must not be supposed, 
therefore, that no credit is due to those who have 
by their exertions improved the breed of any 
kind of stock. Credit is due to any one who 
confers the smallest benefit upon his fellow- 
creatures; but the purpose is to show why our 
breeds of animals have been so much improv- 
ed, and another department of husbandry almost 
totally neglected. The cause, then, is that much 
in this respect has been done for the agricultu- 
rist, and there being little difficulty in what has 
been accomplished. 
With respect to machinery, in which, per- 
haps, the most extensive as well as the most 
beneficial results have taken place, it need only 
be asked, who take the majority of prizes for 
machineiu', at agricultural prize 'meetings? Not 
farmers, but machinists. This then speaks for 
itself; the improvements, the wonderful improve- 
ments made in machines, have been brought 
about by the machine venders, and not by farm- 
ers. It is readily admitted that it would be of 
no avail for machinists, &c., to construct new 
implements, if the farmer had no di.sposition to 
encourage their laudable exertions; still, it must 
be confessed, that the advance of agriculture in 
this department, is too little owing to agricultu- 
rists themselves. 
The tme signification of the word science is, 
a knowledge of all that exists, and of the laws 
that govern the operations of nature — a know- 
ledge of matter, things and systems. IVhatev- 
er IS done by a system, is done scientifically; 
nature does nothing, except by the interposition 
of nature’s God, without a system. A know- 
ledge of these systems is science generaUw; a 
knowledge of any one system, a. science. The 
numerous terms, the difficult rules, the compli- 
cated calculations, the mysterious anal3'ses, are 
not the science-, the}' are the handles, the guides, 
the agents which render the science comprehen- 
sible by human mind, invented by human be- 
ings for that purpose. They are the channels 
through which the Newton's, the Lockes, the 
Davys, the Liebigs, convey the researches of 
their expansive minds to unborn generations. — 
If science then, is a knowledge of the opera- 
tions of nature, it must be from some unwhole- 
some influence that so many individuals neglect 
to profit by it. The influence in the present in- 
stance, is prejudice — yes, prejudice — however 
disagreeable it may sound to those interested, it 
is too true; for what can it be but prej udice, 
that prompts men to say — “Our forefathers pros- 
pered without science, and wffiy should’nt we?” 
What can it be but prejudice, which induces 
men to believe that the system they adopt, ad- 
mits of no improvement? 
In order to render the question more intelli- 
gible, it may be asked for what purpose do men 
apply manure to soils? Most assuredly to sup- 
ply a something which is requisite to the growth 
of a plant, and which does not exist in the soil. 
Then, as we have the means of ascertaining 
what portiyn of the plant is supplied from the 
atmosphere, what from the rain which falls, and 
what from the soil, is it not evident that the 
slightest exercise of ourreasoningfaculties must 
enable us to judge with some degree of accura- 
cy, what particular bodies or compounds should 
be added tj the soil, in order that it may furnish 
the plant with due proportions of each of its 
component materials? If we once admit the 
possibility of the above statements — and who 
can deny that they are rational — we become ad- 
vocates of science. 
But in order to explain the subject more 
clearly, and that there may be no doubt as to 
the advantage of calling in the help of science 
in the application! of manures — in making ma- 
nuring a science, instead of an art, we will im- 
agine an instance which has frequently occur- 
red: two neighboring farmers enter upon the oc- 
cupation of adjoining farms at the same time, 
and it so happens that they have adjoining fields 
of three-year-old turf; the soil in each field be- 
ing composed, as far as ocular examination can 
detect, of the same materials. Being old friends, 
they make no secret to each other of the system 
of cultivation they intend to pursue; conse- 
quently, being convinced that some application 
is necessary to the turf, and having heard that 
nitrate of soda has had a beneficial effect upon 
such crops in many instances, they each decide 
upon applying this manure at the same rate per 
acre, and as nearly as possible at the same time. 
The result is, that a great increase in the crop 
is produced in one instance — in the other, no 
benefit whatever can be discovered. The con- 
sequence is, that the one individual denounces 
the use of nitrate of soda, the other applies it al- 
most indiscriminately in almost all cases. — 
Meanwhile, this trifling ciicumstance probably 
engenders ill feeling between the old friends, 
and all because they cannot discover “a clue to 
the mystery.” The foregoing is by no means 
an exaggerated picture of an every-day occur- 
rence. This is the consequence of making ma- 
nuring an o.rt. 
AV^e will now suppose the same case treated 
scientifically — the parties being fully aware that 
a plant cannot abstract that from the soil which 
does not pre-exist in it. Their first impulse is 
either to submit a portion of the soil to the ana- 
lytical examination ol the operative chemist, or, 
being chemists themselves, to ascertain of what 
the soil is composed — the one individual finds it 
will be improved by the materials contained in 
the nitrate of soda — the other, not only that this 
manure will be useless, but what composition 
is required; now this is manuring scientifically, 
this is making manuring a science. The ad- 
vantages of the latter system are obvious. 
A little consideration, will, nevertheless, ren- 
der it by no means remarkable that, notwith- 
standing the means of making the application 
of manure a science, have been long placed with- 
in the reach of agriculturists, yet that they have 
been utterly neglected; since it is generally 
known that the application of artifixial fertili- 
zers is comparatively of a recent date; prior to 
which period the evacuations of animals, com- 
bined with decayed vegetable matter, formed 
the staple manure of the countr}'. Now farm 
yard manure, which was the chief application, 
contains every material that a plant requires; 
hence, if applied in sufficient quantities, it can 
never fail. But within a few years soils have 
been brought into cultivation, and those systems 
of farming have been adopted, which have com- 
pelled the agriculturist to introduce artificial 
manures, in order to supply the deficiency of 
nature. And from the circumstance that no ar- 
tificial manures have been found, with one or 
two exceptions, to contain every material ab- 
stracted from the soil by plants generally, it is 
apparent that any one artificial manure is insuf- 
ficient to maintain fertility in the soil. This 
renders it imperativ'e upon the agriculturist to 
call in the assistance of chemistry, in order that 
he may be enabled to compete with other agri- 
cultu ists; for if the soil requires phosphate of 
lime to produce a wheat crop, of what possible 
utility will it be to apply a manure which does 
not directly or indirectly afford that particular 
matter? And who can ascertain by mere ocular 
observation, whether the manure or the soil 
contains phosphate of lime? 
If this problem cannot be soh'ed by looking 
at the soil and the manure, what is the course to 
be pursued? AVe must endeavor to ascertain 
the composition of each, which cannot be done 
without the aid of science. It is very well to 
say, “Science was not necessary when my 
grandfather was a farmer.” It is very well to 
say, “farmers have done well without science, 
and therefore it is unnecessary.” But we must 
remember that our forefathers tilled the richest 
soil, at a time when farming produce realised 
almost double its present value, when receipts 
were lai’ger and disbursements smaller, and 
