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

bushel, 63½ lbs. So much for a favorable and an unfavorable season. The _tenth_ season (1852-3), was still more unfavorable. The autumn of 1852 was so wet that it was impossible to work the land and sow the wheat until the 16th of March 1853. You will see that the produce on the unmanured plot was less than 6 bushels per acre. With barn-yard manure, 19 bushels, and with a heavy dressing of ammonia-salts and minerals, not quite 26 bushels per acre. With a heavy dressing of superphosphate, not quite 9¼ bushels per acre, and with a full dressing of mixed mineral manures and superphosphate, 10 bushels per acre. The weight per bushel on the unmanured plot was 45 lbs.; with mixed mineral manures, 48½ lbs.; with ammonia-salts alone, 48½ lbs.; with barn-yard manure, 51 lbs.; and with ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures, 52¼ lbs. Farmers are greatly dependent on the season, but the good farmer, who keeps up the fertility of his land stands a better chance of making money (or of losing less), than the farmer who depends on the unaided products of the soil. The one gets 6 bushels per acre, and 1,413 lbs. of straw of very inferior quality; the other gets 20 to 26 bushels per acre, and 5,000 lbs. of straw. And you must recollect that in an unfavorable season we are pretty certain to get high prices. The _eleventh_ season (1853-4,) gives us much more attractive-looking figures! We have over 21 bushels per acre on the plot which has grown eleven crops of wheat in eleven years without any manure. With barn-yard manure, over 41 bushels per acre. With ammonia-salts alone (17_a_), 45¾ bushels. With ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, (16_b_), over 50 bushels per acre, and 6,635 lbs. of straw. A total produce of nearly 5½ tons per acre. The _twelfth_ season (1854-5), gives us 17 bushels of wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot. Over 34½ bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure. And I think, for the first time since the commencement of the experiments, this plot produces the largest yield of any plot in the field. And well it may, for it has now had, in twelve years, 168 tons of barn-yard manure per acre! Several of the plots with ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, are nearly up to it in grain, and ahead of it in straw. The _thirteenth_ season (1855-6), gives 14½ bushels on the unmanured plot; over 36¼ bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure; and over 40 bushels on 8_a_, dressed with 600 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures. It will be noticed that 800 lbs. ammonia-salts does not give quite as large a yield this year as 600 lbs. I suppose 40 bushels per acre was all that the _season_ was capable of producing, and an extra quantity of ammonia did no good. 400 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 7_a_, produced 37¼ bushels per acre, and 800 lbs. on 16_b_, only 37¾ bushels. That extra half bushel of wheat was produced at considerable cost. The _fourteenth_ season (1856-7), gives 20 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and 41 bushels on the plot with barn-yard manure. Mixed mineral manures alone on 5_a_ gives nearly 23 bushels per acre. Mixed mineral manures and 200 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 6_a_, give 35¼ bushels. In other words the ammonia gives us over 12 extra bushels of wheat, and 1,140 lbs. of straw. Mineral manures and 400 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 7_b_, give 46¼ bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 600 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 8_b_, give nearly 49 bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 800 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 16_b_, give 50 bushels per acre, and 4,703 lbs. of straw. “This exceedingly heavy manuring,” said the Deacon, “does not pay. For instance, “200 lbs. ammonia-salts give an increase of 12¼ bushels per acre. 400 ” ” ” ” 23¼ ” ” 600 ” ” ” ” 26 ” ” 800 ” ” ” ” 27 ” ” The Deacon is right, and Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert call especial attention to this point. The 200 lbs. of ammonia-salts contain about 50 lbs. of ammonia, and the 400 lbs., 100 lbs. of ammonia. And as I have said, 100 lbs. of ammonia per acre is an unusually heavy dressing. It is as much ammonia as is contained in 1,000 lbs. of average Peruvian guano. We will recur to this subject. The _fifteenth_ season (1857-8,) gives a yield of 18 bushels of wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot, and nearly 39 bushels on the plot continuously manured with 14 tons of barnyard manure. Mixed mineral manures on 5_a_ and 5_b_, give a mean yield of less than 19 bushels per acre. Mixed mineral manures and 100 lbs. ammonia-salts, on plots 21 and 22, give 23¼ bushels per