372 
^AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
symmetry and condition must be foreseen; the 
rules, if studied practically, will enable an in¬ 
quiring observer to foresee these points, and in 
judging between a number of valuable points, 
it should ever be remembered that purity ol 
breeding will always insure aptitude to fatten, 
which in its turn will insure the largest remu¬ 
neration for the food consumed. 
In judging fat animals the touch is the chiei 
criterion—at least, the confirming test. _ In 
lean beasts the eye must distinguish the points 
of excellence, assisted by the touch, as to the 
skin, and position of the ribs, and joining of the 
bones. But it has much the widest range in 
the case of lean animals, and the judgment is 
also more largely called into action in estima¬ 
ting the distant possession of excellence, than 
in calculating the comparative and absolute 
value of the existing productions. The one 
case exists in substance, the other only in idea; 
the first is a certainty, the last a visible proba¬ 
bility. Both cases require an acute discernment, 
a correct observation, a well-stored memory, 
and a most calculating judgment. Such a rare 
combination of qualities accounts for the very 
small number of really good judges that are 
found. 
FISH MANURE. 
(Continued from p. 357.) 
Prior to taking any discussion on the subject, 
Mr. Foster, the Secretary, read the following 
paper by Mr. J. B. Lawes, who was unable to 
be present, on fish manure:—Some years ago, 
a gentleman, who possesses a large property in 
Newfoundland, and who carries on an extensive 
business in salting cod fish, requested me to 
make some experiments, with a view to convert¬ 
ing the unsaleable fish and cod fish offal into a 
manure, and also to ascertain whether the dried 
cod fish would be valuable as a food for animals. 
An account of some of the trials of the dried 
fish itself as food for animals, is now in print, 
and will shortly appear in the “ Journal of the 
Royal Agricultural Society of England.” To 
explain, however, the conclusions arrived at in 
reference to the use of the offal fish and refuse 
as manure, the following short statement of the 
process employed in curing the fish for food 
may be given :—Platfoms project out into the 
sea, upon which stand the men who cure the 
fish. The fish are handed up from the boats, 
and the curers split them down with a knife, 
take out the back bone and the offal, and throw 
it into the sea; and, having sprinkled some salt 
over the fish, it is removed and dried in the sun. 
The quantity of offal thus thrown away 
amounts to some hundred thousand tons. The 
question was not whether such matter, when 
properly prepared, would be a good manure— 
for of this there could be no doubt—but it was, 
whether a manure could be prepared which 
would, in point of composition, supply certain 
constituents at a cheaper rate than guano and 
other manures already in the market. Look¬ 
ing at the question in this point of view, the 
inquiry showed that there were difficulties in 
the way of attaining such a result, which were 
sufficient at the time to lead to an abandonment 
of the idea of converting this refuse into a 
marketable manure. Thus, the fishing season 
is confined to a short period during summer, 
and time and labor are then so valuable, that 
every man, woman, and child is employed in 
some process connected with the preparation of 
the cod as food. Indeed, so important is it that 
the population should not be occupied with 
other pursuits, that the cultivation of the land is 
neglected; and the proprietors of the fisheries 
supply the people with food and other necessa¬ 
ries imported from other countries. Under 
these circumstances, it was evident that, in or¬ 
der to convert the offal into manure, one of two 
things must take place; either part of those al¬ 
ready employed in catching or curing fish for 
food, must leave that occupation for the other, 
or a large number of people must be brought 
from elsewhere, and be maintained by the pro¬ 
prietor for the sole purpose of making manure. 
With regard to the first of these alternatives, 
it is clear that, so long as a ton of dried fish 
would sell for much more than a ton of the 
manure, it could not be to the advantage of the 
proprietor to change the occupation of the peo¬ 
ple ; for the cost of the fish itself, apart from 
that of the labor employed in preparing it, 
would be comparatively small, whilst that of 
the latter would be nearly as great to convert a 
ton of offal into manure as it would to convert 
a ton of the cod fish into food. On the other 
hand, to maintain a larger number of people on 
the island for the purpose of converting the 
offal fish and refuse into manure, seemed not 
likely to be profitable, unless the manure were 
to sell for a higher price than its composition 
and the relative value of other manures in the 
market would justify. Under these circum¬ 
stances, it appeared to me that unless the offal 
fish and fish offal could have been kept until 
the busy season was over, and then worked up 
for manure, it would not be profitable to engage 
in the manufacture ; and as this even involved 
some immediate expenditure of labor, and as 
such matters enter very rapidly into putrefac¬ 
tion, I could not see that the undertaking of 
converting the Newfoundland offal fish and fish 
offal into a portable manure for competition 
with others in the market was practicable. 
