THE  RURAL  NEW-YORKER. 
February  27 
l32 
barnyard  manure  is  considered  a  complete  manure  ? 
Can  it  also  inform  me  what  would  be  the  best  and  at 
the  same  time  the  cheapest  manure  to  obtain  a  crop  of 
corn  on  such  land,  sweet  corn  being  a  profitable  crop 
here  ? 
I  have  been  using  tankage  to  some  extent  with  good 
results  on  oats,  and  particularly  on  vegetables;  but 
this  year  I  want  to  use  chemicals,  and  as  we  have  the 
clover  we  ought  to  stand  an  even  chance  with  others. 
The  question  naturally  arises,  what  chemicals  shall  I 
purchase?  On  a  part  of  my  farm  consisting  of  four 
acres  of  mucky  and  clay  land  mixed,  I  have  raised 
grass  and  clover  for  the  last  five  years:  this  sod  was 
manured  last  spring  with  barnyard  manure  and  200 
pounds  of  tankage  per  acre  and  plowed  last  fall.  On 
this  land  I  want  to  raise  corn  next  summer  and  I  want 
a  crop  that  will  yield  from  90  to  100  bushels  per  acre, 
what  chemicals  will  do  it?  ,j.  y.  l. 
[The  K.  N.-Y.  would  advise  its  friend  to  use  raw 
bone  flour  and  potash  in  liberal  quantities — say  000  lbs. 
of  the  fine  bone  and  200  of  muriate  of  soda.  We  think 
his  land  may  need  potash  and  phosphate  more  than 
nitrogen  and  that  their  free  use  will  give  more  grain 
and  not  reduce  the  plant  growth.  Ens.] 
Is  Stable  Manure  Absolutely 
Necessary? 
MUST  WE  HAVE  SOI)  IN  THE  ROTATION  ? 
1 .  Can  fertilizers  be  used  successfully  for  a  term  of  years  without  some 
green  crop  or  sod  being  plowed  under  ?  In  other  words,  are  not  fertiliz¬ 
ers  best  suited  for  a  rotation  In  which  clover  forms  an  Important  part  ? 
2.  In  time  of  drought  are  not  fertilizers  more  effective  than  stable 
manure? 
3.  Under  what  circumstances  does  It  pay  to  use  fertilizers  and  stable 
manure  together?  For  what  crops  and  soils  would  you  keep  them  apart? 
4.  Can  you  by  means  of  a  suitable  rotation  get  on  without  any 
stable  manure? 
We  Move  Faster  With  Stable  Manure. 
1.  For  general  farming  it  is  not  profitable  to  culti¬ 
vate  land  for  a  consecutive  term  of  years.  Clayey  soils 
become  too  compact  from  lack  of  vegetable  matter, 
and  in  the  absence  of  this  necessary  substance,  fertil¬ 
izers  fail  to  do  what  they  otherwise  would.  Soils 
must  be  in  a  good  mechanical  condition  as  well  as 
rich  in  plant  food.  Clover  and  chemicals  are  fast 
friends;  I  would  not  divorce  them.  It  is  noticeable 
that  a  heavy  growth  of  clover  gathers  and  deposits  in 
the  surface  soil  much  plant  food  for  the  following  crop. 
It  also  removes  much  plant  food,  and  should,  in  part, 
be  fed  out  on  the  farm.  Then  you  have  chemicals, 
clover  and  yard  manure,  and  thus  a  strong  leverage  to 
lift  the  farm  “  out  of  the  slough  of  despond.”  Aside 
from  clover,  fertilizers  can  be  profitably  used  where 
the  grasses  are  grown. 
2.  Very  much  depends  upon  the  composition  of  the 
fertilizers  and  their  thorough  incorporation  with  the 
soil.  If  these  matters  are  properly  cared  for  I  should 
prefer  commercial  manures  for  certain  soils.  If  one 
goes  it  blind,  let  him  take  well  decomposed  stable 
manure,  especially  for  sandy  soils. 
