10 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[January, 
A Nursing Pen for Sheep. 
M r. W. W. Wheeler, Arlington Hightfl, 
Cook Co., Ill., sends us a sketch of a pen for 
confining a sheep that will not own her lamb. 
The sheep is secured by two smooth stakes 
driven into the ground and brought suffi¬ 
ciently near together, and then fastened by a 
wedge in a cross-piece, as shown in the accom- 
A PEN FOR A NURSING SHEEP. 
panying engraving. The framework which 
surrounds the sheep is of light material, and 
of the form shown above. The sheep can be 
prevented from lying down by putting a 
stick upon the top of the lower bar. 
notation of Crops and Manures. 
BV DR. M. MILES, DIRECTOR OF EXPERIMENTS, “ ROUGH- 
TON FARM,” ORANGE CO., N. T. 
In summing up the advantages of a sys¬ 
tematic rotation of crops, the supply of 
manure that can be obtained in the residual 
produce of the feed provided for animals in 
the course of cropping, and the ultimate 
profits that may be derived from the manure 
when applied to the soil, must not escape at¬ 
tention, as they are matters of great practical 
importance. From the wide variations ob¬ 
served in the action of farmyard manures on 
different soils, we cannot decide upon any 
standard that will enable us to determine 
their absolute value, in promoting the growth 
of crops ir any given case. For example, a 
dressing c si manure on a heavy soil would 
not produce precisely the same results that 
would be obtained by the same manure on a 
light soil, and the different effects observed 
in the two cases would be still further com¬ 
plicated by variations arising from peculiari¬ 
ties of seasons. The direct method of experi¬ 
mentation for determining the absolute value 
of manures, which would at first sight be 
suggested, cannot, therefore, from the com¬ 
plex conditions involved, he applied with any 
prospect of success. 
Fortunately, however, the results of care¬ 
fully conducted feeding experiments, and 
particularly those made by Messrs. Lawes & 
Gilbert, at Rothamsted, enable us to calculate 
the quantity of each of the most valuable 
constituents of the manure obtained from a 
known amount of feed consumed by animals 
on the farm, and as the market value of 
these substances can be readily ascertained, 
the relative value of farmyard manures can be 
determined with sufficient accuracy for all 
practical purposes. This method of ascer¬ 
taining the relative value of manures, is not, 
as many suppose, a purely theoretical pro¬ 
cess, but is based on the results of accurate 
and conclusive experiments. 
Plants are composed of some fourteen 
different elements, that enter into their com¬ 
position in various proportions, but as only 
three of them, viz., Potash, Phosphorus, and 
Nitrogen—are likely to be deficient in the 
supply of food furnished to plants in any 
ordinary soil, we need not concern ourselves 
with any other chemical elements in estimat¬ 
ing the composition and relative value of 
farmyard manures. It may then be said that 
the value of manures depends, in the main, 
on the amount of Potash, Phosphoric Acid, 
and Nitrogen, they contain, in an available 
form for plant growth. 
From the experiments referred to it has 
•been ascertained that, on the average, less 
than ten per cent of the Nitrogen of con¬ 
centrated foods like the grains, and rather 
more in the coarser products like straw, are 
retained by the animal in the peculiar work 
of its organization, and that the remaining 
nine-tenths appears in the manure. Of the 
Potash and Phosphoric Acid of the food, but 
a very small proportion is retained by the 
animal, and practically it may be said that it 
nearly all appears in the manure. Growing 
animals, or cows giving milk will of course 
retain a slightly larger proportion of these 
valuable constituents of the manure than 
store stock, but in estimating the relative 
value of manures, these slight variations 
may be safely neglected. 
The following Table (1), showing the value 
of the manure produced by feeding one ton of 
the articles named, is based on their average 
composition as shown by analysis, after mak¬ 
ing liberal deductions for the amount of 
Potash, Phosphoric Acid, and Nitrogen re¬ 
tained by the average animals of the farm : 
TABLE 
Value of ma- 
Kincl of Feed. nure from 1 
ton of Feed. 
Indian Corn(35J bu.)..$6.96 
Corn Stalks. 3.31 
Oats (62} bu.). 6.93 
Oat Straw,... . 2.at 
Wheat Straw. 1.69 
Clover Hay.8.84 
Timothy Hay. 5.94 
Kind of Feed. 
Peas 6311 bu.).. 
Pea Straw. 
Beans (31} bu.). 
Bean Straw. 
Turnips (34 bu.) 
Turnip Tops... 
Value of ma¬ 
nure from 1 
ton of Feed. 
.13.00 
. 4.56 
.15.05 
. 7.61 
.95 
. 1.20 
About twenty years ago Dr. J. B. Lawes 
made a similar table of manure-values of cat¬ 
tle foods, which he republished with slight 
changes and additions in 1875. The values 
in the present table are generally lower than 
those given by Dr. Lawes in his revised table ; 
but his values are for “ long ” tons, which are 
not used here, and I have perhaps allowed a 
slightly wider margin for nutritive materials 
retained by average farm stock, besides using 
a lower scale of prices. The claim of absolute 
accuracy is not made for tho table, but it rep¬ 
resents a close approximation to the average 
of results that may be accepted as sufficiently 
accurate for estimating relative values. 
