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

When the nitrogen is in an available condition, spring barley can take up and utilize a larger proportion of the nitrogen than winter wheat. Neither the wheat nor the barley can get at and take up half what is applied, and this, notwithstanding the fact that a heavy dew or a slight rain furnishes water enough on an acre to dissolve a liberal dressing of nitrate of soda or sulphate and muriate of ammonia. The truth is, the soil is very conservative. It does not, fortunately for us, yield up all its plant-food in a year. We have seen that when wheat or barley is dressed with soluble ammonia-salts or nitrate of soda, a considerable amount of the nitrogen is left in the soil--and yet this nitrogen is of comparatively little benefit to the succeeding crops of wheat or barley, while a fresh dressing of ammonia-salts or nitrate of soda is of great benefit to the crop. In other words, when wheat is sown after wheat, or barley after barley, we do not get half the benefit from the manure which it is theoretically capable of producing. Now, the question is, whether by a judicious rotation of crops, we can avoid this great loss of manure? There was a time when it was thought that the growth of turnips enriched the soil. I have heard it said, again and again, that the reason English farmers grow larger crops of wheat and barley than we do, is because they grow so many acres of turnips. “So I have often heard,” said the Deacon, “and I supposed the broad turnip leaves absorbed nitrogen from the atmosphere.” There is no evidence that leaves have any such power; while there are many facts which point in an opposite direction. The following experiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to show that the mere growth of turnips does not enrich land for grain crops. Turnips were grown on the same land, year after year, for ten years. The land was then plowed and sown to barley for three years. The following table gives the results: Three Years of Barley After Ten Years of Turnips. ------------------------------------+---------------------------- |Produce of Barley per Acre. Particulars of Manures, etc. +------+------+------+------- | 1853.| 1854.| 1855.|Average | | | |3 years ------------------------------------+------+------+------+------- | bush.| bush.| bush.| bush. Hoos-Field-- | | | | Barley, without manure, after 3 | 26 | 35⅛ | 34⅛ | 31⅜ corn-crops | | | | Barn-Field-- | | | | Barley, after 10 yrs. Turnips | | | | manured as under-- | | | | 1.--Mineral manures (last 8 years) | 20½ | 19½ | 20 | 20 2.--Mineral manures (8 yrs.); | | | | Ammonia-salts (6 yrs.). | 23⅛ | 21¼ | 21¾ | 22 3.--Mineral manures (8 yrs.); | | | | Rape-cake (6 yrs.) | 28¾ | 24⅝ | 23⅛ | 25¾ 4.--Mineral manures (8 yrs.); | | | | Ammonia-salts and Rape-cake | | | | (6 yrs.) | 29⅛ | 23¾ | 23¾ | 25⅝ 5.--Mineral manures (8 yrs.); | | | | Ammonia-salts, for Barley, 1854 |(20½) | 52⅜ | 26⅝ | 39½ 6.--Mineral manures (8 yrs.); | | | | Ammonia-salts, for Barley, | | | | ’54 and ’55 |(20½) | 54⅞ | 49⅜ | 47⅝ ------------------------------------+------+------+------+------- The yield of barley after turnips is less than it is after grain crops, and it is evident that this is due to a lack of available nitrogen in the soil. In other words, the turnips leave _less_ available nitrogen in the soil than grain crops. After alluding to the facts given in the foregoing table, Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert say: “There is evidence of another kind that may be cited as showing that it was of available nitrogen that the turnips had rendered the soil so deficient for the after-growth of barley. It may be assumed that, on the average, between 25 and 30 lbs. of nitrogen would be annually removed from the Rothamsted soil by wheat or barley grown year after year without nitrogenous manure. But it is estimated that from the mineral-manured turnip-plots there were, over the 10 years, more than 50 lbs. of nitrogen per acre per annum removed. As, however, on some of the plots, small quantities of ammonia-salts or rape-cake were applied in the first two years of the ten of turnips, it is, perhaps, more to the purpose to take the average over the last 8 years of turnips only; and this would show about 45 lbs. of nitrogen removed per acre per annum. An immaterial proportion of this might be due to the small amounts of nitrogenous manures applied in the first two years. Still, it may be assumed that about 1½ time as much nitrogen was removed from the land for 8, if not for 10 years, in