3.  On  fallow  ground  intended  for  root  or  hoed  crops, 
where  heavy  fertilization  is  necessary,  the  two  can  be 
used  advantageously.  Compound  the  chemicals  so 
that  in  combination  with  the  manure,  there  will  be  a 
standard  ration  for  the  crop  to  be  grown.  I  would  not 
use  them  jointly  for  wheat,  artificial  fertilizers  being 
best  for  that  grain  and  also  for  other  small  grains.  I 
would  use  stable  manure  for  corn,  especially  if  not 
rotted.  In  no  case  would  I  use  fresh  manure  for  pota¬ 
toes.  It  tends  to  produce  scab.  A  heavy  dose  of  arti¬ 
ficial  manures  for  this  crop  will  bring  good  results. 
This  is  the  money  crop  of  our  locality — Monmouth 
County,  N.  J. 
4.  While  it  is  possible  to  produce  large  and  apparently 
paying  crops  by  artificial  manuring,  yet  I  hardly  think 
we  have  reached  a  point  where  it  would  be  best  to  aban¬ 
don  the  making  of  all  the  possible  yard  manure.  The 
average  farmer  will  fail  to  purchase  an  adequate  amount 
of  plant  food  ;  but  by  having  a  partial  supply  at  home 
and  then  supplementing  this  with  a  purchased  fertilizer 
he  can  do  fairly  well.  I  believe  that  a  clay  or  clay  loam 
soil  can  be  made  to  reach  its  highest  producing  ca¬ 
pacity  by  artificial  manuring  and  a  rotation  that  will 
supply  the  needed  humus.  The  problem  is  how  best  to 
reach  that  point  at  the  least  cost.  We  can  get  on 
without  stable  manure,  but  we  can  get  on  better  with  it. 
If  we  would  reach  the  goal  of  success,  high  manuring 
must  be  our  motto.  j.  h.  denise. 
Fertilizer  Will  Hurry  Things  Up. 
1.  Theory  says  only  with  crops  that  leave  roots  in 
the  ground.  Here,  in  Worcester  County,  Mass  ,  I  have 
raised  four  root  crops  in  succession  and  have  done  well. 
The  nature  of  the  soil  has  a  good  deal  to  do  with  the 
matter.  If  it  is  heavy,  it  may  become  solid ;  but 
gravelly  soil  will  work  all  right ;  in  my  experience  it 
has. 
2.  The  application  of  any  fertilizer  is  beneficial  only 
when  there  is  moisture  enough  to  dissolve  food  for  the 
rootlets — whether  that  food  be  supplied  by  yard  ma¬ 
nure  or  fertilizers. 
3.  If  my  soil  were  deep,  and  I  had  manure  enough 
to  mix  with  it,  so  as  to  hold  the  moisture,  it  would  pay 
to  use  it  as  a  base,  and  use  fertilizers  to  hurry  up  the 
crops,  using  a  small  quantity  often,  and  near  the  sur¬ 
face.  I  raise  all  kinds  of  crops,  and  fertilizers  work 
well  on  them  all  ;  and  so  does  good  manure  when  prop¬ 
erly  handled.  The  question  is,  which  is  the  more  eco¬ 
nomical  when  one  has  to  buy,  and  that  is  what  I  am 
trying  to  solve  for  myself.  On  shallow,  stony  soil,  I 
like  finely  ground  bone  that  had  been  thoroughly 
steamed  before  it  was  ground,  and  either  good  sul¬ 
phate  or  muriate  of  potash,  with  a  little  sulphate  of 
ammonia,  or  some  other  ammoniacal  compound,  except 
for  spinach,  which  needs  a  good  deal  of  ammonia,  as 
do  also  some  other  quick-growing  foliage  crops. 
4.  So  far  as  I  have  tried,  I  can,  tvith  bone,  etc.  Much 
of  the  phosphate  does  not  come  up  to  the  claims  made 
in  the  advertisements,  and  manufacturers  and  dealers 
in  phosphates  make  a  mistake  in  recommending  their 
use  in  such  small  quantities.  I  use  one  ton  of  bone  to 
the  acre,  and  that  costs  about  half  as  much  as  manure 
would.  Mine  delivered  costs  $27  a  ton.  k.  j.  kinney. 
