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

possibly be any better for the farm. You agricultural writers are always telling us that we plow too much land, and do not raise grass and clover enough.” “What I meant by saying that it would have been better for my pocket, though possibly not so good for the farm, if I had not plowed so much land, may need explanation. The land had been only half cultivated, and was very foul. The grass and clover fields did not give more than half a crop of hay, and the hay was poor in quality, and much of it half thistles, and other weeds. I plowed this land, planted it to corn, and cultivated it thoroughly. But the labor of keeping the corn clean was costly, and absorbed a very large slice of the profits. _But_ the corn yielded a far larger produce per acre than I should have got had the land lain in grass. And as all this produce was consumed on the farm, we made more manure than if we had plowed less land.” I have great faith in the benefits of thorough tillage--or, in other words, of breaking up, pulverizing, and exposing the soil to the decomposing action of the atmosphere. I look upon a good, strong soil as a kind of storehouse of plant-food. But it is not an easy matter to render this plant-food soluble. If it were any less soluble than it is, it would have all leached out of the land centuries ago. Turning over, and fining a manure-heap, if other conditions are favorable, cause rapid fermentation with the formation of carbonate of ammonia, and other soluble salts. Many of our soils, to the depth of eight or ten inches, contain enough nitrogenous matter in an acre to produce two or three thousand pounds of ammonia. By stirring the soil, and exposing it to the atmosphere, a small portion of this nitrogen becomes annually available, and is taken up by the growing crops. And it is so with the other elements of plant-food. Stirring the soil, then, is the basis of agriculture. It has been said that we must return to the soil as much plant-food as we take from it. If this were true, nothing could be sold from the farm. What we should aim to do, is to develop as much as possible of the plant-food that lies latent in the soil, and not to sell in the form of crops, cheese, wool, or animals, any more of this plant-food than we annually develop from the soil. In this way the “condition” of the soil would remain the same. If we sell _less_ than we develop, the condition of the soil will improve. By “condition,” I mean the amount of _available_ plant-food in the soil. Nearly all our farms are poorer in plant-food to-day than when first cleared of the original forest, or than they were ten, fifteen, or twenty years later. In other words, the plants and animals that have been sold from the farm, have carried off a considerable amount of plant-food. We have taken far more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, etc., out of the soil, than we have returned to it in the shape of manure. Consequently, the soil must contain less and less of plant-food every year. And yet, while this is a self-evident fact, it is, nevertheless, true that many of these self-same farms are more productive now than when first cleared, or at any rate more productive than they were twenty-five or thirty years ago. Sometime ago, the Deacon and I visited the farm of Mr. Dewey, of Monroe Co., N.Y. He is a good farmer. He does not practice “high farming” in the sense in which I use that term. His is a good example of what I term slow farming. He raises large crops, but comparatively few of them. On his farm of 300 acres, he raises 40 acres of wheat, 17 acres of Indian corn, and 23 acres of oats, barley, potatoes, roots, etc. In other words, he has 80 acres in crops, and 220 acres in grass--not permanent grass. He lets it lie in grass five, six, seven, or eight years, as he deems best, and then breaks it up, and plants it to corn. The land he intends to plant to corn next year, has been in grass for seven years. He will put pretty much all his manure on this land. After corn, it will be sown to oats, or barley; then sown to wheat, and seeded down again. It will then lie in grass three, four, five, six, or seven years, until he needs it again for corn, etc. This is “slow farming,” but it is also good farming--that is to say, it gives large yields per acre, and a good return for the labor expended. The soil of this farm is richer to-day in _available_ plant-food than when first cleared. It produces larger crops per acre. Mr. D. called our attention to a fact that establishes this point. An old fence that had occupied the ground for many years was removed some years since, and the two fields thrown into one. Every time this field is in crops, it is easy to see where the old fence was, by the short straw and poor growth on this strip, as compared with the land on each side which had been cultivated for years. This is precisely the result that I should have expected. If Mr. D. was a poor farmer--if he cropped his land frequently, did not more than half-cultivate it, sold everything he raised, and drew back no manure--I think the old fence-strip would have given the best crops. The strip of land on which the old fence stood in Mr. Dewey’s field, contained _more_ plant-food than the soil on either side of it. But it was not available. It was not developed. It was latent, inert, insoluble, crude, and undecomposed. It was so much dead capital. The land on either side which had been cultivated for years, produced better crops. Why? Simply because the stirring of the soil had developed _more_ plant-food than had been removed by the crops. If the stirring of the soil developed 100 lbs. of plant-food a year, and only 75 lbs. were carried off in the crops--25 lbs. being left on the land in the form of roots, stubble, etc.