18G7.J 
AMERIC:)AN AG-RICULTIJRIST. 
91 
I would like some practical proof. Manure 
from clover is not a new thing, and I have never 
noticed that it was so much more valuable than 
stable manure, as these figures indicate. In fact, 
I don't believe it. There is not bulk enough.” 
‘‘ You think highly of green clover plowed 
under for manure. Now, how many tons of 
green clover does it take to make a ton of 
clover hay ?’ 
*• Probably five or si.x.” 
“Very well. Now, how much manure do 
you suppose that five or six tons of green clover 
would make, if thrown into a heap in the barn 
yard and allowed to rot, with water enough to 
keep it moist ? Would it not make more than 
half a load? ” 
I did not press the question. It seemed to 
throw new light on the subject. Of course, a 
ton of hay made from five tons of green clover 
is worth just as much for manure as if the five 
tons had been fed out in the green state. The 
four tons of water dispelled from the grass in 
curing has no value as a manure. 
The farmer who sells clover hay will soon 
impoverish his land. He cannot grow too much 
of it, but every pound should be jilowcd under 
or fed out on the farm, and the manure carefully 
preserved. The former practice was all very 
well when the countr}’’ was new, and butter, 
beef and mutton sold for almost nothing; but 
now that there is an increasing demand for these 
article.s, the practice of plowing under so much 
valuable food is a loss to the farmer and to the 
consumers of meat. When fed to animals, we 
get b.ack in the manure nearly or quite 95 per 
cent, of all the elements of plant-food (except 
carbonaceous matter) that the food contains. 
And this carbonaceous matter has no manurial 
value. We can spare all that the animal can 
digest from the food without the slightest injury 
to the manure. If anything, it is improved by 
tlie processesof masticjition and digestion. The 
only ingredients of any value that we lose are 
the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, &c., and 
this loss is not over 5 per cent. The food of 
horses, cattle and sheep contains so much indi¬ 
gestible woody-fibre (carbonaceous matter) that, 
even after the animals have taken out all they 
can digest, there is still left in the manure more 
than enough to meet the demand from the crops 
to which the manure is applied. A ton of dry 
horse dung contains 1,033 lbs. of this carbona¬ 
ceous matter; dry sheep dung, 1,G98 lbs., and 
dry cow dung, 1,714 lbs. On the other hand, a 
Ion of dry, solid e.xcrement of the pig contains 
only 1,108 lbs. of carlionaceous matter. This is 
owing to the fact that pigs are supplied with 
food containing less woody fibre. But even in 
the case of pigs it will be seen that more than* 
half the dung consists of carbonaceous matter. 
In ordinary barn-yard manure, where straw is 
used freely, the proportion is even still greater. 
We need not plow in clover, therefore, for the 
sake of getting carbonaceous matter. And this 
is practically about all that we lose when it is 
fed to animals. 
Manure made solely from straw and corn¬ 
stalks is hardly worth the labor of drawing it 
out to the field and spreading it The manure 
from a ton of wheat straw is worth $3.68, while 
that from a ton of clover is worth $9.04. Tins 
is Mr. Lawes’ estimate, and it is undoubtedly a 
close approximation to the truth. The pi ice 
will fluctuate according to circumstances, but 
if the manure from a ton of straw is woith 
$3.08, that from a ton of clover is worth $9.04. 
Now, then, ten tons of straw, half of it fed to 
c«iW 3 or sheep, and the other half used as litter, 
would give us about 28 tons of manure. As¬ 
suming that there was no loss from leaching, 
Ac., this 23 tons would be worth, say $37. 
On the other hand, 5 tons of clover hay, and 
5 tons of straw for litter, would give 28 tons of 
manure, worth $01.00. Add a couple of tons of 
oil-cake to the hay and straw, and you would 
then get 29 or 30 tons of manure, worth $101.08. 
When it costs so much to draw out and spread 
manure, it should be our aim to make it as rich 
as possible. The addition of oil-cake to the or¬ 
dinary feed does not, according to Mr. Lawes, ' 
add more than 11 lbs. additional weight to each 
ton of the manure, “a quantity which,” he 
truly says, “ is so small that neither the man 
that loaded the cart, nor the horse that drew the 
dung to the field, would detect it.” And yet, 
as before stated, the substitution of clover hay 
for straw, and the addition of the oil-eake, Avould 
make one load more than three times as valuable 
as that made from straw alone. Ordinary barn¬ 
yard manure contains 70 per cent, of water; 
and in the spring it doubtless contains a good 
deal more; and it Avill readily be seen that the 
addition of a few tons of oil-cake to the feed 
adds very little to the weight of the manure. 
If it costs half a dollar a ton to draw the manure 
to the field and spread it, the net value of the 
straw made manure would be less than 47 cents, 
while that from the half hay and half straw 
manure would be $1.77, and that from the 
manure, with oil-cake added to the feed, would 
be $3.11. In other words, after deducting the 
expense of handling the manure, the net value 
of the oil-cake dung is nearly seven times as 
great as that of the straw made dung. 