acre. In other words: 25 lbs. ammonia, gives an _increase_ of 4¼ bush. (100 lbs. ammonia-salts) 50 ” ” , ” ” ” ” 10 ” (200 ” ” ” ) 100 ” ” , ” ” ” ” 20 ” (400 ” ” ” ) 150 ” ” , ” ” ” ” 23 ” (600 ” ” ” ) 200 ” ” , ” ” ” ” 23 ” (800 ” ” ” ) “It takes,” said the Deacon, “about 5 lbs. of ammonia to produce a bushel of wheat. And according to this, 500 lbs. of Peruvian guano, guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, would give an increase of 10 bushels of wheat.” “This is a very interesting matter,” said I, “but we will not discuss it at present. Let us continue the examination of the subject. I do not propose to make many remarks on the tables. You must study them for yourself. I have spent hours and days and weeks making and pondering over these tables. The more you study them the more interesting and instructive they become.” The _sixteenth_ season (1858-9), gives us a little over 18¼ bushels on the unmanured plot. On the plot manured with 14 tons farmyard manure, 36¼ bushels; and this is the highest yield this season in the wheat-field. Mixed mineral manures alone, (mean of plot 5_a_ and 5_b_), give 20½ bushels. 25 lbs. ammonia (100 lbs. ammonia-salts), and mixed minerals, give 25¼ bushels, or an _increase_ over minerals alone of 4¾ bushels. 50 lbs. ammonia, an increase of 9¼ bushels. 100 ” ” ” ” ” 14 ” 150 ” ” ” ” ” 14 ” 200 ” ” ” ” ” 14¼ ” The season was an unfavorable one for excessive manuring. It was too wet and the crops of wheat when highly manured were much laid. The quality of the grain was inferior, as will be seen from the light weight per bushel. The _seventeenth_ season (1859-60,) gives less than 13 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and 32¼ bushels on the plot manured with 14 tons farm-yard manure. This season (1860), was a miserable year for wheat in England. It was both cold and wet. Mixed mineral manures, on plots 5_a_ and 5_b_, gave nearly 16 bushels per acre. 25 lbs. ammonia, in addition to the above, gave less than 15 bushels. In other words it gave no _increase_ at all. 50 lbs. ammonia, gave an _increase_ of 6 bushels. 100 ” ” ” ” ” ” 11¾ ” 150 ” ” ” ” ” ” 15¼ ” 200 ” ” ” ” ” ” 16¾ ” It was a poor year for the wheat-grower, and that, whether he manured excessively, liberally, moderately, or not at all. “I do not quite see that,” said the Deacon, “the farm-yard manure gave an _increase_ of nearly 20 bushels per acre. And the quality of the grain must have been much better, as it weighed 3½ lbs. per bushel more than the plot unmanured. If the wheat doubled in price, as it ought to do in such a poor year, I do not see but that the good farmer who had in previous years made his land rich, would come out ahead.” “Good for the Deacon,” said I. “‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’” If the Deacon continues to study these experiments much longer, we shall have him advocating chemical manures and high farming! The _eighteenth_ season (1860-1,) gave less than 11½ bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and nearly 35 bushels on the manured plot. The mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 15½ bushels. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. ammonia 18¼ ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 27¾ ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 35 ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 35 ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 37 ” The _nineteenth_ season (1861-2,) gave 16 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and over 38¼ bushels on the plot manured with farm-yard manure. Mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 18 bushels per acre. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. ammonia 20¼ ” ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 28¼ ” ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 36 ” ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 39½ ” ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 36¼ ” ” The _twentieth_ season (1862-3), gave 17¼ bushels on the unmanured plot, and 44 bushels per acre on the manured plot. Mixed mineral manures alone gave 19¾ bushels per acre. ” ” ” and 25 lbs. ammonia 28¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 50 ” ” 39¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 100 ” ” 53¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 150 ” ” 55¾ ” ” ” ” ” ” 200 ” ” 56 ” ” When we consider that this is the twentieth wheat-crop in succession on the same land, these figures are certainly remarkable. “They are so,” said the Deacon, “and what to me is the most surprising thing about the whole matter is, that the plot which has had no manure of any kind for 25 years, and has grown 20 wheat-crops in 20 successive years, should still produce a crop of wheat of 17¼ bushels per acre. Many of our farmers do not average 10 bushels per acre. Mr. Lawes must either have very good land, or else the climate of England is better adapted for wheat-growing than Western New York.” “I do not think,” said I, “that Mr. Lawes’ land is any better than yours or mine; and I do not think the climate of England is any more favorable for growing wheat without manure than our climate. If there is any difference it is in our favor.” “Why, then,” asked the Doctor, “do we not grow as much wheat per acre as Mr. Lawes gets from his continuously unmanured plot?” This is a question not difficult to answer. 