succession, as would have been taken in an equal number of crops of wheat or barley grown without nitrogenous manure. No wonder, then, that considerably less barley has been grown in 3 years after a series of mineral-manured turnip-crops, than was obtained in another field after a less number of corn-crops. “The results obtained in Barn-field afford a striking illustration of the dependence of the turnip-plant on a supply of available nitrogen within the soil, and of its comparatively great power of exhausting it. They are also perfectly consistent with those in Hoos-field, in showing that mineral manures will not yield fair crops of barley, unless there be, within the soil, a liberal supply of available nitrogen. The results obtained under such very different conditions in the two fields are, in fact, strikingly mutually confirmatory.” CHAPTER XXX. MANURES FOR OATS. “What is the use of talking about manure for oats,” said the Deacon, “if land is not rich enough to produce oats without manure, it certainly will not pay to manure them. We can use our manure on some crop that will pay better.” “That is precisely what we want to know,” said I. “Very likely you are right, but have you any evidence?” “Evidence of what?” “Have you any facts that show, for instance, that it will pay better to use manure for wheat or barley than for oats?” “Can’t say that I have, but I think manure will pay better on wheat than on oats.” Mr. Lawes is making a series of experiments on oats. Let us take a hasty glance at the results of the first two seasons: Experiments on Oats at Rothamsted. ----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------ | Grain, in | Straw, |Weight per | bushels. | cwts. |bushel, lbs. Manures per Acre. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ | 1869| 1870| 1869| 1870| 1869| 1870 ----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ 1.--No manure | 36⅝ | 16⅜ | 19¼ | 9⅛ | 36¾ | 35 2.--Mixed Alkalies and | | | | | | Superphosphate of Lime | 45 | 19⅛ | 24½ | 9⅝ | 38½ | 35⅛ 3.--400 lbs. Ammonia-salts | 56⅛ | 37½ | 36⅞ | 17¼ | 37½ | 34¼ 4.--Mixed Alkalies and | | | | | | Superphosphate, and 400 | | | | | | lbs. Ammonia-salts | 75¼ | 50⅝ | 54 | 28⅝ | 39¼ | 36 5.--550 lbs. Nitrate of Soda| 62¼ | 36½ | 42¾ | 23 | 38½ | 35¼ 6.--Mixed Alkalies, | | | | | | Superphosphate, and 550 | | | | | | lbs. Nitrate of Soda | 69⅜ | 50 | 49⅞ | 28¾ | 38½ | 35¾ ----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ It seems clear that, for oats, as for barley and wheat, what we most need in manure, is available nitrogen. The first year, the no-manure plot produced 36⅝ bushels of oats per acre, weighing 36¾ lbs. per bushel, and plot 3, with ammonia-salts alone, 56⅛ bushels, and with nitrate of soda alone, on plot 5, 62¼ bushels per acre, both weighing 38½ lbs. per bushel. In other words, 82 lbs. of available nitrogen in the salts of ammonia gave an increase of about 20 bushels per acre, and the same quantity of nitrogen in nitrate of soda an increase of 26 bushels per acre. The next year, the season seems to have been a very unfavorable one for oats. The no-manure plot produced less than 17 bushels per acre; and the “ashes” and superphosphate on plot 2, give an increase of less than 3 bushels per acre. But it will be seen that on plot 3 the ammonia-salts do as much good in this unfavorable season as in the favorable one. They give an increase of over 20 bushels per acre. “A few such facts as this,” said the Deacon, “would almost persuade me that you are right in contending that it is in the unfavorable seasons, when prices are sure to be high in this country, that a good farmer stands the best chance to make money.” “Where mixed alkalies and superphosphate,” said the Doctor, “are added to the ammonia, the increase _from the ammonia_ is far greater than where ammonia is used alone. In other words, by comparing plot 2 and plot 4, you will see that the ammonia gives an increase of 30¼ bushels per acre in 1869, and 31½ bushels in 1870.” The truth of the matter probably is this: 100 lbs. of available ammonia per acre is an excessive supply, when used alone. And in fact Mr. Lawes himself only recommends about half this quantity. Whether it will pay us to use artificial manures on oats depends on the price we are likely to get for the oats. When the price of oats _per lb._ and oat-straw is as high as barley and barley-straw _per lb._, then it will pay a _little better_ to use manure on oats than on barley. As a rule in this country, however, good barley is worth more per lb. than good oats; and it will usually