g04 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
July 
are susceptible among themselves, (and with the inor¬ 
ganic constituents of plants) of forming an infinity of 
chemical combinations, and of yielding an endless va¬ 
riety of products. ’Tis from the four organic elements 
that more than 99 pounds in a hundred weight of pine 
or fir wood are composed. J Tis from these four substan¬ 
ces that all the bulk of an elephant, or any other ani¬ 
mal, is formed, that disappears when burned in the fire, 
and no human research has yet discovered any animal 
endowed with powers of assimilation sufficiently po¬ 
tent to convert into nutriment, carbon, nitrogen, and 
the other ultimate elements of animal substance. These 
elementary materials require the previous and more 
efficient action of vegetable chemistry; so thoroughly 
does it elaborate those elements, that little beyond so¬ 
lution and separation is required of the digestive func¬ 
tions of the higher orders of creation. It therefore 
follows, that animals cannot exist except through the 
instrumentality and intervention of plants. The soil 
might exist without the plants, the plants might live 
and die, though there were no animals to feed upon 
them. But the animal is, as it were, the creature and 
the consequence of both. The dead earth, the living 
plant, and the moving animal, are thus intimately con¬ 
nected. 
From “ the beginning ” it has been decreed that man 
should obtain his bread by the sweat of his brow, but 
that sweat would have been unavailing, if it had also 
been decreed that man should have provided in manure 
the nitrogen his bread contains. Provision was made for 
this contingency, before “Adam delved, and Eve spun.” 
And here the inquiry comes up, how has provision been 
made for this purpose? It has been reserved for 
modern chemistry to answer this question, and we find 
the answer in Prof. Horsford’s letter, published in the 
Cultivator of July, 1847, in which he gives the amount 
of ammonia in a great variety of soils—not in pounds, 
but in tons. Something like an average of 8,000 lbs. 
avoirdupoise of ammonia in a stratum of one acre in 
area, and one foot deep. The “ excavated earth ” was 
taken from a depth below all traces of organic matter. 
The Illinois prairie soil was brought by a returning 
German, in paper, from a field that had been cultivated 
without manure for ten years, and this gave over three 
tons of ammonia, and the subsoil over two and a-half 
tons. 
Prof. H. asks, “ now what farmer ever carted from 
his manure yard 8,000 pounds of ammonia to an acre 
of land ? One may almost say, what farmer ever cart¬ 
ed one-tenth or one-twentieth part of this amount.” 
He further says, “it is obvious that the amount of 
ammonia spread on fields in the ordinary distribution of 
barn-yard products, is of no moment. The quantity, 
with usual falls of rain, greatly exceeds in the course 
of a season any supply by human instrumentality. These 
results put the question of the sources of ammonia or 
nitrogen out of all doubt.” 
If plants are supplied with their requisite inorganic ■ 
constituents, and with the right physical conditions, we 
may reap heavy crops of “ highly nitrogenised pro¬ 
ducts,” without the aid of stable manure or guano. 
To sustain his views, Mr. W. cites the Prussian autho¬ 
rity. I have no doubt of the different yield of produce 
by the different manures; but is there any more proof 
of this difference being occasioned by the ammonia, 
than there is of its being the result of the phosphates, 
and other inorganic salts in the manure. 
He says: “the more liberal the use (of ammonia) 
the greater the yield.” Petzhold, in his agricultural 
chemistry, gives the results of some experiments with 
various salts, and quantities of ammonia. These re- 
eults seem clearly to contradict the above statement. 
Prof. Liebig says, “ the amount of nitrogen in ma¬ 
nure is a measure for its amount of phosphates, and 
other mineral ingredients of the soil. Without phos¬ 
phates, and without the other mineral elements of the 
food of plants, the ammonia exercises no influence what¬ 
ever upon vegetable life.” And Prof. Nesbit, of the 
Kensington agricultural school near London, makes the 
same remark. Now to substantiate the truth of some 
of the great principles laid down by Professors Liebig 
and Horsford, I shall adduce a number of well estab¬ 
lished facts, having a direct and positive bearing upon 
the question. 
Several years since, Prof. Henslow of England, in 
order to test the value, (if any,) in fixing the ammo¬ 
nia in manure by the addition of gypsum, engaged 
some fifty or more farmers to institute a series of ex¬ 
periments for this purpose. Each experimenter was to 
make two compost heaps of manure and other materi¬ 
als according to a fixed rule, (by weight and measure) 
laid down by Prof. H. The only difference in the heaps 
one was to have the addition of a given quantity of 
gypsum, supposed to be sufficient to fix all the ammo¬ 
nia that would be generated during the fermentation of 
the heap. The two kinds were applied side by side, on 
various soils and a variety of crops, and the results 
were carefully noted. 
The report* given by Prof. H. of the result, seems to 
leave the question wholly undetermined. His conclu¬ 
sions from these experiments—(fifteen in number) are 
given in this result. “It will be seen that with turneps 
the effect has been uniformly in favor of the gypsumed 
dung. With the straw of wheat the result is twice in 
favor of the gypsumed dung, once against it, and in 
one case, no difference. In respect to the wheat itself, 
it is six times in favor of the gypsumed dung, and six 
times against. The practical inference to be deduced 
from this part of the inquiry, favors the idea of using 
the gypsumed dung for aturnep crop, but shows that it 
produces no better effect than wngypsumed dung upon 
a wheat crop.” [This certainly does not tell greatly 
in favor of ammonia in manure.] 
In the Gardeners' Chronicle , May 11th, 1844, the 
editor gives the results of experiments obtained by a 
friend of his near St. Albans. The object of one of the 
experiments was to ascertain whether the expense of 
carting manures long distances could not be diminished 
by burning the manure and applying the ashes. The 
editor observes, if his experiments can be trusted, the 
results are of considerable importance, because it 
shows that stable litter burnt to ashes, is nearly as ef¬ 
fectual as Hie common bulky manure. 
The trial was made, as all trials should be, on an 
exhausted soil, consisting of a heavy loam. Turneps 
were sown on the 21st of June last, in drills 27 inches 
apart, and the space occupied by each experiment was 
exactly the same, viz: about the thirteenth of an acre. 
lbs. 
No. 1.—No manure, gross weight of turneps,. 88 
No. 2—Horse dung, 4 cwt., lime, half a bushel; the lime 
was slaked and mixed with the dung six weeks before it 
was put into the soil; this was for the purpose of driving 
off the ammonia. Weight of turneps,. 462 
No. 3— Horse dung, 4 cwt., sulphuric acid 2 lbs.; applied six 
weeks before it was put into the soil; this was for the 
purpose of fixing the ammonia. Turneps,. 444 
No. 4.—Horse dung, 4 cwt., thrown into a heap six weeks 
before using,. 392 
No. 5.—Horse dung. 6 cwt , same as above, do.,. 429 
No. 6 —Horse dung, 8 cwt-, same as above, do.,. 513 
No. 7 —Horse dung, 5 cwt.; burnt to ashes with free access 
of air,. 429 
No. 8.—Dung, 5 cwt., burnt with a very limited supply of air 
_ until the vegetable matter was burned into charcoal.... 455 
No. 9.—Dung, 5 cwt., sulphuric acid, 5 lbs.; mixed with the 
dung, and then carbonized like the last,. 417 
No. 10.—No manure,. 70 
The editor remarks, “If these results can be relied 
on, we shall come to the conclusion, 1st, that 5 cwt of 
stable litter when burnt, is as good as 6 cwt. of raw 
* Cdiaaa’s Report on European Agriculture, vol. 1, parts,page 
419 * 
