TALKS ON MANURES A SERIES OF FAMILIAR AND PRACTICAL TALKS BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND THE DEACON, THE DOCTOR, AND OTHER NEIGHBORS, ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT
TEXT
SEARCH INSIDE THIS BOOK
44 pages
Results for ACE. Open a page to see the matches highlighted.
Page 2 4 matches
growth of root brings the plant in contact with a larger feeding surface, and enables it to take up more nitric acid from its solution in the soil. Such is also the case during the w
Page 3 2 matches
aith in good plowing, early sowing, and thorough cultivation. PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. The Printers have got our “Talks on Manures” in type; and the publishers want a Preface.
Page 4 3 matches
n as many months. Time is required for the chemical changes to take place in the soil. But watch the effect on the clover for the next two years, and when the land is plowed again, se
Page 6 1 match
is tillage.” CHAPTER VIII. SUMMER-FALLOWING. This is not the place to discuss the merits, or demerits, of fallowing. But an intelligent Ohio farmer writes me: --“I see that you
Page 7 7 matches
eat will be produced by the slow combustion of a portion of the carbonaceous and nitrogenous matter, and the result will be a mass of material, which we should all recognize as “manur
Page 8 5 matches
ny value in the table. For instance, there is a large amount of carbonaceous matter in the manure of animals, which, for some crops, is not without value, but which is not here taken
Page 9 2 matches
s very considerable. The five tons (10,000 lbs.,) of fresh manure placed in a heap on the 3d of November, are reduced to 7,138 lbs. by the 30th of April. Of this 4,707 lbs. is water
Page 10 1 match
y manure deteriorates by being exposed to rain, spread out on the surface of the yard. The table merits careful study.” Table Showing Composition of Experimental Heap (No. III.). F
Page 11 9 matches
plow in the manure at once, or to let it lie for some time on the surface, and to give the rain full opportunity to wash it into the soil. “It appears to me a matter of the greatest
Page 12 2 matches
that he gets far more benefit from the manure when applied on the surface, and left exposed for several months, than if he plowed it under at once. I like to write and talk about Jo
Page 13 14 matches
ht the farm thirteen years ago; and much of this increase has taken place during the last five or six years, and I expect to see still greater improvement year by year. “Never mind a
Page 14 3 matches
e. 2d. When manure is allowed to lie scattered about over a large surface, it is liable to have much of its value washed out by the rain. In a compact heap of this kind, the rain or s
Page 15 6 matches
ceive from ten to twenty times as much water as would fall on the surface of the heap.” “But you do recommend piling manure and fermenting it in the open air and keeping the top flat
Page 16 3 matches
implements 65.00 Average repairs of place and buildings 175.00 Average depreciation and interest on stock 180.00 In
Page 19 4 matches
practice. We must either plow under the clover, let it rot on the surface, or pasture it, or use it for soiling, or make it into hay, feed it out to stock, and return the manure to th
Page 20 5 matches
to these crops, either by strengthening the straw, or stems of graminaceous plants, or otherwise benefiting them; but, after deducting the amount of silica from the total amount of m
Page 21 7 matches
ction, a six-inch slice cut down at a depth of 12 inches from the surface, no distinct fibres could be found. The soil was almost completely saturated with rain when it was dug up on
Page 22 8 matches
hed, when very nearly dry: Lbs. Surface, six inches 2,407,900 Next ” 2,444,200 Third ” 2,480,500 “
Page 23 1 match
nalyses of the soil show that in the first eighteen inches of the surface-soil, there was 6,550 lbs. of nitrogen per acre, on one part of the field, and 10,300 lbs. on the other part.