pay better to use artificial manures on barley than on oats. Some years ago Mr. Bath, of Virginia, made some experiments on oats with the following results: Bushels of oats per acre. No. 1--200 lbs. Superphosphate 22 No. 2--200 lbs. Peruvian guano 48¾ No. 3--100 lbs. Peruvian guano 32 The oats were sown March 13, and the crop harvested July 4. In 1860, I made some experiments with gypsum, superphosphate, and sulphate of ammonia as a top-dressing on oats. The land was a clover-sod, plowed about the middle of May, and the oats sown May 20. On the 26th of May, just as the oats were coming up, the manures were sown broadcast. The oats were sown too late to obtain the best results. On another field, where the oats were sown two weeks earlier, the crop was decidedly better. The oats were cut August 28. The following is the result: Experiments on Oats at Moreton Farm, Rochester, N.Y. ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- | |Bushels |Weight/| Straw Plots.| Manures per Acre. |of Oats/|Bushel |per acre | |acre. |in lbs.| in lbs. ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- No. 1 |No manure | 36 | 22 | 1,958 2 |600 lbs. Gypsum (Sulphate of Lime)| 47 | 26 | 2,475 3 |300 lbs. Superphosphate of Lime | 50 | 21 | 2,475 4 |300 lbs. Sulphate of Ammonia | 50 | 22 | 2,730 5 |300 lbs. Superphosphate of Lime, | | | | and 300 lbs. Sulphate of Ammonia| 51 | 22½ | 2,575 ------+----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- These experiments were made when my land was not as clean as it is now. I presume the weeds got more benefit from the ammonia than the oats. To top-dress foul land with expensive artificial manures is money thrown away. If the land had been plowed in the autumn, and the seed and manures could have been put in early in the spring, I presume we should have had more favorable results. “Are you not ashamed to acknowledge,” said the Deacon, “that you have ever raised oats weighing only 22 lbs. per bushel.” No. I have raised even worse crops than this--and so has the Deacon. But I made up my mind that such farming did not pay, and I have been trying hard since then to clean my land and get it into better condition. And until this is done, it is useless to talk much of artificial manures. The most striking result is the effect of the gypsum. It not only gave an increased yield of 11 bushels per acre, but the oats were of decidedly better quality, and there was nearly half a ton more straw per acre than on the plot alongside, where no manure was used. The superphosphate was a good article, similar to that used in Mr. Lawes’ experiments. CHAPTER XXXI. MANURES FOR POTATOES. Some time ago, a farmer in Pennsylvania wrote me that he wanted “to raise a first-rate crop of potatoes.” I answered him as follows through the _American Agriculturist_: “There are many ways of doing this. But as you only enter on the farm this spring, you will work to disadvantage. To obtain the best results, it is necessary to prepare for the crop two or three years beforehand. All that you can do this year is to select the best land on the farm, put on 400 lbs. of Peruvian guano, cultivate thoroughly, and suffer not a weed to grow. A two or three-year-old clover-sod, on warm, rich, sandy loam, gives a good chance for potatoes. Do not plow until you are ready to plant. Sow the guano broadcast after plowing, and harrow it in, or apply a tablespoonful in each hill, and mix it with the soil. Mark out the rows, both ways, three feet apart, and drop a fair-sized potato in each hill. Start the cultivator as soon as the rows can be distinguished, and repeat every week or ten days until there is danger of disturbing the roots. We usually hill up a little, making a broad, flat hill. A tablespoonful of plaster, dusted on the young plants soon after they come up, will usually do good. We recommend guano, because in our experience it does not increase the rot. But it is only fair to add, that we have not found even barn-yard manure, if thoroughly rotted and well mixed with the soil the fall previous, half so injurious as some people would have us suppose. If any one will put 25 loads per acre on our potato land, we will agree to plant and run the risk of the rot. But we would use some guano as well. The truth is, that it is useless to expect a large crop of potatoes, say 350 bushels per acre, without plenty of manure.” This was written before the potato-beetle made its appearance. But I think I should say the same thing now--only put it a little stronger. The truth is, it will not pay to “fight the bugs” on a