iuis 
experiments of German investigators that if you 
multiply the number of pounds of dry matter con¬ 
sumed by the following: For the horse by 2.1; for 
the cow by 3.8; for the sheep by 1.8; the result will 
give the amount of manure so made. Thus, if the 
cow consumes 25 pounds of dry matter per day, mul¬ 
tiply 25 by 3.8, or 95 pounds per day, which by 
calculation will give 12.3 tons per year. This cal¬ 
culation, of course, is based on the supposition that 
the animal is pastured at no time during the year, 
nor does it take into consideration the amount of 
bedding used, which would have to be added. 
The question may now naturally arise as to how 
to determine the amount of dry matter consumed. 
This may be found from the table of fertilizing in¬ 
gredients mentioned below. Thus, the analysis of 
corn silage contains the following: 
Water 80; nitrogen .42; phosphoric acid .13; pot¬ 
ash .39. Everything that is not water is dry matter, 
so corn silage contains 20% dry matter, therefore, 
if you feed 40 pounds of corn silage a day, take 
20% of 40 pounds, which would give eight pounds 
per day. This calculation can easily be carried 
out for any number of animals any number of days. 
The above figures were found to be slightly in 
excess of American practice, and in an experiment 
carried out at Cornell it was found that a full- 
grown cow would make 10.2 tons of manure a year, 
which corresponds very closely to Mr. Wing’s cal¬ 
culations of 10 loads per annum. 
In order to bring out more fully the necessity of 
conserving the liquid portions of manure to save 
thereby the nitrogen, the following analysis by Wolff 
may be of value: 
1000 POUNDS OF FRESH DUNG CONTAINS: 
Water Nitrogen Plios. Acid Alkalies 
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
Ilorse . 760 5.0 3.5 3.0 
Cow . 840 3.0 2.5 1.0 
Swine . 800 6.0 4.5 5.0 
Sheep . 580 7.5 6.0 3.0 
1000 POUNDS OF FRESH URINE CONTAINS: 
Water Nitrogen Plios. Acid Alkalies 
Llis. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
Horse . S90 12.0 ... 15.0 
Cow . 920 8.0 ... 14.0 
Swine . 975 3.0 1.25 2.0 
Sheep . 865 14.0 0.5 20.0 
Now, to continue further the discussion of man¬ 
ures. Every farmer knows that if he has a large 
amount of stable or farmyard manure he is the 
possessor of a very valuable asset, but it does not 
seem to be clearly understood what manurial qual¬ 
ities may be expected from this manure, nor the 
method to pursue in determining these manurial 
qualities. The following procedure may bring the 
subject more clearly before your readers. Let us 
take the case of R. V. B., who has 20 cows, stabled 
during the entire year, and suppose that he feeds 
the following diet each day: Corn silage 40 pounds; 
clover hay 10 pounds; cotton-seed meal two pounds; 
wheat bran four pounds; and let us now carry out 
our calculations to see just what and in what amount 
the manure from these animals may give in plant 
food. It must be clearly understood that the cal¬ 
culations which follow are based on manure that 
has been properly handled and stored. 
I. In order to determine the amount and kinds 
of plant food which the manure will contain, it is 
necessary to keep a careful arid accurate record of 
the amounts and kinds of food used, as the various 
foods will differ in their constituents of plant food. 
II. What percent of the manurial constituents 
contained in the food will appear in the manure. 
This will vary according to the animal, but in the 
case of milch cows it can safely be calculated that 
80% of the manurial constituent found in the food 
will be voided in the excrement; for hogs, about 
90%; for horses, all. 
III. The fertilizing ingredients of all the or¬ 
dinary feeds are well known and tables of these 
may be obtained from your nearest experimental 
station or from the Editor and Chief of Division of 
Publications, Department of Agriculture, Washing¬ 
ton, D. C. 
To follow out now our problem, based on the diet 
as given above for 20 cows. The fertilizing ingre¬ 
dients in every 100 pounds of the following are: 
POUNDS IN 100. 
Water 
Nitrogen 
Phos.Acid 
Potash 
For corn silage. 
80. 
.42 
.13 
.39 
For red clover. 
15. 
2.01 
.41 
2.11 
For cotton-seed meal 
8.2 
6.70 
2.47 
1.83 
For wheat bran... . 
