l34r 
[April, 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
plots have received the same manure year after 
year. The following shows the average yield 
for the nineteen years: 
Wheat Straw 
per acre, per arre. 
Plot 5.—Mixed mineral manure, alone.. .17 bus. 15 cwt. 
“ 6.—Mixed mineral manure, and 200 
lbs. ammoniacal salts.27 bus. 25 cwt. 
“ 7.—Mixed mineral manure, and 400 
lbs. ammoniacal salts .36 bns. 30 cwt. 
“ 9.—Mixed mineral manure, and 550 
lbs. nitrate of soda.37 bus. 41 cwt. 
“ 2.—14 tons farm-yard dung.36 bus. 34 cwt. 
The 14 tons of farm-yard manure contained 
about 8,540 lbs. organic matter, 808 lbs. mineral 
matter, and 200 lbs. nitrogen. The 400 lbs. of 
ammoniacal salts and the 550 lbs. nitrate of soda 
each contained 82 lbs. of nitrogen; and it will 
be seen that this 82 lbs. of nitrogen produced as 
great an effect as the 200 lbs. of nitrogen in 
barn-yard manure. 
Similar experiments have been made on bar¬ 
ley, with even more striking results. The plot 
dressed with 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime 
and 200 lbs. ammoniacal salts per acre, produced 
as large a crop as 14 tons of farm-yard manure. 
The average yield of barley for nineteen crops 
grown on the same land each year was 48 bus. 
and 28 cwt. of straw per acre on both plots. 
In other words, 41 lbs. of nitrogen, in ammoni¬ 
acal salts, produced as great an effect as 200 lbs. 
of nitrogen in farm-yard manure! During the 
nineteen years one plot had received 162,260 
lbs. of organic matter, 16,492 lbs. of mineral 
matter, and 3,800 lbs. of nitrogen; while the 
other had received only 5,700 lbs. mineral mat¬ 
ter and 779 lbs. of nitrogen—and yet one has 
produced as large a crop as the other. 
Why this difference? It will not do to say 
that more nitrogen was applied in the farm¬ 
yard manure than was needed. Mr. Lawes 
says: “ For some years an amount of ammonia- 
salts containing 82 lbs. of nitrogen was applied 
to one series of plots [on barley], but this was 
found to be too much, the crop generally being 
too heavy and laid. Yet probably about 200 
lbs. of nitrogen was annually supplied in the 
dung, but with it there was no over-luxuriance, 
and no more crop than where 41 lbs. of nitro¬ 
gen was supplied in the form of ammonia or 
nitric acid.” 
It would seem that there can be but one ex¬ 
planation of these interesting facts. The nitro¬ 
genous matter in the manure is not in an avail¬ 
able condition. It is in the manure, but the 
plants can not take it up until it is decomposed 
and rendered soluble. Dr. Voelcker analyzed 
“perfectly fresh horse-dung,” and found that 
of free ammonia there was not more than one 
pound in 15 tons! And yet these 15 tons con¬ 
tained nitrogen enough to furnish 140 lbs. of 
ammonia. 
“ But,” it may be asked, “ will not this fresh 
manure decompose in the soil and furnish am¬ 
monia?” In light, sandy soil I presume it will 
do so to a considerable extent. We know that 
clay mixed with manure retards fermentation, 
but sand mixed with manure accelerates fer¬ 
mentation. This at any rate is the case when 
sand is added in small quantities to a heap of 
fermenting manure. But I do not suppose it 
would have the same effect when a small quan¬ 
tity of manure is mixed with a large amount of 
sand, as is the case when manure is applied to 
land and plowed under. At any rate, practical 
farmers with almost entire unanimity think 
well-rotted manure is bet ter for sandy land than 
fresh manure. 
As to how rapidly, or rather how slowly, ma¬ 
nure decomposes in a rather heavy loamy soil, 
j the above experiments of Mr. Lawes afford 
very conclusive but at the same time very dis¬ 
couraging evidence. During the 19 years 3,800 
lbs. of nitrogen and 16,492 lbs. of mineral mat¬ 
ter in the form of farm-yard manure were ap¬ 
plied to an acre of land, and the 19 crops of 
barley in grain and straw removed only 3,724 
lbs. of mineral matter and 1,064 lbs. of nitrogen. 
The soil now contains, unless it has drained 
away, 1,736 lbs. more nitrogen per acre than it 
did when the experiments commenced. And 
yet 41 lbs. of nitrogen in an available condition 
is sufficient to produce a good large crop of 
barley, and 82 lbs. per acre furnished more than 
the plants could organize. 
I have not time to discuss this matter; but it 
is certainly well worth considering whether we 
can not discover some method of fermenting 
manure so thoroughly without loss that the 
nitrogen which it contains shall be rendered 
soluble and available before it is spread on the 
land. The soil is so conservative that when it 
gets hold of manure it is very slow to part 
with it. It holds it with almost a miserly 
grasp. It is fortunate for you and for me that 
such is the case, or else the natural manure 
which the leaves of the original forest spread 
over our land before it was cleared would long 
ago have been entirely exhausted. The prac¬ 
tical difficulty in fermenting manure without 
loss is to keep it moist enough without allow¬ 
ing any of the liquid to leach out. If this can 
be accomplished, the more we reduce our ma¬ 
nure by fermentation the better. 