Both  Fertilizers  and  Manure. 
1.  They  cannot  with  us  in  Connecticut,  for  unless  we 
plow  in  a  good  crop  of  clover  or  some  other  green  crop, 
our  land  is  very  apt  to  get  cold  and  barren. 
2.  I  think  manure  plowed  in  has  a  tendency  to  make 
the  roots  of  the  crop  go  deep,  so  that  they  can  get 
more  moisture  than  they  could  from  fertizers  har¬ 
rowed  in. 
3.  Under  all  circumstance  it  pays  to  use  fertilizers 
and  stable  manure  together,  although  a  good  crop  of 
grain  can  be  obtained  with  fertilizer  alone  ;  for  one  is 
not  likely  to  put  on  enough  to  knock  it  down,  whereas 
stable  manure,  if  applied  too  thickly,  will  cause  so  rank 
a  growth  that  the  crop  will  lodge.  K.  m.  treat. 
Mr.  Lewis  is  Sanguine. 
1.  I  have  not  had  suflicient  experience  to  give  a 
definite  reply.  2.  Yes.  3.  For  all  crops,  except  pota¬ 
toes  ;  but  I  would  use  the  fertilizers  in  different  pro¬ 
portions  than  when  used  without  stable  manure.  4. 
Most  certainly;  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  about  the 
matter.  n.  c.  lewis. 
Use  the  Manure  on  the  Corn. 
1.  Yes !  but  to  what  extent  that  might  be  done,  is 
yet  to  be  determined.  Any  leguminous  plant  would 
add  sufficient  humus  to  the  soil  to  make  the  fertilizers 
become  active.  The  amount  of  nitrogen  in  clover 
would,  no  doubt,  do  away  with  the  expense  of  putting 
in  as  much  in  the  fertilizer,  if  it  was  practiced  every 
year,  except  on  soils  that  leach.  I  plow  up  grass  land 
after  it  has  been  mowed  three  or  four  years,  and  so 
cannot  speak  of  clover  in  particular. 
2.  When  stable  manure  is  applied  on  the  surface, 
with  plenty  of  surface  cultivation,  I  do  not  think  there 
is  any  difference. 
3.  Under  all  circumstances,  if  both  are  to  be  had. 
For  potatoes  and  small  grains,  my  preference  would 
be  to  have  a  heavy  application  of  stable  manure  on  a 
corn  crop  sod.  Potatoes  are  more  likely  to  rot  where 
a  heavy  application  of  stable  manure  is  used  where 
they  are  grown.  As  to  soils,  I  am  not  an  expert  in  the 
matter,  but  in  my  opinion,  an  application  of  any  more 
fertilizer  than  will  grow  the  crop,  on  very  sandy  soils, 
is  a  waste. 
4.  Yes ;  if  any  one  understands  the  chemistry  of  his 
soil  and  of  his  fertilizers,  so  as  to  know  what  each 
crop  needs,  and  vary  the  application  according  to  the 
requirements  of  the  crop,  without  depending  on  the 
ordinary  brands  sold  in  the  market.  We  have  learned 
in  practice  here  in  Connecticut  that  our  soils  do  not 
require  as  much  potash  as  we  formally  used,  and  we  use 
more  organic  nitrogen,  with  good  results.  D.  fenn. 
Manurial  Value  of  Roots  and 
Stubble. 
THE  WASTE  OF  THE  GRASS  CROP. 
