AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
How Much Manure to each Animal. 
There is a limit, doubtless, to the quantity of 
muck and litter that may profitably be mixed with 
the droppings of animals. The quantity of fceces 
voided also, is affected very much by the feed of 
the animals, and by other circumstances. In the 
open air, in JVinter, much of the food passes off 
through the lungs and skin,, to keep up the heat 
of the system, that would pass through the 
bowels in a warm stable. The fceces, as they are 
thrown into a heap in the ordinary method of 
cleaning the stables, pass into fermentation rapid¬ 
ly and a portion passes off in the form of gas, 
and is lost. Without absorbents, very often one 
half, or more, of the value of stable manure is 
lost to the farmer without attracting his attention. 
Many cannot be made to believe it, because they 
do not see the thief loading the manure into the 
cart with a dung fork. But they can easily satisfy 
themselves of the theft, if they wiil compare the 
effects of stable manure, that is exposed for a 
Winter, with a like quantity that is treated with 
absorbents, and kept under cover. 
The general error is to undervalue the need of 
absorbents, and to furnish the yards and stables 
with but a small part of the muck that might be 
profitably used. If there be an instance of error 
in the other direction, we have not yet found it, 
in a very large observance of the practice of our 
best farmers. We have visited numerous farms 
the past season, for the purpose of looking into 
this matter, where the quantity of manure manu¬ 
factured upon the premises varied from two hun¬ 
dred loads to two thousand, and have not found a 
single case where muck was used in excess. In¬ 
deed, this is hardly possible, while the muck it¬ 
self consists of the elements of the crops the 
farmer wishes to raise. The manures hasten the 
decomposition of the muck, and the whole mass 
becomes available for the food of plants. 
The success of a farmer, in all the older States, 
can be measured by the extent to which he uses 
muck, or other absorbents, in his yards and 
stables. We found some poor farmers making 
not more than three cords of manure, or six loads 
for each cow, ox, or horse, and not more than one 
cord for each pig. Others, who thought them¬ 
selves pretty good farmers, made five cords to 
each cow, and one or two for each pig. In a 
single instance, we found as high as ten or twelve 
cords for a cow, and four or five for each pig. In 
this case, the pigs, were, of course, kept in the 
styes continually, and nothing was wasted in the 
highways and pastures, as is quite too common. 
The horses and oxen were also stabled the most 
of the time, and the cows put in the stable during 
the Summer nights, and fed with green corn fod¬ 
der, as soon as it was large enongh. 
Our own rule in making manure is, fifteen cords 
for each cow, ox, or horse, and five for each pig. 
The routine of management for the stables is 
this : A large shed is attached to them, which is 
kept well supplied with dry muck. A stock is 
kept on hand for several months ahead, as the 
drier it is the better. A coating of this muck is 
kept constantly in the stables, six or eight inches 
in thickness. This is lain upon by the cattle, and 
receives all their droppings. The solid fceces are 
removed every morning into the barn cellar, be¬ 
neath the stables. The coating of muck remains 
about two weeks, when it is a good deal rotted by 
the heat of the animals, and thoroughly saturated 
with liquid manure. It is then all thrown into 
the cellar, and another coating is put under the 
animals, to go through the same process. The 
mock is covered with a bedding of straw, or re¬ 
fuse hay, every night. In this way the animals 
ate kept dry and comfortable, and' the heat of 
their bodies is available, whenever thev lie down, 
for decomposing the muck. 
Notwithstanding the large quantities of muck 
used in this way, it is still found that the manure 
heats in the cellar beneath, though there is little 
smell of ammonia. In the Fall the manure in the 
cellar is removed to the field, and heaped up with 
about twice its bulk of muck. These heaps are 
forked over once or twice during the Winter, and 
at planting time they are spread uporHhe ground, 
and plowed in. The manure made during the 
Winter is either put immediately into the soil in 
the Spring, for early crops, or put in heaps and 
treated, like the Fall, manure, to be spread and 
turned in, the last of May, for corn. 
Of course, this routine of stable management 
involves a good deal of labor, but we are satisfied 
that it pays better than labor laid out in any 
other form upon the farm. The results of forty- 
cords of this compost upon an acre of corn 
ground, is as good a certificate of its value as it 
needs. Of all methods that we have tried, this 
suits us best, and we expect to abandon it, only 
when we give up tilling the soil. A farmer, who 
has muck accessible, may better make fifteen 
cords of manure for each of his large animals, 
than any less quantity. He is perfectly safe in 
hiring all the labor he needs to draw the muck, 
and to handle it in the stable, the cellar, and the 
field. We are confident, that no farmer, who 
once sees the results of this method in his crops, 
will ever he satisfied with a less quantity of ma¬ 
nure from his stock. 
--«-—on—-- 
Reapers and Mowers, &c.II 
FIEl.D TRIAL OF IMPLEMENTS BY THE UNITED 
STATES AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, JULY, 1857. 