Page 24 3 matches
about 5 per cent of nitrogen, and is also rich in minerals and _carbonaceous matter_. It gives an increase, but not as large in proportion to the nitrogen furnished, as the sulphate o
Page 25 2 matches
t there is little danger of any loss from spreading manure on the surface, and I suppose you would have us conclude that we make a mistake in plowing it under, as the soil renders it
Page 26 5 matches
nd it to his advantage to use it largely as a top-dressing on the surface. Exposing manure to the atmosphere, spread out on the land for several months, and harrowing it occasionally,
Page 27 1 match
and important results. I was there at the time. But this is not the place to discuss the question. I am often amused, however, at the remarks we often hear in regard to the inferior q
Page 31 1 match
njured by stagnant water _in the soil_, and standing water on the surface. I think we may safely say that one-third the wheat-crop of this county (Monroe Co., N.Y.), is lost for want
Page 32 9 matches
potash, etc., was mixed with it, the ammonia, or potash, taking the place of the lime or soda. Prof. Way’s discovery, then, is not that soils have “absorptive properties”--that has b
Page 33 1 match
siderable extent. I have several times sown barley as soon as the surface-soil was thawed out five or six inches deep, but with a bed of solid frozen earth beneath. 3d. Two-rowed bar
Page 36 1 match
was applied in the spring. If the manure had been applied on the surface, instead of plowing it under, I believe the effect would have been still more in favor of the autumn-manuring
Page 38 2 matches
h a little soil, and then the superphosphate or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top and covered with soil before the seed was planted. Notwithstanding this precaution, the rain wash
Page 39 8 matches
ill not interfere with the drill. And the manure will be near the surface, where the young roots of the wheat can get hold of it. “You must recollect,” said the Doctor, “that the roo
Page 40 7 matches
case; and yet there seem to be some facts that would incline us to place Indian corn with the leguminous plants, such as clover, peas, and beans, rather than with the cereals, wheat,
Page 41 4 matches
to good food the refuse plant-food left in the soil. It is to the surface soil, what clover is to the subsoil. To the market gardener, or to a farmer who manures heavily common turnip
Page 42 1 match
e trouble is in the quality of the manure. It contains too much carbonaceous matter. In other words, it is so poor in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, that an excessive quantity has to b
Page 43 4 matches
each load of this rotted manure costs at least $5.00. H. E. Hooker places the cost of manure equally high, but seems willing to use all he can get, and does not think we can profitab
Page 44 3 matches
Some of it comes back to us in rains and dews. Of course, there are places where the sewage of our cities and villages can be used for irrigating purposes. But when water is used as f
Page 45 3 matches
acid, and potash, are largely retained in the first few inches of surface soil, and the deeper roots get hold of only those portions which leach through the upper layer of earth. Nitr
Page 46 4 matches
r thirty years’ experience in the use of these fertilizers, I would place far more confidence on a good and reliable analysis than on any actual trial I could make in the field. Testi
Page 47 2 matches
and was very light, and that you might walk over the fresh plowed surface in the wettest weather without any clay sticking to your boots: still a portion of the soil was dark in color
Page 48 9 matches
c acid by drainage. I was not at all surprised to find, that the surface soil of a wood on my farm, was poorer in nitrogen than the soil of an old permanent pasture, to which no manu
Page 49 8 matches
o dispense with railroad transportation in bringing manure to their places and marketing crops. I have noticed that one of the shrewdest gardeners invariably composts horn-shavings an
Page 50 1 match
|948 | 1.6| 5.0| 2.2| 0.4| 0.3| 0.4| 1.0| 0.4| 0.2 Sugar-beet Pomace |700 | 2.9| 11.4| 3.9| 0.9| 2.6| 0.7| 1.1| 0.4| 0.9 Clarifying Refuse |948 | 0.8| 3.3| 0.3| 0.1| 1.1| 0.2|
Page 51 1 match
of roots) | 19 | 0.24| 1.15|0.336|0.108|0.132|0.144 Pomace (15 per cent | | | | | | | of roots) | 46 | 0.44| 1.71|0.5
Page 52 3 matches
by Growing, 133-163 ” Letting it Rot on the Surface as Manure, 134 ” Nitrogen as a Manure for, 141 ” Pastu
Page 53 1 match
uperphosphate of Lime, When First Made in the United States, 324 Surface Application of Manure, 70-268 Swamp-muck,
Page 54 2 matches
con,” said he _quotation marks as in original (same speaker)_ carbonaceous matter and water, of little or no value?” _text has question mark after close quote_ It would be a very
wheat, or we must make more and richer manure, or we must plow in more
clover. The rotation, which many of us now adopt--corn, barley,
wheat--is profitable, provided we can make our land rich enough to
produce 75 bushels of shelled corn, 50 bushels of barley, and 35 bushels
of wheat, per acre, in three years.
This can be done, but we shall either require a number of acres of rich
low land, or irrigated meadow, the produce of which will make manure for
the upland, or we shall have to purchase oil-cake, bran, malt-combs, or
refuse beans, to feed out with our straw and clover-hay, or we must
purchase artificial manures. Unless this is done, we must summer-fallow
more, on the heavier clay soils, sow less oats and barley; or we must,
on the lighter soils, raise and plow under more clover, or feed it out
on the farm, being careful to save and apply the manure.
“Better do both,” said the Doctor.
“How?” asked the Deacon.