In  the  system  of  fertilizing  with  what  is  popularly 
known  as  “  chemicals  and  clover,”  particular  stress  is 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  chemical  fertilizers  and  grass 
sod  supply  to  the  soil  everything  that  is  supplied  in 
stable  manure.  When  we  apply  standard  brands  of  fer¬ 
tilizers  we  know  just  what  we  are  doing — that  is,  we 
know  just  how  much  nitrogen,  potash  and  phosphoric 
acid  we  are  feeding  to  the  soil.  When  we  feed  grain 
and  hay  to  live  stock  we  have  a  general  idea  of  how 
much  of  these  three  elements  we  are  feeding,  and  we 
can  estimate  about  what  the  animals  ought  to  take  from 
the  food  in  order  to  make  growth,  wool,  meat,  milk  or 
work.  The  difference  is  what  ought  to  be  the  value  of 
the  manure,  but  there  are  so  many  things  that  affect 
this  value  in  the  way  of  drainage,  leaching  and  undue 
fermentation  that  no  man  can  ever  tell  just  what  he 
puts  on  his  soil  in  the  form  of  stable  manure. 
In  chemical  farming  a  strong  sod  is  used  to  supply 
“humus” — the  organic  matter  that  gives  stable 
manure  many  of  its  peculiarly  valuable  effects.  When 
we  put  a  bag  of  fertilizer  on  a  field,  we  can  keep  track 
of  the  food  given  that  soil  just  as  we  keep  a  record  of 
the  grain  fed  to  a  cow.  Both  the  fertilizer  and  the 
grain  are  the  most  important  parts  of  the  two  rations. 
Ask  a  man  how  much  he  is  feeding  and  he  generally 
says  so  many  “  quarts  ” — that  means  that  he  considers 
the  grain  or  the  condensed  food  as  being  by  far  the 
more  important  and  that  the  hay  is  needed  largely  to 
give  bulk  to  the  ration  and  keep  the  animal’s  digestive 
organs  in  good  running  order.  As  everybody  knows, 
the  actual  fertility  in  stable  manure  does  not  reach  one 
half  of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  weight,  but  the  organic 
matter  in  the  manure  is  valuable  in  various  ways — it 
lightens  and  loosens  up  the  soil,  and  keeps  it  cool, 
absorbs  and  retains  moisture  and  by  the  acids  of  its 
decay  acts  somewhat  on  the  locked-up  plant  food  in 
the  soil  itself.  So  that  stable  manure  has  a  certain 
value  aside  from  the  actual  stores  of  fertility  that 
analysis  shows  it  contains,  and  this  is  why  chemical 
fertilizers  alone  used  year  after  year  would  not  give 
such  good  results  as  when  used  in  a  rotation  contain¬ 
ing  a  strong  grass  crop,  because  the  sod  will  supply 
what  the  hay  supplies  to  the  manure. 
When  a  man  feeds  10  tons  of  hay  and  tln’ee  tons  of 
grain,  estimates  what  his  stock  needed  to  maintain  life, 
and  what  he  has  sold  in  the  form  of  animal  products, 
he  can  form  a  fair  idea  of  what  he  ought  to  have  in  the 
manure— that  is,  before  the  rains  and  the  floods  beat 
upon  it  and  the  brook  gets  its  share  of  the  leach ings. 
When  a  man  uses  a  ton  of  fertilizer  he  knows  just  what 
he  feeds  to  the  plant — that  is  the  grain.  But  how 
about  the  hay — can  he  tell  anything  about  the  value  of 
the  sod  that  he  turns  under?  Yes,  he  can  estimate  it 
almost  as  accurately  as  he  can  the  hay — particularly 
as  the  sod  cannot  readily  lose  its  value,  while  the  hay 
may  vary  25  per  cent  as  the  result  of  a  few  days’  delay 
in  cutting  or  a  few  hours'  in  curing. 
At  the  Storrs  School  Experiment  Station  in  Con¬ 
necticut,  careful  experiments  have  been  made  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  amount  of  fertility  in  the  stubble  and  roots 
of  various  grass  or  forage  crops.  “  Green  manuring,” 
or  the  turning  under  of  an  entire  crop  of  grass  that 
might  be  used  for  hay,  was  not  considered,  but  only 
the  waste  of  the  hay  crop — that  is  the  short  stubble 
representing  the  portion  above  ground  that  could  not 
be  cut  with  the  machine,  and  the  roots  below  ground. 
Careful  examinations  were  made  to  a  depth  of  3>£  feet 
and  all  roots  and  grass  carefully  weighed  and  analyzed. 