9.9 
2.36 
2.10 
1.40 
If he feeds corn silage, clover hay, cotton-seed 
meal, and wheat bran to each cow at the rate as 
given above, he will then feed his 20 cows: 
Corn silage .800 pounds per day 
Clover hay .200 pounds per clay 
Cotton-seed meal .. .. .. 40 pounds per day 
Wheat bran . SO pounds per day 
Or for entire year: 
Corn silage .292.0000 pounds 
Glover hay. 73,000 pounds 
Cotton-seed meal . 14,600 pounds 
Wheat bran . 29,200 pounds 
Now, as the table of fertilizing ingredients is 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
given in 100 of pounds, the above results must be 
reduced to terms of 100 of pounds, thus: 
Pounds 
in 100 
Corn silage .292,000 lbs. is 2,920 
Clover hay . 73,000 lbs. is 730 
Cotton-seed meal . 14,600 lbs. is 146 
Wheat bran . 29,200 lbs. is 292 
In order to obtain the amount of nitrogen, phos¬ 
phoric acid and potash, we simply multiply the 
number of hundreds of pounds by the amount as 
given in the table of fertilizing ingredients, thus: 
Corn silage, for nitrogen, 2920 by .42. or 1226.40, for 
phosphoric acid, 2920 by .13, or 379.60; potash, 2920 
by .39, or 1138.80. To carry the same procedure 
for all the kinds used, we will have: 
PLANT FOOD IN FEEDS USED. 
Nitrogen Plios. Acid Potash 
For 20 Cows Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
Corn silage 292,000 lbs... 1.226.40 379.60 1,138.S0 
Clover hay, 73,000 lbs. 1.467.30 299.30 1,540.30 
Cotton-seed meal 14,600 lbs. 978.20 360.62 267.18 
Wheat bran 29,200 lbs.... 689.12 613.20 408.80 
Total . 4,361.021,552.72 3,355.08 
As explained above, in the case of cows we should 
expect to find in the excrements, SO per cent of the 
totals as given in the table, thus: for nitrogen, 80% 
of 4361.2, or 3294.S16 pounds. Phosphoric acid, 
1242.176 pounds. Potash, 2714.064 pounds. We have, 
then, arrived at our final results, which shows what 
The Merrimac Grape. Fig. 517. 
See Ruralisms, Page 1327. 
plant foods and in what amounts R. V. B. should 
expect in the manure from his 20 cows. 
LE GRAND C. GRISWOLD. 
THE USE OF LAND PLASTER 
What is the effeet of “land plaster” on ground or 
vegetation? Has it the same effect on land as lime, 
such as reducing acidity? Also how does it compare 
per ton in value with lime? A. G. H. 
Would it be advisable to use land plaster costing $7 
per ton as an absorbent in the stables? Would it add 
to the fertilizing value of the manure in proportion to 
its cost, and would it leach out and be lost if thrown 
on the manure pile out of doors? Would we get more 
from it by spreading it on the land alone? J. M. H. 
Gloversville, N. Y. 
There is no exa<5t comparison between gypsum or 
land plaster and lime. Gypsum is a sulphate of 
lime. It has some power for “sweetening” the soil, 
but is slower in its action and not so effective as 
lime. We would not advise the use of gypsum in 
large quantities for use on the land. Its place is in 
the stable or manure pile. There it has some power 
of holding the ammonia. This power comes through 
a chemical change in which sulphate of ammonia 
is produced—a form in which the ammonia will be 
held as a solid. If we were to use lime in the stable 
there would be formed carbonate of ammonia—a 
gas which would pass off into the air. Thus the gyp¬ 
sum both in the stable and in the manure pile will 
pay. Some 40 or more years ago large quantities of 
gypsum were used about as freely as we now use 
lime. It gave fine results for some years particu¬ 
larly on clover, and it came to he known as a special 
clover fertilizer. After a time it seemed to lose its 
power to increase crops. It was found that one of 
the functions of gypsum was to make certain forms 
of potash free in the soil. This was done by a 
chemical action, so that the gypsum made this pot¬ 
ash available. After some years these forms of 
potash were exhausted and then, of course, the 
gypsum failed. Then came the modern system of 
fertilizing with the great imports of potash and 
December 13, 
heavy production of phosphates, and farmers began 
using fertilizers rather than gypsum. In the East¬ 
ern States it is now rarely used except in small 
quantities in the stables or manure piles. There it 
does good service. It is well worth .$7 a ton for 
this use. If the manure pile is reasonably protected 
the ammonia will not be lost. We have for some 
time believed that our scientific men might well ex¬ 
periment with gypsum to see if, after these long 
years it will not have something of its old power. 