To the Editor of the American Agriculturist: 
In my first article I commented on the injustice 
of permitting Ball, Aultman & Co., and Miller 
& Aultman’s Mowing machines to “ go on,” which 
did not work, or broke down in the clover field, 
the first and most important day’s trial of any at 
Syracuse. By all that was fair and just I con¬ 
tended that they should then have been “ ruled 
out,” they having thrown away or lost their 
chance for further exhibition. I also commented 
on the absurdity of any “ Points” that should 
give a machine a “ first prize,” which, owing to 
its greater heaviness of draft, compelled its team 
to draw two millions three hundred and four 
thousand pounds*t2,304,000 lbs.) more per day of 
ten hours work, Ilian another machine competing 
with it, viz. Hussey’s. 
As a secojid illustration of the above subject, 
and the unfairness of giving the first prize, to Ball, 
Aultman & Co’s machine, let me again quote 
from the Report under review. 
“Another question, connected with the amount 
of draft, seems to call for remark in this con¬ 
nection. We allude to the weights of machines. 
This difference on level ground is trifling, but 
when ascending hills it becomes of great im¬ 
portance ; and as most farms are more or less 
hilly, it becomes a matter of seiious conse¬ 
quence to the farmer to select the lightest ma¬ 
chine—other things being equal. The ascent 
in the Haydon meadow was estimated at 80 feet 
from the plank road to the eastern end of the 
lot. Its length was 60 rods, and the horses 
averaged four minutes in walking the distance. 
It follows, therefore, that the power expended 
in overcoming simply the gravity of each ma¬ 
chine, is expressed by the weight of the ma¬ 
chine raised, perpendicularly, 80 feet high in 
four minutes.” 
“ Table E shows the weight of Ball, Aultman 
& Co’s machine to be 995 lbs., and Walter 
Wood’s to be 719 lbs, making the difference 
of power from this single source, equal to that 
required to raise 276 ins., 80 feet high in f< ur 
Gu 
minutes, which is rather more than one-sixth 
of one horse power. The difference is still 
more striking in Allen’s Machine, wheie the 
difference is 313 lbs. 80 feet high in tour 
minutes, or about one-fifth of one horse power.” 
See pages 35 and 36. 
Before commenting on this extract, I would re¬ 
spectfully ask, why take Wood’s and Allen’s ma¬ 
chines for a comparison, instead cf Hallenback’s 
and Osborn’s, as these stand lowest in 
Weight in table El There, the latter is set down 
as weighing 658 lbs., making a difference between 
it and its competitor, Ball, Aultman & Co., of 
337 lbs. Thus Osborn’s machine has an advantage 
in weight or draft, over Ball & Co’s., of 5.355 lbs. 
per hour. Admitting that the machine travel 
half the day up hill, and half the day dow* 
hill, there would be five hours out of the 
day in which the latter machine must car¬ 
ry this extra weight, which would be twenty-six 
thousand seven hundred and seventy-five pounds 
(26,775 lbs.) more in the one case than in the other; 
and yet Mr. Osborn, like Mr. Hussey, gets no 
credit for this great saving of labor to the poor 
team on a hot summer’s day ; for when we turn 
to the final Table of Merit, page 87, behold 
against “ Effective Power,” we find this line in 
the column for Osborn blank of all figures ! 
What justice, what fairness is there in adopting 
a “ Scale of Points” which leads to such a decis¬ 
ion against this very light machine 1 Does this 
not look, to use a familiar and homely comparison, 
like being all turkey on one side, and all owl on the 
other; or in tossing a penny for a chance, 
it is “head up,” Ball, Aultman & Co. win, “ tail 
up” Hussey & Osborn lose. 
The Report then goes on to describe the 
Ball, Aultman & Co’s machine at full length, 
and with considerable unction. The Com¬ 
mittee probably thought that the more 
complex it could be made to a plain, simple 
minded farmer, the more valuable the machine 
would be to him. He is informed that when the 
cutter-bar is removed, “ the machine will answer 
very well for a buggy ! Would it not also answer 
equally well for a baby jumper 1 Perhaps if it did 
it would be all the more useful and desirable, 
especially to the female portion of the farmer’s 
household. 
The Report continues. “ It cuts well at a very 
slow motion, though the stubble is about an inch 
longer than when cutting faster.” Then if any 
farmer desires to make the most of bis grass and 
cut it as usual with them, he must dispense with 
any team that savors of slowness, and launch out 
among the “fast boys ” of “ Young America.” 
The Report seems to think highly of its cutter, 
and says, “it adapts itself with very great perfec¬ 
tion to all the inequalities of the ground by means 
of a double hinge joint.” Here I join issue with 
the Judges, and inform them that upwards of three 
years ago, before Ball’s “ double joint ” was made 
known to the public, a friend of mine after care¬ 
fully experimenting with this same thing con¬ 
demned it. In tolerably smooth ground— where it is 
never needed —the cutter works well enough ; but 
where there are stones of any size, ant hills, has¬ 
socks, or rough places, this machine can not work, 
as has been abundantly proved by many farmers 
in Ohio, where it is best known. Let me illustrate 
this by the cut below. 
D 
The line A. represents tlie pitman or con 
nectin m l B. the double or universal joint ofihe 
cutter bar—the line from B to C, the cutter bai as it 