Of  course  only  a  small  plot  was  thus  examined,  but 
each  plot  was  a  fair  sample  of  the  field  and  the  result, 
estimated  per  acre,  is  as  accurate  as  are  the  chemical 
analyses  of  hay  or  stalks.  The  following  table  shows 
the  amount  and  composition  of  the  stubble  and  roots 
of  one  acre  of  various  crops — after  a  profitable  crop 
has  been  taken  for  sale  or  feeding. 
Nitro- 
Plios- 
Total 
Organic 
gen 
phorlc 
Pot- 
weight.  matter. 
lbs. 
acid,  lbs.  ash. 
Timothy  and  Red  Top,  3  ft.  deep. 
8,«22 
0,772 
90.1 
25.2 
55.8 
Buckwheat,  one  foot  deep . 
523 
336 
4.4 
1.3 
3.8 
Cow  Pea,  2)4  feet  deep . . 
1,755 
1,294 
22.0 
5.9 
14.5 
Clover,  three  feet  deep  . 
3,183 
2,095 
00.2 
15.1 
45.4 
Vetch,  22  inches  deep . 
1,501 
918 
27.2 
7.2 
21.8 
Lellow  Lupine,  2M  feet  deep . 
1,484 
1,112 
10.1 
5.5 
21.7 
White  Lupine,  2%  feet  deep . 
1,057 
799 
10.2 
1.9 
11.2 
Soja  Bean,  22  Inches  deep . 
773 
507 
8.0 
2.2 
6.7 
The  Timothy  and  Red  Top  crop  was  cut  July  23,  and 
yielded  two  tons  per  acre.  The  roots  and  stubble 
were  estimated  November  7,  so  that  there  was  over 
three  months’  growth  of  grass  on  the  field.  The 
buckwheat  was  rather  above  an  average  crop,  cut 
September  24,  and  the  roots  and  stubble  estimated 
five  days  later.  The  clover  was  seeded  with  oats  the 
year  before ;  cut  June  13,  yielding  27,255  pounds  of 
green  fodder,  the  roots  and  stubble  estimated  the 
same  day.  The  large  amount  of  fertility  found  in  the 
Timothy  stubble  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  was 
three  months’  growth  of  grass  before  the  samples  were 
taken.  This  is  most  like  the  sod  used  by  the  fertilizer 
farmers  in  New  Jersey,  and  theirs  is  even  better  than 
this,  because  they  manure  the  stubble,  and  this  insures 
a  heavier  growth  of  grass  to  turn  under  the  following 
spring. 
In  turning  under  such  a  sod,  the  farmer  gives  his 
corn  crop  as  much  nitrogen  as  is  needed  to  produce  G5 
bushels  of  shelled  grain  per  acre.  He  obtains  as  much 
“  organic  matter  ”  as  there  is  in  35  tons  of  ordinary 
stable  manure.  Corn  is  the  best  crop  to  plant  on  this 
sod.  It  can  be  planted  late  in  the  season,  so  that  the 
grass  can  make  its  heaviest  growth.  The  plant  food 
in  the  sod  is  made  slowly  available,  and  is  best  ready 
for  use  during  the  hot  summer  months  when  many 
other  plants  have  finished  developing  all  but  their 
seed.  Then  it  is  that  corn  makes  its  best  growth, 
utilizing  the  plant-food  in  the  sod  as  no  other  plant 
could  do. 
Prof.  C.  S.  Phelps,  who  had  charge  of  this  experi¬ 
ment,  writes  these  notes  in  further  explanation  of  its 
lessons:  we  asked  him  what  would  be  the  probable 
value  of  a  second  year  clover  sod,  cut  for  hay  and  then 
manured — with  the  aftermath  permitted  to  grow  and 
decay  on  the  ground.  We  also  want  to  know  what 
crops  can  be  grown  in  the  fall  so  as  to  provide  a  green 
crop  for  spring  plowing  and  thus  enable  market  gar¬ 
deners  with  a  limited  area  to  use  chemicals  and  sod. 