“You had better make all the manure you can,” continued the Doctor, “and
buy artificial manures besides.”
“The Doctor is right,” said I, “and in point of fact, our best farmers
are doing this very thing. They are making more manure and buying more
manure than ever before; or, to state the matter correctly, they are
buying artificial manures; and these increase the crops, and the extra
quantity of straw, corn, and clover, so obtained, enables them to make
more manure. They get cheated sometimes in their purchases; but, on the
whole, the movement is a good one, and will result in a higher and
better system of farming.”
I am amused at the interest and enthusiasm manifested by some of our
farmers who have used artificial manures for a year or two. They seem to
regard me as a sad old fogy, because I am now depending almost entirely
on the manures made on the farm. Years ago, I was laughed at because I
used guano and superphosphate. It was only yesterday, that a young
farmer, who is the local agent of this neighborhood, for a manure
manufacturer, remarked to me, “You have never used superphosphate. We
sowed it on our wheat last year, and could see to the very drill mark
how far it went. I would like to take your order for a ton. I am sure it
would pay.”
“We are making manure cheaper than you can sell it to me,” I replied,
“and besides, I do not think superphosphate is a good manure for
wheat.” --“Oh,” he exclaimed, “you would not say so if you had ever used
it.” --“Why, my dear sir,” said I, “I made tons of superphosphate, and
used large quantities of guano before you were born; and if you will
come into the house, I will show you a silver goblet I got for a prize
essay on the use of superphosphate of lime, that I wrote more than a
quarter of a century ago. I sent to New York for two tons of guano, and
published the result of its use on this farm, before you were out of
your cradle. And I had a ton or more of superphosphate made for me in
1856, and some before that. I have also used on this farm, many tons of
superphosphate and other artificial manures from different
manufacturers, and one year I used 15 tons of bone-dust.”
With ready tact, he turned the tables on me by saying: “Now I can
understand why your land is improving. It is because you have used
superphosphate and bone-dust. Order a few tons.”
By employing agents of this kind, the manufacturers have succeeded in
selling the farmers of Western New York thousands of tons of
superphosphate. Some farmers think it pays, and some that it does not.
We are more likely to hear of the successes than of failures. Still
there can be no doubt that superphosphate has, in many instances, proved
a valuable and profitable manure for wheat in Western New York.
From 200 to 300 lbs. are used per acre, and the evidence seems to show
that it is far better to _drill in the manure with the seed_ than to sow
it broadcast.
My own opinion is, that these superphosphates are not the most
economical artificial manures that could be used for wheat. They contain
too little nitrogen. Peruvian guano containing nitrogen equal to 10 per
cent of ammonia, would be, I think, a much more effective and profitable
manure. But before we discuss this question, it will be necessary to
study the results of actual experiments in the use of various
fertilizers for wheat.
CHAPTER XXVII.
LAWES AND GILBERT’S EXPERIMENTS ON WHEAT.
I hardly know how to commence an account of the wonderful experiments
made at Rothamsted, England, by John Bennett Lawes, Esq., and Dr. Joseph
H. Gilbert. Mr. Lawes’ first systematic experiment on wheat, commenced
in the autumn of 1843. A field of 14 acres of rather heavy clay soil,
resting on chalk, was selected for the purpose. Nineteen plots were
accurately measured and staked off. The plots ran the long way of the
field, and up a slight ascent. On each side of the field, alongside the
plots, there was some land not included, the first year, in the
experiment proper. This land was either left without manure, or a
mixture of the manures used in the experiments was sown on it.
I have heard it said that Mr. Lawes, at this time, was a believer in
what was called “Liebig’s Mineral Manure Theory.” Liebig had said that
“The crops on a field, diminish or increase in exact proportion to the
diminution or increase of the mineral substances conveyed to it in
manure.” And enthusiastic gentlemen have been known to tell farmers who
were engaged in drawing out farm-yard manure to their land, that they
were wasting their strength; all they needed was the mineral elements of
the manure. “And you might,” they said, “burn your manure, and sow the
ashes, and thus save much time and labor. The ashes will do just as much
good as the manure itself.”
Whether Mr. Lawes did, or did not entertain such an opinion, I do not
know. It looks as though the experiments the first year or two, were
made with the expectation that mineral manures, or the ashes of plants,
were what the wheat needed.
The following table gives the kind and quantities of manures used per
acre, and the yield of wheat per acre, as carefully cleaned for market.
Also the total weight of grain per acre, and the weight of straw and
chaff per acre.
Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year,
on the Same Land.
Table 1.--Manures And Produce; 1st Season, 1843-4. Manures and Seed
(Old Red Lammas) Sown Autumn 1843.
Manures:
FM Farmyard Manure.
FMA Farmyard Manure Ashes.[1]
SiP Silicate of Potass.[2]
PhP Phosphate of Potass.[3]
PhS Phosphate of Soda.[3]
PhM Phosphate of Magnesia.[3]
SPL Superphosphate of Lime.[3]
SAm Sulphate of Ammonia.
RC Rape Cake.
---+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| |
P | Manures per Acre. |
l +-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+
o | | | | | | | | | |
t | | | | | | | | | |
s | FM | FMA | SiP | PhP | PhS | PhM | SPL | SA | RC |
---+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+
|Tons.|Cwts.|lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |lbs. |
0 | Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. |
1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 700 | .. | 154 |
2 | 14 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
3 |Unmanured. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
4 | .. |32[1]| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 700 | .. | .. |
6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 420 | 350 | .. | .. |
7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 325 | .. | 350 | .. | .. |
8 | .. | .. | .. | 375 | .. | .. | 350 | .. | .. |
9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 630 | 65 | .. |
10 | .. | .. | 220 | .. | .. | .. | 560 | .. | .. |
11 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 350 | .. | 308 |
12 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 162½ | 210 | 350 | .. | .. |
13 | .. | .. | .. | 187½ | .. | 210 | 350 | .. | .. |
14 | .. | .. | 275 | .. | .. | 210 | 350 | .. | .. |
15 | .. | .. | 110 | 150 | .. | 168 | 350 | .. | .. |
16 | .. | .. | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350 | 65 | .. |
17 | .. | .. | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350[4]| 65 | .. |
18 | .. | .. | 110 | 75 | 65 | 84 | 350 | 65 | 154 |
19 | .. | .. | 110 | .. | 81 | 105 | 350 | 81 | .. |
20 |Unmanured. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
21 |Mixture of the residue of most of the | .. | .. | .. |
22 | other manures. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
---+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-----+
Produce:
Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel.
OC Offal Corn.[5]
C Corn.
TC Total Corn.
S&C Straw and Chaff.
TP Total Produce.
TP Total Produce (Corn and Straw).
C100 Corn to 100 Straw.
--------------------------------------+-----------------+-----+---
| Increase per | |
Produce per Acre, etc. | Acre by Manure. | | P
---------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ l
Dressed corn. | | | | | | | | | o
---------+-----+ | | | | | | | | t
Qty.[5] |Wt/Bu| OC | TC | S&C | TP | C | S&C | TP |C100 | s
---------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---
Bu. Pks.|lbs. |lbs.|lbs. |lbs. |lbs. | lbs.| lbs.|lbs. | |
19 3¾ |58.5 | 61 |1228 |1436 |2664 | 305 | 316 | 621 |85.5 | 0
16 3 |59.0 | 52 |1040 |1203 |2243 | 117 | 83 | 200 |86.4 | 1
20 1¾ |59.3 | 64 |1276 |1476 |2752 | 353 | 356 | 709 |86.4 | 2
15 0 |58.5 | 46 | 923 |1120 |2043 | .. | .. | .. |82.4 | 3
14 2¼ |58.0 | 44 | 888 |1104 |1992 | -35 | -16 | -51 |80.4 | 4
15 2¼ |58.3 | 48 | 956 |1116 |2072 | 33 | -4 | 29 |85.6 | 5
15 1 |60.0 | 48 | 964 |1100 |2064 | 41 | -20 | 21 |87.6 | 6
15 2 |60.3 | 49 | 984 |1172 |2156 | 61 | 52 | 113 |84.0 | 7
15 0¾ |61.3 | 49 | 980 |1160 |2140 | 57 | 40 | 97 |84.5 | 8
19 2¼ |62.3 | 54 |1280 |1368 |2048 | 357 | 248 | 605 |93.5 | 9
15 1¾ |62.0 | 50 |1008 |1112 |2120 | 85 | -8 | 77 |90.6 |10
17 0¾ |61.8 | 56 |1116 |1200 |2316 | 193 | 80 | 273 |93.0 |11
15 2 |61.5 | 50 |1004 |1116 |2120 | 81 | -4 | 77 |90.0 |12
16 1¼ |62.5 | 54 |1072 |1204 |2276 | 149 | 84 | 233 |89.0 |13
15 3 |61.3 | 51 |1016 |1176 |2192 | 93 | 56 | 149 |86.4 |14
16 3¼ |62.0 | 58 |1096 |1240 |2336 | 173 | 120 | 293 |88.4 |15
19 3¼ |62.5 | 65 |1304 |1480 |2784 | 381 | 360 | 741 |88.1 |16
18 3¾ |62.3 | 62 |1240 |1422 |2662 | 317 | 302 | 619 |87.2 |17
20 3¾ |62.0 | 63 |1368 |1768 |3136 | 415 | 618 |1093 |77.4 |18
24 1¼ |61.8 | 79 |1580 |1772 |3352 | 657 | 652 |1309 |89.2 |19
.. .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |20
.. .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |21
.. .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |22
---------+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---
[Note 1: The farmyard dung was burnt slowly in a heap in the open
air to an imperfect or coaly ash, and 32 cwts. of ash represent 14
tons of dung.]
