1891 
879 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
several years later—so that ‘ ‘ stable manure ” was out 
of the question. They knew less about fertilizers than 
we do about the composition of the moon. The Indian 
‘ ‘ Squanto ” served as director of the only experiment 
station in the country and the records show that they 
went to him for advice in this great problem of work¬ 
ing a “ run-down farm.” 
In April, 1621, writes Gov. Bradford, in his “ His¬ 
tory of Plymouth Plantation,” “they—as many as 
were able—began to plant their corne, in which ser¬ 
vice Squanto (an Indian) stood them in great stead, 
showing them both ye manner how to set it and after 
how to dress and tend it. Also he tould them, excepte 
they got fish and set with it—in these old grounds—it 
would come to nothing ; and he showed them yt in ye 
midle of April, they should have store enough to come 
up ye brooke by which they began to build, and taught 
them how to take it.” 
Edward Johnson, in “ Wonder-working Providence 
of Sion’s Saviour in New England, Being a Relation of 
the firste planting in New England in the yeere 1628, 
London, 1654,” says: “ But the Lord is pleased to 
provide for them—the colonists—great store of fish in 
the spring-time, especially alewives, about the big- 
nesse of a herring. Many thousands of these they 
used to put under their Indian corne, which they plant 
in hills five foot asunder; and assuredly when the 
Lord created this corne, hee had a speciall eye to sup¬ 
ply these his peoples with it, for ordinarily five or six 
grains doth produce six hundred.” 
In “ New England’s Memorial or a Brief Relation of 
the Most Memorable and Remarkable Passages of the 
Providence of God, Manifested to the Planters of New 
England in America,” etc., by N. Morton, 1669, we 
find the following, under date of 1621 : 
“ The spring of this year they planted their first 
corn in New England, being instructed in the manner 
thereof by the forenamed Squanto—an Indian.” 
In Gov. Winslow’s account of the Natives of New 
England (1624), is this passage : 
“ The chiefest grain is the Indian maize or Guinea 
wheat; the seedtime beginneth in the midst of April, 
and continueth good till the midst of May. Our harvest 
beginneth with September. 
“This corn increaseth in great measure, but is in¬ 
ferior in quality to the same in Virginia. * * * 
“ But whereas it is objected against New England, 
that corn will not grow there except the ground be 
manured with fish; I answer, that where men set 
with fish (as with us) it is more easy so to do than to 
clear ground, and set with some five or six years, and 
so begin anew, as in Virginia and elsewhere. Not but 
what in some places where they cannot be taken with 
ease in such abundance, the Indians set four years to¬ 
gether without them, and have as good corn or better 
than we have that set with them ; though indeed I 
think if we had cattle to till the ground, it would be 
more profitable and agreeable to the soil to sow wheat, 
rye, barley, peas and oats, than to set maize, which our 
Indians call Ewachim; for we have had experience 
that they like and thrive well; and the other will not 
be procured without good labor and diligence, 
especially at seedtime, when it must also be watched 
by night, to keep the wolves from the fish, till it be 
rotten, which will be in 14 days, yet men agreeing to¬ 
gether and taking their turns, it is not much.” 
The passage is interesting as showing the first idea 
of intensive agriculture in New England. They found 
the use of a fertilizer obviated the necessity of clear¬ 
ing more land. The narrative suggests, too, the amus¬ 
ing and pathetic picture of the New England farmer 
sitting up nights with his corn to prevent wolves from 
stealing away the fertilizer from the soil beneath it. 
The writer is a native of Plymouth and has often 
been shown where this corn was grown. There are 
now upon this ground gardens that have yielded 
abundant crops every year of the 270 since that date. 
Think for a moment of the contrast between this fish- 
manuring in the hill and the present possibilities of 
“complete fertilizers.” A man may now take any 
fairly level field in New England and by a liberal use 
of fertilizers and clover, more than double its produc¬ 
tive capacity in four years and make it pay a hand¬ 
some profit from the start! If the Puritans had known 
what we know of “Chemicals and Clover,” Plymouth 
County to-day would be the greatest agricultural 
county in the country ! The chief reason why farmers 
have run away from New England is because meat 
making has failed to be profitable and it has not been 
thought possible to make “artificial dung.” 
Old and New Ideas Regarding Stable Manure. 
It has always been known that stable manure con¬ 
tained “plant-food.” Anybody with eyes could see 
that plants grew better where the animals left their 
droppings. The old-time farmers knew that it was 
valuable, but they did not know why it was valuable. 
The more thoughtful of them knew that “ leached ” 
manure that had been washed through by rains and 
snows was not as effective as fresh or sheltered manure. 
Some of them also observed that the liquids were 
quicker and stronger in their action than the solids. 