THE COST OF AN OAT CROP. 
I was much interested in Mr. Brown's article on 
page 1015 dealing with the cost of oat production 
and have beeu hoping to see some comments on it 
in later issues. I have kept an accurate account 
of my oat cost which is as follows: 
Per Per 
Acre Bn. 
Plowing, harrowing and drilling 5% acres $5.18 .155 
Seed 15^4 bu. at $1.00 ... 2.77 .083 
Cutting and hauling in. 2.63 .079 
Thrashing and extra thrashing labor. 1.27 .038 
Land rent at $5.00 per acre. 5.00 .15 
$16.85 .505 
Credit 4 tons straw at $10—$40 00 ) . 2 1.56 .643 
1S3 bu. oats .43— <8.09 ) 
This leaves me a profit of.$4.71 .138 
The straw amounts to 22 cents per bushel and 
deducting this leaves .285 as net cost per bushel 
of the oats. 
Mr. Brown asked for criticisms of his cost figur¬ 
ing, so I will give a few as I see the matter. His 
extra labor for thrashing seems high as compared 
to mine, but as he kept account of it it is probably 
all right, but he does not figure his straw at all. I 
do not think he figured his land rent or interest cor¬ 
rectly, as the buildings, especially the barns, are 
part of the farm, also some parts of a farm are 
worth more than others, like pastures, etc. I know 
of an entire farm here that rents for $5 per acre, 
so do not think my charge for land rent is too 
much. 
I charged 15 cents per bushel for man’s labor, 
which is the going wage here, and 40 cents per 
bushel for man and team, which is what it would 
cost to hire team work here. While I have kept no 
exact cost of my horse labor I feel sure it costs 
me far more than the 5% cents per bushel Mr. 
Brown figured. I know that my team ate 10 big 
loads of hay, and I had to feed some cornstalks and 
cut grass to fill out the year until hay was cut again. 
I cannot tell how much grain they ate, but figuring 
the small ration of two quarts of oats, each three 
times per day for six months would make 68 bushels 
which would probably cost $30. Ilay has been 
worth $12 to $14 per ton, and when you add to this 
feed cost the interest on the value of a horse and 
10% of the value for depreciation (figuring the aver¬ 
age working life of a horse at 10 years) it will make 
a horse cost considerably over $100 per year to 
keep, so I do not think the 40 cents per bushel I 
charged for team and man is too much. 
Of course some will say I should not charge mar¬ 
ket price for hay and feed I raise, as it did not cost 
me that much. I agree that as I would sell the hay 
and grain if I did not feed it, I should charge the 
team the price I would have sold it for. Another 
item neither of us has figured iu and a difficult 
one to get at is the general or overhead expense as 
it is termed in factories. I 11 a factory it consists of 
engine room expense, salaries of office and sales 
force and similar things. On a farm it consists of 
money and labor repairing fences and buildings and 
doing hundreds of odd jobs any farmer knows of, 
and which cost considerable in the course of a 
year, but can be charged to no particular crop. 
For instance. Mr. Brown charges 11 cents per bushel 
for man's labor based on 11% hour’s work per day. 
Part of this time is used in doing chores, and there 
are rainy days and Winter days when the wages go 
on same as in fair weather, but no crop is worked 
upon. What does he charge this expense to? 
Another item of general expense is the deprecia¬ 
tion of tools and machinery. This general expense 
should he kept account of, and at the end of the 
year charged to the different crops according to their 
acreage in order to arrive at the exact cost of a 
bushel of grain or other produce. The cost of farm 
produce is hard to figure, and few know what they 
are paying for the things they sell. I hope others 
who are keeping account of cost of production will 
write The R. N.-Y., telling us how they figure and 
what the cost is of various crops. Don't pick the 
ones on which a profit is made, but let us know 
of some of the crops that don’t pay for themselves. 
My potatoes failed to make good this year and there 
must be others who have not made a profit on some 
crop if they have kept a record so that they know 
just how they stand. 
Onondaga Co., N. Y. bruce sidmore. 
