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

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. ----------------------------------+---------------+-----+----+----