poor crop of potatoes. We must select the best land we have and make it as rich as possible. “But why do you recommend Peruvian guano,” asked the Doctor, “rather than superphosphate or ashes? Potatoes contain a large amount of potash, and one would expect considerable benefit from an application of ashes.” “Ashes, plaster, and hen-dung,” said the Judge, “will at any rate pay well on potatoes. I have tried this mixture again and again, and always with good effect.” “I believe in the hen-dung,” said I, “and possibly in the plaster, but on my land, ashes do not seem to be specially beneficial on potatoes, while I have rarely used Peruvian guano without good effect; and sometimes it has proved wonderfully profitable, owing to the high price of potatoes.” Sometime ago, I had a visit from one of the most enterprising and successful farmers in Western New York. “What I want to learn,” he said, “is how to make manure enough to keep my land in good condition. I sell nothing but beans, potatoes, wheat, and apples. I feed out all my corn, oats, stalks, straw, and hay on the farm, and draw into the barn-yard the potato-vines and everything else that will rot into manure. I make a big pile of it. But the point with me is to find out what is the best stock to feed this straw, stalks, hay, oats, and corn to, so as to make the best manure and return the largest profit. Last year I bought a lot of steers to feed in winter, and lost money. This fall I bought 68 head of cows to winter, intending to sell them in the spring.” “What did they cost you?” “I went into Wyoming and Cattaraugus Counties, and picked them up among the dairy farmers, and selected a very fair lot of cows at an average of $22 per head. I expect to sell them as new milch cows in the spring. Such cows last spring would have been worth $60 to $70 each.” “That will pay. But it is not often the grain-grower gets such a chance to feed out his straw, stalks, and other fodder to advantage. It cannot be adopted as a permanent system. It is bad for the dairyman, and no real help to the grain-grower. The manure is not rich enough. Straw and stalks alone can not be fed to advantage. And when you winter cows to sell again in the spring, it will not pay to feed grain. If you were going to keep the cows it would pay well. The fat and flesh you put on in the winter would be returned in the form of butter and cheese next summer.” “Why is not the manure good? I am careful to save everything, and expect seven or eight hundred loads of manure in the spring.” “You had 60 acres of wheat that yielded 25 bushels per acre, and have probably about 50 tons of wheat straw. You had also 30 acres oats, that yielded 50 bushels per acre, say 35 tons of straw. Your 20 acres of corn produced 40 bushels of shelled corn per acre; say the stalks weigh 30 tons. And you have 60 tons of hay, half clover and half timothy. Let us see what your manure from this amount of grain and fodder is worth. Manures from 50 tons wheat-straw, @ $2.68 $ 134.00 35 tons oat-straw, @ $2.90 101.50 30 tons corn-stalks, @ $3.58 107.40 30 tons timothy-hay, @ $6.43 192.90 30 tons clover-hay, @ $9.64 289.20 14 tons oats (1,500 bush.), @ $7.70 107.80 24 tons corn (800 bushels), @ $6.65 159.60 --------- Total 213 tons $1,092.40 “This is the value of the manure _on the land_. Assuming that there are 600 loads, and that the labor of cleaning out the stables, piling, carting, and spreading the manure is worth 30 cents per load, or $180, we have $912.40 as the net value of the manure. “Now, your 250-acre farm _might_ be so managed that this amount of manure annually applied would soon greatly increase its fertility. But you do not think you can afford to summer-fallow, and you want to raise thirty or forty acres of potatoes every year.” “I propose to do so,” he replied. “Situated as I am, close to a good shipping station, no crop pays me better. My potatoes this year have averaged me over $100 per acre.” “Very good. But it is perfectly clear to my mind that sooner or later, you must either farm slower or feed higher. And in your case, situated close to a village where you can get plenty of help, and with a good shipping station near by, you had better adopt the latter plan. You must feed higher, and make richer manure. You now feed out 213 tons of stuff, and make 600 loads of manure, worth $912.40. By feeding out _one third_, or 71 tons more, you can _more than double_ the value of the manure. 50 tons of bran or mill-feed would give manure worth $ 729.50 21 tons decorticated cotton-seed cake 585.06 --------- $1,314.56