They did not know why this was so and probably 
attributed it to “witches” or some supernatural force. 
As late in English history as 1751 Jethro Tull, in the 
third edition of his book, entitled “ Horse Hoeing Hus¬ 
bandry,” advanced the arguments which follow. We 
have reengraved these extracts directly from the pages 
of the original book. First, he says : 
A L L forts of Dung and Compolt contain fome 
Matter, which, when mixt with the Soil, fer¬ 
ments therein i and by fueh Ferment diffolves, crum 
bles, and divides the Earth very much: This is the 
chief, and almoft only Ufeof Dung: For, as to the 
pure earthy Part of it, the Quantity is fovery fmall, 
that-, after a perfeft Putrefaftion, it appears to bear 
a moft inconfiderable Proportion to the Soil it is de- 
fign’d to manure ; and therefore, in that refpedt, is 
next to nothing. 
Its fermenting Quality is chiefly owing to the Salts 
wherewith it abounds •, but a very little of this Salt 
applied alone to a fewRoots of almoft any Plant, 
will (as, in my Mint Experiments, it is evident com¬ 
mon Salt does) kill it. 
This proves, that its Ufe is not to nourifh, but 
to diflolve •, t. e. Divide the terreftrial Matter, 
which affords Nutriment to the Mouths of Vegetable 
Roots. 
Thus we see that he considered the “ plant-food” in 
the manure of less importance than its “ fermenting 
quality.” It will be noticed, however, that he realized 
that stable manure was almost all water. He found it 
hard to say too much against dung as used on gardens, 
as for instance, he says further on— 
This Dung rs a fitter Food for venomous Creatures 
(a) than for edible Plants ; and ’tis (no doubt) upon 
account of this, that dung’d Gardens are fo much 
frequented by Toads, which are feldom or never 
feen in the open undung’d Fields 
What can we fay then to the Salubrity of thofe 
Roots themfelves, bred up and fatten’d among thefe 
Toads and Corruption ? The Leaves indeed are only 
difeharging fome of the Filth, when we eat them j 
but the Roots have that unfavoury infeded Food in 
their very Mouths, when we take them for our Nou* 
rifhment. 
But tho’ Dung be, upon thefe and other accounts, 
injurious to the Gaiden, yet a confiderable Quantity 
of it is fo neceffary to moft Corn-fields, that without 
it little Good can be done by the old Hufbandry. 
Dung is nor injurious to the Fields ( b) y being there 
in lefs Proportion: And the Produce of Corn is the 
Grain, When die Leaves have done their utmoft to 
purify the Sap, the moft refin’d Part is fecern’d to be 
yet further elaborated by peculiar Organs *, then, by 
the Veflels of the Bloffoms, tis become double-refin’d, 
for the Nourilhment of the Grain; which is therefore 
more pure from Dung, and more wholfome, than 
my other Parc of the Plant that bears it. 
Lots of people seem to believe about the same thing 
to-day about night soil and similar manures! He 
would probably have been an advocate of “Chemicals 
and Clover” had he lived in these times. His descrip¬ 
tion of the way plants fed and digested their food is a 
good illustration of the knowledge of ‘ ‘ agricultural 
science ” of that day. Mr. Tull was also an experi¬ 
menter in his way Here is a report of one of his 
experiments, which was more conclusive in his day 
than any report from one of our stations could be. 
The Action of r.he Dung’s Ferment affords a 
Warmth (a) to the Infant-plants, in their moft tender 
Srate, and the moft rigorous Seafon. 
But ’tis hard to know how long the Warmth of 
this Ferment lafteth, by reafon of the great Difficulty 
to diftinguifh the very leaft Degree of Heat from 
the very leaft Degree of Cold 
Under the Name of Dung we may alfo under- 
ftand whatever ferments with the Earth (except Fire) •, 
fuch as green Vegetables cover'd in the Ground, &V. 
As to the Difference of the Quantity of artificial 
Pafture made by Dung without Tillage, and that 
made by Tillage without Dung •, the latter is many 
times greater, of which I had the following Proof. 
An unplow’d Land, wherein a Dunghil had lain 
for Two or Three Years, and being taken away, was 
planted with Turncps \ at the fame a till’d Land, con¬ 
tiguous thereto, was drill’d with T'urneps , and Horfe- 
ho’d ; the other, being Hand-ho’d, profpered beft 
at the firft *, but at laft did not amount to the Fifth 
Part of the Till’d and Horfe-ho’d, in Bignefs, nor in 
Crop. The Benefit of the Dung and Hand-hoe was 
fo inconfiderable, in comparifon of the Plough and 
Hoe-plough ; the little Quantity of artificial Pafture 
railed to the other, was only near the Surface, and 
did not reach deep enough to maintain the Turnep r 
till they arrived at the Fifth Part of the Growth 
By “artificial pasture,” he meant the part of the 
soil into which the roots of the plant could readily 
penetrate and feed. Tull bent every energy to prove 
that “ tillage is manure.” That is why he claimed 
that the plant food in stable manure was of little value 
and why he advocated using it only on grain crops— 
where tillage was not practicable. Here is an experi¬ 
ment that he deemed absolutely conclusive. 