With regard to the more special subject to be 
brought before the society this evening—viz., 
Mr. Pettitt’s Fisheries Guano—I see that a dis¬ 
cussion has taken place on this subject before 
the l oyal Dublin Society; from the report of 
which I think we may gather that large quanti¬ 
ties of offal, which at present are thrown into 
the sea, would be brought to shore, provided 
they could be sold on the spot at a price of 
from 30s. to £2 per ton. I also gather from 
the same paper, that Mr. Pettitt’s process con¬ 
sists in mixing sulphuric acid with the fish 
material, and drying it. It certainly appears 
to me, that a fish manure prepared by such a 
process, although undoubtedly an excellent 
manure, is nevertheless widely different from 
guano, both as to the constituents which it sup¬ 
plies and to the state of combination of those 
constituents. In guano we find large quanti¬ 
ties of phosphate of lime (in a state of commin¬ 
ution in which it is more readily available than 
in most other manures,) whilst, judging from 
the analysis by Professor Way, the product of 
Mr. Pettitt’s process contains only a very small 
quantity of phosphate of lime. In guano, again, 
the whole of the nitrogen, or nearly so, exists 
either in the form of ammonia or of other very 
readily active nitrogenous compounds, the pro¬ 
ducts of the perfect chemical destruction in their 
passage through the body of an animal of those 
more stable nitrogenous compounds of which the 
bodies of the fish so largely consist. In the 
product of Mr. Pettitt’s process, however, I pre¬ 
sume there can be but little of the salts of am¬ 
monia or the other compounds resulting from 
the digestion, assimilation, and re-transformation 
of the substance of the fish when it has been 
used as food. In fact, the proposed fish manure 
is dried animal matter, with but little chemical 
alteration; in Which, therefore, a large propor¬ 
tion of the nitrogen will still exist in its original 
state of combination. However valuable, there¬ 
fore, such a substance may be as a manure, it 
can certainly with no propriety be called a gu¬ 
ano. The chemical effect of the sulphuric acid 
on the animal matter, and its utility in the pro¬ 
cess, are, indeed, not very obvious. It would 
probably serve, on the one hand, somewhat of 
an antiseptic; and on the other, to retain the 
small quantity of ammonia which might still be 
formed. Again, the example of fish-manure 
analyzed by Professor Way contained only about 
5 per cent, of water. But as the quantity of 
water in fresh fish is not much less than 80 per 
cent., it is obvious that it would take from four 
to five tons of fresh fish to produce one ton of 
the manure in the condition of dryness as stated. 
If, therefore, we take the most favorable esti¬ 
mate which the statements at present made seem 
to justify, namely, that one ton of fish, or its 
offal, could be delivered on shore for 30s., it 
would then appear that from £6 to £7 must be 
paid for the raw material only, at the place of 
landing, of one ton of manure; to which must 
be added the cost of sulphric acid, of the drying, 
of labor of boys, transports, &c. For these rea¬ 
sons, I think it will be very difficult to produce 
a manure of the kind in question which can be 
sold to the farmer at much less than the present 
price of Peruvian guano. It would seem, in¬ 
deed, from calculation, that unless offal fish and 
fish offal could be obtained at an almost nominal 
price, it would at present be almost impossible 
to establish a manufacture which could so com¬ 
pete with the manures now in the market as to 
bold out a prospect of success both to the pro¬ 
ducer and the consumer. And how far also a 
decline in the present supplies of natural guanos, 
as well as a much reduced estimate of the cost 
of the fresh fish and offal might affect the result, 
is of course a further question. 
At the conclusion of the reading of the papers, 
Mr. Horace Green said that though the paper 
of Mr. Lawes was very valuable, it must not be 
forgotten that that gentleman was himself a 
large manufacturer of guano. The guano now 
brought before them did not contain so much of 
phosphate as of ammonical properties, which 
were best for the staff of man’s life—wheat; 
while the guano of Mr. Lawes w*as best for tur¬ 
nips and green crops—the food of beasts. 
Mr. Mechi came from rather a fish country— 
Essex—where it had long been the practice to 
manure the land with fish, and it was the con¬ 
viction of the farmers in that district that within 
a certain distance of the coast—say eight or ten 
miles—the sale of fish would successfully com¬ 
pete with guano. There could be no doubt that 
fish manure was good for root crops. The star¬ 
fish, or five-fingers, fetched 6d. a bushel, and 
sprats 8d., excepting in very cold weather, when 
the latter article rose in price, in consequence of 
the quantities sent up to the London market. 
That might, however, be considered the average 
price, which would give them Is. 6d. per cwt., 
or 30s. a ton. Large vessels were employed at 
Holbury and other places to catch fish for agri¬ 
cultural purposes. Mussels were also exten¬ 
sively used in their shells, their cost being about 
20s. per ton. The guano at 30s. per ton would 
no doubt be valuable; but how far its being 
dried and cured, so as to obtain the oil, would 
enable it to be sold at that price, of course he 
could not give an opinion. If they could fix the 
ammonia by the use of sulphuric acid, it would 
of course add to the value of the manure. 
Professor John Wilson, during the reading of 
the first paper, noticed two or three inaccura¬ 
cies, which he would have corrected but for the 
paper of Mr. Lawes just read, with which he 
fully agreed in every particular. 
Mr. J. C. Nesbit wished to notice one or two 
points in the first paper read. In referring to 
the supply of guano, he might observe there had 
been an increasing sale each year, though the 
papers of the House of Commons did not enable 
them to decide on the exact quantities imported. 
He believed the reason why there was nearly a 
deficiency last year arose from the desertion of 
the sailors from the vessels in Australia which 
were under engagements to call for the guano 
on their voyage home. He had always looked 
upon fish manure as of great importance, and 
some years ago he tried some experiments, by 
which he found he could obtain a large quantity 
of oil and valuable manure from fish. He re¬ 
commended it to Mr. Fisher Hobbs and other 
well-known agriculturists, and told them the 
supply of guano would not last more than a few 
years, whilst there was plenty of fish round their 
own shores. Mr. Lawes’ objection to the use of 
the fish guano appeared to be that it would not 
digest chemically, and that, when dried, it would 
not act so well on the ground. Now, there had 
been large importations of late of a peculiar ma¬ 
nure from South America; it was the dried flesh 
of animals killed at Buenos Ayres, principally 
for their hides. This flesh manure, though 
highly dried, was found to act well for wheat, 