I believe there is no error in these figures, and 
they show the importance of paying more at¬ 
tention to the subject of high feeding, viewed 
merely from the effect of the food on the value 
of the manure. 
A Canadian fanner writes me that he thinks 
I “ unduly magnify the trouble of storing roots 
for winter use.” “Any one,” he says, “who 
has a dry side-hill near the barn, can make a 
cellar, with 850 feet of rough 2 inch plank, ca¬ 
pable of holding seven or eight hundred bushels 
of roots.” I do not think that this proves any¬ 
thing. Seven or eight hundred bushels of roots 
are better than nothing, but, after all, what do 
they amount to? They are equal, perhaps, to 
4 tons of clover hay. If, on a farm of 200 acres, 
we could raise, and readily store away, twenty 
thousand bushels of roots, they would amount 
to something. In England, double this amount 
is not uncommon. I have seen a hundred 
thousand bushels of Swedes grown in one field ! 
At least, there was a splendid crop, and there 
were 130 acres in the field, and there were on 
the same farm several other fields of turnips 80 
to 100 acres each ! Now, when I “magnify the 
trouble of keeping roots ” in this climate, I had 
reference to growing them as a general crop, on 
the same scale as we grow clover or com. It is 
not easy to see how this can be done without a 
great change in our system of winter feeding. 
But I do not despair of seeing the change effect¬ 
ed. There is no difficulty in raising the roots. 
The trouble is in storing them and feeding them 
out. A few hundred bushels, to be used occa¬ 
sionally, as a kind of tonic, are useful; but so far 
as the mere supply of nutriment is concerned, 
they are now, as most farm buildings are ar¬ 
ranged, more plague than profit. We must 
have system and regularity in feeding, and we 
must either have a large supply of roots, or feed 
them out in such small quantities that they can 
go but a short way towards supplying the ne¬ 
cessary food. I have 20 head of cattle and 200 
sheep. If they were allowed all the roots they 
would eat, which is the English rule, “seven or 
eight hundred bushels” would not last them 
two weeks. Raising a few roots for a condiment 
is all very well, and need involve little ti'ouble 
in preserving thein. But this was not what I 
had reference to. I want to see a dozen acres 
of roots to the hundred acres. To store and 
feed out such a quantity will tax our ingenuity. 
But it will yet be done. 
For the American AgriciMurist. 
Shall We Have An Eflicient Dog Law? 
Many of our State Legislatures are now in 
session, and others will be soon, and we wish 
to call their attention, to one of the most im¬ 
portant interests of their constituents—sheep 
raising. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the 
importance of this subject. It concerns the 
people of the city and country alike. For the 
only wdiolesome meat that is within the means 
of all in the city is the flesh of sheep, and the 
price of this must depend upon the supply of 
the flocks afforded by our farms. With mutton 
at present prices, wm believe that sheep are one 
of the best crops of the farmer. We can afford 
to raise them without counting the wool and 
pelts. As a means of renovating old pastares, 
and keeping the soil in good heart, the sheep 
surpasses all other animals. No meat is more 
wholesome than mutton, and, but for dogs, it 
could be upon every man’s table in town and 
country, at much less cost than we now have it. 
The dog is the natural enemy of the sheep, 
and needs to be kept under by efficient legisla¬ 
tion in all the States. The whole dog tribe. 
Tray, Blanche and Sweetheart, hound, cur and 
spaniel, should be made expensive luxuries, to 
be kept in kennels and leading strings, or ex¬ 
terminated. We never go down to the dog 
pound in your city, on a July morning, where 
they drown them by the hundred, wdthout a 
feeling of grim satisfaction, “ served ’em right.” 
These animals destroy sheep by the thousand, 
and in districts where their growth is unchecked, 
theyifnake sheep raising almost an impossibility. 
The business is so precarious that no man wants 
to embark his capital in it. He must either keep 
a man to watch his flock all the time, and yard 
them at night within a dog-proof fence, or give 
up the business. The dogs destroy vast multi¬ 
tudes, but the chief evil that they do is that of 
inspiring apprehension, and making flocks inse¬ 
cure. They operate as a constant check upon 
production. 
Now we want a State law, in every sheep 
crowin’o- State, that shall do for country dogs, 
what the city ordinaince does for its canine pop¬ 
ulation in summer. The statute should outlaw 
the whole tribe. It should brand the dog as an 
enemy to the commonwealth. It should say to 
his owner, “ Take care of that animal or we will 
do it for you.” It should make the dog confi’a- 
band. His owner should pay a heavy tax on him; 
Luld ke,p him muzzled; and a largeJ)onnty 
should be offered on all dogs running at large. 
The taxes should go to a fund to P^yJoi the 
dama«-es done to the farmers’ flocks by dogs. 
They have a curious dog law in Connecticut 
leaving it optional with the towns to enforce the 
px ovSonsof the statute. One town may make 
cZ wk with the dogs, aad text htay 
offer a premium on puppies, and look to its 
• 1 hm-si’ sheep pastures for dog feed. Thi 
makes a farce of legislation against ^cse ani¬ 
mals. We want one law, for a whole , 