A like Proof is i That feveral Lands of Turncps, 
drill’d on the Level, at Three Foot Rows, plow’d 
and doubly dung’d, and alfo Horfe-ho’d, did no 
produce near fo good a Crop of Turnepsy as Six Foot 
Ridges adjoining, Horfe-ho’d, tho’ no Dung had 
been laid thereon for many Years: There was no 
other Difference, than that the Three Foot Rows did 
not admit the Hoe-plough to raife half the artificial 
Pafture, as the Six Foot Rows did. The Dung plow’d 
into the narrow Intervals, before drilling, could ope¬ 
rate no further, with any great Effect, than tha Hoe- 
plough could turn it up, and help in its Pulveration. 
Dungy without Tillage, can do very little •, with 
fortie Tillage doth fomething; with much Tillage 
pulverizes the Soil in lefs time, than Tillage alone cart 
do ; but the Tillage alone, with more time, can pul¬ 
verize as well: This the Experiments of artificially 
pulverizing of the pooreft Land, as they are related 
by Mr. Evelyn y fully prove. 
Tull did a great service to English agriculture in 
advocating the use of horse hoes, cultivators and drills. 
He was considered an able writer and learned man. 
We give these extracts from his book to show in a 
forcible way how knowledge lias changed and grown 
since then. Another step towards a better understand¬ 
ing of the subject is shown in the following quotation 
from an old book printed in 1759. 
“Some dungs'are hot and light, as that of sheep, 
horses, poultry, etc., others again are fat and cooling, 
as that of oxen, cows, hogs, etc. As the remedies that 
are to be used must be contrary to the distempers they 
are to cure, so the dung of oxen, cows and hogs must 
be given to clean, dry, light earths to make them fatter 
and closer, and hot and dry dungs to meliorate cold, 
moist and heavy lands. 
‘ ‘ The dung of horses and mules is of admirable use 
in gardens in the winter time because it then animates 
and enlivens all things, and, in some measure, supplies 
the office which is performed by the heat of tlie sun in 
summer time.” 
Another property of dung was, it was said, “ to fat¬ 
ten the earth and render it more fruitful.” Among 
great authorities quoted was this : 
“Sir Hugh Plat says one load of grain will enrich 
ground more than 10 loads of common dung, which, if 
it be true, it is rational to suppose, that if simple grain, 
by only infusion in the mixtxxre of composts, has a very 
good effect, it will be more powerful when it has passed 
through the bodies of animals ! ” 
Thus we see how slowly true knowledge regarding 
this vitally ixnportant matter was growing. If we 
had space we might follow this growth step by step. 
It was a blind search after exact facts xxntil Liebig 
laid the foundation of modern agricixltxxral science. 
True progress was impossible xxntil investigators 
knew what the plant,- the soil and the inanure wei’e 
made of. When that was known economical manxxr 
ing was possible; it was not befox-e then, because 
no one coxild tell whether the plant was supplied 
with too much or too little of the essential ele¬ 
ments. We now look upon stable manux-e as a “com¬ 
plete manure,” because it contains the residues of grain 
and hay—complete vegetation. We know that the 
digested portion is in the xxrine and that the solids are 
not fully digested. We can tell almost to a certainty 
what part of the food will be used by the animal in mak¬ 
ing meat, milk or wool, and what part will be retxxrned 
as manxxre. These facts lead to stxxdies of the best way 
to handle the manure so that all or nearly all its valxxe 
may be retained. Great as are the wastes of this na¬ 
tion. there is none equal to that occasioned by careless¬ 
ness in handling and saving stable manure. Fertility 
enoxigh to feed evei-y hungry moxxth goes trickling away 
to the streams from American barn-yards. The great 
advance in the next 20 years mxxst be in improved 
methods of saving the contents of the farmer’s bank— 
the barn-yard. 
Histox-y of the Use of Chemical Fei-tilizers. 
THE MOST REMARKABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT. 
The records of the growth of the trade in fertilizers 
have been so freqxxently written xip that nothing new 
can be said here. We merely bring the old facts to¬ 
gether so that the contrast between the old and new 
times may he made more forcible. 
The first “complete fertilizer” xxsed in this countx-y 
was the fish put in each hill of corn, described else¬ 
where in this issue. At the time of the discovery and 
settlement of this country farmers knew nothing of 
what we term “agricultural science.” The crudest 