Depend upon it, many valuable discoveries in 
regard to the science and practice of agriculture 
will be made in a few years. Facts are rapidly 
accumulating. Many of the most intelligent 
farmers think science has done little for agricul¬ 
ture. At first we expected too much from 
agricultural chemistry. Now we are expecting 
too little. I wish I could get every farmer’s 
son in the United States to study Prof. John¬ 
son’s two books, “ How Crops Grow ” and 
“ How Crops Feed.” They would then be able 
to appreciate the importance of the new dis¬ 
coveries which are being made every year, and 
which it ought to be the duty of our agricul¬ 
tural papers to publish and expound. As it 
now is, we dare not “talk science” half as 
much as we would like. It is no use publishing 
scientific articles if they are not read. 
I am inclined to think, however, that Ameri¬ 
can agricultural papers publish more scientific 
matter than those of England. Just now, they 
treat us to column after column, and page after 
page, week after week, of communications and 
speeches in regard to the repeal of the duty on 
malt. Then we have long reports of the doings 
of their “ Chambers of Agriculture,” which are 
about as interesting reading as a last year’s 
almanac. Occasionally there is a practical arti¬ 
cle of some value. The other day there was 
one on swine, and I commenced to read it, 
thinking I might find something new. I found, 
however, that it was copied from “ Youatt on 
the Pig,” written years and years ago! Then 
we are treated to a series of articles on sheep, 
nearly the whole of which are copied from 
“Morton’s Cyclopedia of Agriculture,” pub¬ 
lished in 1855. The editor of the “ Chamber of 
Agriculture Journal,” an able writer and a good 
practical farmer, speaks of “a recently pub¬ 
lished American work on Shorthorns, with a 
'perusal of which we have been favored through 
the kindness and courtesy of Mr. J. Thornton.” 
We do things differently on this side of t he water. 
But we have to acknowledge that the English i 
farmers beat us in raising crops and in breeding 
cattle, sheep, and pigs. They have more avail¬ 
able capital, better and steadier prices, and 
cheaper and more skillful labor. Here our best 
men soon get farms for themselves. Our capital 
is locked up in the land, and we have such a 
large area that one or two good crops flood our 
markets. We shall understand our situation 
better by and by. We shall not be so much • 
given to change. We shall not rush into grow- ! 
ing this or that crop because the price happens 
to be high, or give up this or that kind of stock 
because the price happens to be low. 
All this time the Deacon has been thinking. 
“ I don’t quite see,” he says, “how those barley 
experiments prove that manure ought to be fer¬ 
mented before using. We don’t put our manure 
on to barlejq and it seems curious kind of farm¬ 
ing to grow barley after barley every year for 
nineteen years, and put on 14 tons of manure 
per acre every year. This may be good science, 
but to my thinking it is pretty poor practice. 
If wheat had been sown after the barlej’-, and 
clover and timothy sown with the wheat, I think 
these crops in three or four years would have 
got hold of the manure.” 
The Deacon evidently does not understand 
the scientific bearing of these experiments. 
But, as usual, he shows his practical good sense. 
It is undoubtedly true that the wheat, and still 
more the clover, would have been able to take 
up the manure remaining in the soil after the 
barley was grown. This is one reason why 
rotation of crops is so advantageous. Clover is 
capable of taking up nitrogen from a soil too 
poor in nitrogen to grow a good crop of wheat. 
We often have a field of wheat that does not 
produce 20 bushels per acre followed by two or 
three large crops of clover. In such a case as 
this we are warranted in saying that in a favor¬ 
able season 75 or 80 lbs. of available nitrogen 
applied to the wheat crop would have given us 
35 or 40 bushels of wheat per acre. And yet 
three or four crops of clover, aggregating five 
tons of hay, to say nothing of the roots, con¬ 
tains from 200 to 250 lbs. of nitrogen. That 
the clover got this nitrogen out of the soil, and 
not from the atmosphere, admits of little doubt. 
It seems clear to my mind that our aim as 
grain and grass growers must be, not merely to 
get nitrogen, but to get it in an available condi¬ 
tion. Growing clover and plowing it under for 
wheat is all very well as far as it goes. It gives 
us nitrogen, but it is not in as available a condi¬ 
tion as it should be. It would be better to feed 
the clover to sheep and make the nitrogen avail¬ 
able by judicious fermentation. The sheep 
would not take out more than from five to ten 
per cent of the nitrogen, and still less of other 
valuable ingredients of manure. And instead 
of disputing about the matter, it would be well 
if we turned our attention to the question of 
how best to ferment the manure and preserve 
and apply it without loss. 
John K. Tefft, of Bhode Island, writes: “I 
have three grade Essex pigs that are five 
months old to-day. I weighed them this morn- < 
ing. No. 1 weighed 219 lbs. ; No. 2, 180 lbs.; 
and No. 3, 178 lbs. They were from a rather 
coarse common sow. She had eleven pigs, and 
raised ten. They were evenly marked black 
and white. She was a good mother, and the 
little pigs grew very fast. At three weeks old 
they ate well, and I gave them wheat middlings 
and Indian-meal. Seven of them were sold at 