1st. _We grow too many weeds._ Mr. Lawes plowed the land twice every year; and the crop was hoed once or twice in the spring to kill the weeds. 2d. We do not half work our heavy land. We do not plow it enough--do not cultivate, harrow, and roll enough. I have put wheat in on my own farm, and have seen others do the same thing, when the drill on the clay-spots could not deposit the seed an inch deep. There is “plant-food” enough in these “clay-spots” to give 17 bushels of wheat per acre--or perhaps 40 bushels--but we shall not get ten bushels. The wheat will not come up until late in the autumn--the plants will be weak and thin on the ground; and if they escape the winter they will not get a fair hold of the ground until April or May. You know the result. The straw is full of sap, and is almost sure to rust; the grain shrinks up, and we harvest the crop, not because it is worth the labor, but because we cannot cut the wheat with a machine on the better parts of the field without cutting these poor spots also. An acre or two of poor spots pull down the average yield of the field below the average of Mr. Lawes’ well-worked but unmanured land. 3d. Much of our wheat is seriously injured 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 of better tillage and better draining--and yet we think we have as good wheat-land and are as good farmers as can be found in this country or any other! Unless we drain land, where drainage is needed, and unless we work land thoroughly that needs working, and unless we kill the weeds or check their excessive growth, it is poor economy to sow expensive manures on our wheat-crops. But I do not think there is much danger of our falling into this error. The farmers who try artificial manures are the men who usually take the greatest pains to make the best and most manure from the animals kept on the farm. They know what manures cost and what they are worth. As a rule, too, such men are good farmers, and endeavor to work their land thoroughly and keep it clean. When this is the case, there can be little doubt that we can often use artificial manures to great advantage. “You say,” said the Deacon, who had been looking over the tables while I was talking, “that mixed mineral manures and 50 lbs. of ammonia give 39¾ bushels per acre. Now these mixed mineral manures contain potash, soda, magnesia, and superphosphate. And I see where superphosphate was used without any potash, soda, and magnesia, but with the same amount of ammonia, the yield is nearly 46 bushels per acre. This does not say much in favor of potash, soda, and magnesia, as manures, for wheat. Again, I see, on plot 10_b_, 50 lbs. of ammonia, _alone_, gives over 43½ bushels per acre. On plot 11_b_, 50 lbs. ammonia _and_ superphosphate, give 46½ bushels. Like your father, I am inclined to ask, ‘_Where can I get this ammonia?_’” CHAPTER XXVIII. LIME AS A MANURE. These careful, systematic, and long-continued experiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to prove that if you have a piece of land well prepared for wheat, which will produce, without manure, say 15 bushels per acre, there is no way of making that land produce 30 bushels of wheat per acre, without directly or indirectly furnishing the soil with a liberal supply of available nitrogen or ammonia. “What do you mean by directly or indirectly?” asked the Deacon. “What I had in my mind,” said I, “was the fact that I have seen a good dressing of lime double the yield of wheat. In such a case I suppose the lime decomposes the organic matter in the soil, or in some other way sets free the nitrogen or ammonia already in the soil; or the lime forms compounds in the soil which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. Be this as it may, the facts brought out by Mr. Lawes’ experiments warrant us in concluding that the increased growth of wheat was connected in some way with an increased supply of available nitrogen or ammonia.” My father used great quantities of lime as manure. He drew it a distance of 13 miles, and usually applied it on land intended for wheat, spreading it broad-cast, after the land had received its last plowing, and harrowing it in, a few days or weeks before sowing the wheat. He rarely applied less than 100 bushels of stone-lime to the acre--generally 150 bushels. He used to say that a small dose of lime did little or