In using these data in relation to our 
present subject, it will be more convenient to 
compare the value of the manures produced 
per acre in different rotations. For this pur¬ 
pose Table 2 has been prepared, in which the 
value of the manure per acre in the crop it¬ 
self has been calculated on an assumed yield 
of each crop, as stated in the first column: 
TABLE 2-SHOWING VALUE OF MANURE PER 
ACRE. Total Estimated 
Value of Manure 
Crop—Assumed Yield and ManureValue. 
Corn, 50 bu., value of manure.. 
for Crop of 1 Acre. 
.89.37 
” Stalks, 2} tons, “ “ 
Oats, 45 bu., “ “ 
. 7.45 
. 5.02 
— $16.82 
Straw, 1} tons, “ “ 
. 2.80 
— 7.82 
Wheat Straw. 1} tons. 
2.11 
Clover Hav, 2} tons. 
... 19.89 
Timothy Hay, 1} tons. 
Peas, 25 bu., value of manure_ 
$10.40 
8.91 
“ Straw, 1 ton, 
Beans, 25 bu., “ “ .... 
4.56 
12.04 
- 14.96 
“ Straw, 1 ton, “ “ . 
Turnips, 600 bu., “ “ 
7 61 
17.10 
— 19.65 
“ Tops, 4 tons, “ “ 
4.80 
— 21.30 
The table will show that the value of the 
manure made upon the farm will be largely 
influenced by the crops grown for cattle food. 
In a former article we called attention to 
the influence of crops like peas, beans, and 
clover, upon the grain crops that imme¬ 
diately followed them. Wo found these 
leguminous crops, although freely using 
Nitrogen for their own growth, still left the 
soil in good condition for growing large crops 
of grain. But this is not the only advantage 
to be derived from these leguminous crops 
when raised and consumed on the farm, for 
we see from the above tables that their 
manure-value, when estimated either by the 
ton or per acre, is much above that of several 
other staple crops. Our Indian Com, the 
king of cereals, stands high in the list in the 
production of manure per acre, and it is 
therefore, from this standpoint, of great value 
in keeping up the fertility of the farm. Its 
direct influence upon the soil, in its growth 
and development, has not as vet been deter¬ 
mined. As a hoed or ‘ ‘ cultivated ” crop, it 
furnishes the opportunity for the profitable 
pulverization of the soil, and to that extent, 
at least, it is beneficial to the succeeding grain 
crops, but whether, like the leguminous crops, 
it improves the condition of the soil by mak¬ 
ing its constituents directly available for the 
growth of other cereals can only be answer¬ 
ed by further investigations. 
From the data furnished in Table 2, the 
value of the manure produced by different 
rotations can readily be compared, and the 
influence of any changes in a rotation upon 
the manure supply can he easily estimated. 
For example, let us see what the effect of re¬ 
placing clover with Timothy, in a common 
five-crop American rotation, would have 
upon the supply of manure. The manure- 
values of the crops, as shown by the table, 
would, for each acre, be as follows : 
-Com. 
....816.82 
Corn. 
....$16.82 
Wheat. 
.... 2.11 
Wheat. 
. 2.11 
Oats . 
... 7.82 
Oats. 
. 7.82 
Timothy .... 
. 8.91 
Clover. 
. 19.89 
-Timothy_ 
... 8.91 
Clover. 
.... 19 89 
Total. 
....$44.57 
Total_ .. 
— $66.53 
Average.... 
. ...$8.91 
Average.... 
....$13.31 
In these rotations we have assumed that 
the wheat only was sold, and that all other 
crop* were consumed on the farm. Allowing 
the same yield of crops in the two rotations, 
we find that the clover brings up the manure 
value of the rotation to an average of $13.31, 
while the rotation with the Timothy gives an 
average of but $8.91 per acre, a difference of 
$4.40 for each acre in the rotation in favor of 
the clover, or $440.00 on a 100-acre farm. 
The difference would, however, be greater 
than this, as the rotation with clover should 
give a greater yield of crops than the rota¬ 
tion with Timothy, for two reasons; 1st, 
from the influence of the clover upon the 
soil in its growth ; and 2d, the larger supply 
of manure should give greater productiveness. 
In using our table for comparing different 
rotations with reference to the value of 
manure produced, the one giving the lowest 
value would therefore have the advantage. 
It will be readily seen from what has al¬ 
ready been presented, that a variety of crops 
grown in succession will tend to economize 
the elements of fertility in the soil, so that 
the greatest aggregate return for natural pro¬ 
ductiveness, or for manures applied would 
be obtained; while the continuous growth of 
a single crop would result in the waste of 
some of the valuable constituents of the soil 