[Note 2: The silicate of potass was manufactured at a glass-house,
by fusing equal parts of pearl-ash and sand. The product was a
transparent glass, slightly deliquescent in the air, which was ground
to a powder under edge-stones.]
[Note 3: The manures termed superphosphate of lime, phosphate of
potass, phosphate of soda, and phosphate of magnesia, were made by
acting upon bone-ash by means of sulphuric acid in the first instance,
and in the case-of the alkali salts and the magnesian one neutralizing
the compound thus obtained by means of cheap preparations of the
respective bases. For the superphosphate of lime, the proportions were
5 parts bone-ash, 3 parts water, and 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. gr.
1.84; and for the phosphates of potass, soda, and magnesia, they were
4 parts bone-ash, water as needed, 3 parts sulphuric acid of sp. gr.
1.84, and equivalent amounts, respectively, of pearl-ash, soda-ash, or
a mixture of 1 part medicinal carbonate of magnesia, and 4 parts
magnesian limestone. The mixtures, of course, all lost weight
considerably by the evolution of water and carbonic acid.]
[Note 4: Made with unburnt bones.]
[Note 5: In this first season, neither the weight nor the measure
of the offal corn was recorded separately; and in former papers, the
bushels and pecks of total corn (including offal) have erroneously
been given as dressed corn. To bring the records more in conformity
with those relating to the other years, 5 per cent, by weight, has
been deducted from the total corn previously stated as dressed corn,
and is recorded as offal corn; this being about the probable
proportion, judging from the character of the season, the bulk of
the crop, and the weight per bushel of the dressed corn. Although not
strictly correct, the statements of dressed corn, as amended in this
somewhat arbitrary way, will approximate more nearly to the truth, and
be more comparable with those relating to other seasons, than those
hitherto recorded.]
These were the results of the harvest of 1844. The first year of these
since celebrated experiments.
If Mr. Lawes expected that the crops would be in proportion to the
minerals supplied in the manure, he must have been greatly disappointed.
The plot without manure of any kind, gave 15 bushels of wheat per acre;
700 lbs. of superphosphate of lime, made from burnt bones, produced only
38 lbs. or about half a bushel more grain per acre, and 4 lbs. _less_
straw than was obtained without manure. 640 lbs. of superphosphate, and
65 lbs. of commercial sulphate of ammonia (equal to about 14 lbs. of
ammonia), gave a little over 19½ bushels of dressed wheat per acre. As
compared with the plot having 700 lbs. of superphosphate per acre, this
14 lbs. of available ammonia per acre, or, say 11½ lbs. nitrogen, gave
an increase of 324 lbs. of grain, and 252 lbs. of straw, or a total
increase of 576 lbs. of grain and straw.
On plot No. 19, 81 lbs. of sulphate ammonia, with minerals, produces 24¼
bushels per acre. This yield is clearly due to the ammonia.
The rape-cake contains about 5 per cent of nitrogen, and is also rich in
minerals and _carbonaceous matter_. It gives an increase, but not as
large in proportion to the nitrogen furnished, as the sulphate of
ammonia. And the same remarks apply to the 14 tons of farm-yard manure.
We should have expected a greater increase from such a liberal dressing
of barn-yard manure. I think the explanation is this: The manure had not
been piled. It was probably taken out fresh from the yard (this, at any
rate, was the case when I was at Rothamsted), and plowed under late in
the season. And on this heavy land, manure will lie buried in the soil
for months, or, if undisturbed, for years, without decomposition. In
other words, while this 14 tons of barn-yard manure, contained at least
150 lbs. of nitrogen, and a large quantity of minerals and carbonaceous
matter, it did not produce a bushel per acre more than a manure
containing less than 12 lbs. of nitrogen. And on plot 19, a manure
containing less than 15 lbs. of available nitrogen, produced nearly 4
bushels per acre more wheat than the barn-yard manure containing at
least _ten times_ as much nitrogen.