no good. He wanted to use enough to change the general character of the land--to make the light land firmer and the heavy land lighter. While I was with Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert at Rothamsted, I went home on a visit. My father had a four-horse team drawing lime every day, and putting it in large heaps in the field to slake, before spreading it on the land for wheat. “I do not believe it pays you to draw so much lime,” said I, with the confidence which a young man who has learned a little of agricultural chemistry, is apt to feel in his newly acquired knowledge. “Perhaps not,” said my father, “but we have got to do something for the land, or the crops will be poor, and poor crops do not pay these times. What would you use instead of lime?” --“Lime is not a manure, strictly speaking,” said I; “a bushel to the acre would furnish all the lime the crops require, even if there was not an abundant supply already in the soil. If you mix lime with guano, it sets free the ammonia; and when you mix lime with the soil it probably decomposes some compounds containing ammonia or the elements of ammonia, and thus furnishes a supply of ammonia for the plants. I think it would be cheaper to buy ammonia in the shape of Peruvian guano.” After dinner, my father asked me to take a walk over the farm. We came to a field of barley. Standing at one end of the field, about the middle, he asked me if I could see any difference in the crop. “Oh, yes,” I replied, “the barley on the right-hand is far better than on the left hand. The straw is stiffer and brighter, and the heads larger and heavier. I should think the right half of the field will be ten bushels per acre better than the other.” “So I think,” he said, “and now can you tell me why?” --“Probably you manured one half the field for turnips, and not the other half.” --“No.” --“You may have drawn off the turnips from half the field, and fed them off by sheep on the other half.” --“No, both sides were treated precisely alike.” --I gave it up --“Well,” said he, “this half the field on the right-hand was limed, thirty years ago, and that is the only reason I know for the difference. And now you need not tell me that lime does not pay.” I can well understand how this might happen. The system of rotation adopted was, 1st clover, 2d wheat, 3d turnips, 4th barley, seeded with clover. Now, you put on, say 150 bushels of lime for wheat. After the wheat the land is manured and sown with turnips. The turnips are eaten off on the land by sheep; and it is reasonable to suppose that on the half of the field dressed with lime there would be a much heavier crop of turnips. These turnips being eaten off by the sheep would furnish more manure for this half than the other half. Then again, when the land was in grass or clover, the limed half would afford more and sweeter grass and clover than the other half, and the sheep would remain on it longer. They would eat it close into the ground, going only on to the other half when they could not get enough to eat on the limed half. More of their droppings would be left on the limed half of the field. The lime, too, would continue to act for several years; but even after all direct benefit from the lime had ceased, it is easy to understand why the crops might be better for a long period of time. “Do you think lime would do any good,” asked the Deacon, “on our limestone land?”--I certainly do. So far as I have seen, it does just as much good here in Western New York, as it did on my father’s farm. I should use it very freely if we could get it cheap enough--but we are charged from 25 to 30 cts. a bushel for it, and I do not think at these rates it will pay to use it. Even gold may be bought too dear. “You should burn your own lime,” said the Deacon, “you have plenty of limestone on the farm, and could use up your down wood.”--I believe it would pay me to do so, but one man cannot do everything. I think if farmers would use more lime for manure we should get it cheaper. The demand would increase with competition, and we should soon get it at its real value. At 10 to 15 cents a bushel, I feel sure that we could use lime as a manure with very great benefit. “I was much interested some years ago,” said the Doctor, “in the results of Prof. Way’s investigations in regard to the absorptive powers of soils.” His experiments, since repeated and confirmed by other chemists, formed a new epoch in agricultural chemistry. They afforded some new suggestions in regard to how lime may benefit land. Prof. Way found that ordinary soils possessed the power of separating, from solution in water, the different earthy and alkaline substances presented to them in manure; thus, when solutions of salts of ammonia, of potash, magnesia, etc., were made to filter slowly through a bed of dry soil, five or six inches deep, arranged in a flower-pot, or other