There can be but one explanation of this fact. The nitrogen in the
manure lay dormant in this heavy soil. Had it been a light sandy soil,
it would have decomposed more rapidly and produced a better effect.
As we have before stated, John Johnston finds, on his clay-land, a far
greater effect from manure spread on the surface, where it decomposes
rapidly, than when the manure is plowed under.
The Deacon was looking at the figures in the table, and not paying much
attention to our talk. “What could a man be thinking about,” he said,
“to burn 14 tons of good manure! It was a great waste, and I am glad the
ashes did no sort of good.”
After the wheat was harvested in 1844, the land was immediately plowed,
harrowed, etc.; and in a few weeks was plowed again and sown to wheat,
the different plots being kept separate, as before.
The following table shows the manures used this second year, and the
yield per acre:
Experiments at Rothamsted on the Growth of Wheat, Year After Year,
on The Same Land.
Table II.--Manures and Produce; 2nd Season, 1845. Manures and Seed
(Old Red Lammas) Sown March 1845.
Manures:
FM Farmyard Manure.
SiP Silicate of Potass.[1]
PhP Phosphate of Potass.[2]
SPL Superphosphate of Lime.[2]
B-A Bone-ash.
MAc Muriatic Acid.
G Guano.
SAm Sulphate of Ammonia.
MAm Muriate of Ammonia.
CAm Carbonate of Ammonia.
RC Rape Cake.
T Tapioca.
---+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
P | Manures per Acre. |
l +-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+
o | | | | | | | | | | | | |
t | | | | | | | | | | | | |
s | FM | SiP|PhP |SPL |B-A | MAc| G | SAm | MAm | CAm | RC | T |
---+-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+
|Tons.|lbs.|lbs.|lbs.|lbs.|lbs.| lbs. | lbs. | lbs. | lbs. |lbs.|lbs.|
0 | Mixture of the residue of most of the other manures. |
1 | .. |112 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |224 | .. | .. |560 | .. |
2 | 14 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
3 |Unmanured.| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
4 | .. | .. | .. | .. |112 |112 | .. |112 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
5[4]{1 Unmanured. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
{2 ..| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |252[3]| .. | .. |
6 | .. | .. | .. |112 | .. | .. | .. |112 | .. | .. |560 | .. |
7 | .. | .. | .. |112 | .. | .. | .. |112 | .. | .. | .. |560 |
8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |112 | .. | .. |560 | .. |
9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |168[5]|166[5]| .. | .. | .. |
10 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |168[6]|168[6]| .. | .. | .. |
11 | .. | .. | .. |280 | .. | .. | .. |224 | .. | .. |560 | .. |
12 | .. | .. |280 | .. | .. | .. | .. |224 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
13 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |336[7]| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
14 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |672[8]| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
15 | .. | .. | .. | .. |224 |224 | .. |224 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
16 | .. | .. | .. |224 | .. | .. | .. | 56 | 56 | .. |560 | .. |
17 | .. | .. | .. |224 | .. | .. | .. |112 |112 | .. |280 | .. |
18 | .. | .. | .. |336 | .. | .. | .. |112 |112 | .. | .. | .. |
19 | .. | .. | .. | .. |112 |112 | .. |112 | .. | .. |390 | .. |
20 |Unmanured.| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
21}|Mixture of the residue of most of the| .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
22}| other manures. .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
---+-----+----+----+----+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+
Produce:
Wt/Bu Weight per Bushel.
OC Offal Corn.[5]
C Corn.
TC Total Corn.
S&C Straw and Chaff.
TP Total Produce.
TP/C&S Total Produce (Corn and Straw).
OCD Offal Corn to 100 Dressed.
C100 Corn to 100 Straw.
----------------------------------+---------------+-----+----+----
SOURCES & PROVENANCE
1 listed
This page is an AI-organised index. The label means the grouping and cross-links were compiled with AI; the information itself comes from the public-domain books, reports and manuals listed below. Open any source to read the local copy or follow the link to the original publication.
PUBLIC-DOMAIN BOOK
Talks on Manures A Series of Familiar and Practical Talks Between the Author and the Deacon, the Doctor, and Other Neighbors, on the Whole Subject
primary
Full text in the local archive
Bibliographic record from the archive catalogue.