--the land, at the expiration of 40 years, would contain, provided none of it was lost, 1,000 lbs. more _available_ plant-food than the uncultivated strip. On the other hand, the latter would contain 3,000 lbs. more actual plant-food per acre than the land which had been cultivated--but it is in an unavailable condition. It is dead capital. I do not know that I make myself understood, though I would like to do so, because I am sure there is no point in scientific farming of greater importance. Mr. Geddes calls grass the “pivotal crop” of American agriculture. He deserves our thanks for the word and the idea connected with it. But I am inclined to think the _pivot_ on which our agriculture stands and rotates, lies deeper than this. The grass crop creates nothing--developes nothing. The untilled and unmanured grass lands of Herkimer County, in this State, are no richer to-day than they were 50 years ago. The pastures of Cheshire, England, except those that have been top-dressed with bones, or other manures, are no more productive than they were centuries back. Grass alone will not make rich land. It is a good “savings bank.” It gathers up and saves plant-food from running to waste. It pays a good interest, and is a capital institution. But the real source of fertility must be looked for _in the stores of plant-food lying dormant in the soil_. Tillage, underdraining, and thorough cultivation, are the means by which we develop and render this plant-food available. Grass, clover, peas, or any other crop consumed on the farm, merely affords us the means of saving this plant-food and making it pay a good interest. CHAPTER X. HOW TO MAKE MANURE. If we have the necessary materials, it is not a difficult matter to make manure; in fact, the manure will make itself. We sometimes need to hasten the process, and to see that none of the fertilizing matter runs to waste. This is about all that we can do. We cannot create an atom of plant-food. It is ready formed to our hands; but we must know where to look for it, and how to get it in the easiest, cheapest, and best way, and how to save and use it. The science of manure-making is a profound study. It is intimately connected with nearly every branch of agriculture. If weeds grow and decay on the land, they make manure. If we grow a crop of buckwheat, or spurry, or mustard, or rape, or clover, and mow it, and let it lie on the land, it makes manure; or if we plow it under, it forms manure; or if, after it is mown, we rake up the green crop, and put it into a heap, it will ferment, heat 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 “manure.” If, instead of putting the crop into a heap and letting it ferment, we feed it to animals, the digestible carbonaceous and nitrogenous matter will be consumed to produce animal heat and to sustain the vital functions, and the refuse, or the solid and liquid droppings of the animals, will be manure. If the crop rots on the ground, nothing is added to it. If it ferments, and gives out heat, in a heap, nothing is added to it. If it is passed through an animal, and produces heat, nothing is added to it. I have heard people say a farmer could not make manure unless he kept animals. We might with as much truth say a farmer cannot make ashes unless he keeps stoves; and it would be just as sensible to take a lot of stoves into the woods to make ashes, as it is to keep a lot of animals merely to make manure. You can make the ashes by throwing the wood into a pile, and burning it; and you can make the manure by throwing the material out of which the manure is to be made into a pile, and letting it ferment. On a farm where neither food nor manure of any kind is purchased, the only way to make manure is to _get it out of the land_. “From the land and from the atmosphere,” remarked the Doctor. “Plants get a large portion of the material of which they are composed from the atmosphere.” “Yes,” I replied, “but it is principally carbonaceous matter, which is of little or no value as manure. A small amount of ammonia and nitric acid are also brought to the soil by rains and dews, and a freshly-stirred soil may also sometimes absorb more or less ammonia from the atmosphere; but while this is true, so far as making manure is concerned, we must look to the plant-food existing in the soil itself. “Take such a farm as Mr. Dewey’s, that we have already referred to. No manure or food has been purchased; or at any rate, not one-tenth as much as has been sold, and yet the farm is more productive to-day than when it was first cleared of the forest. He has developed the manure from the stores of latent plant-food previously existing in the soil and this is the way farmers generally make manure.” CHAPTER XI. THE VALUE OF MANURE DEPENDS ON THE FOOD--NOT ON THE ANIMAL. “If,” said I, “you should put a ton of cut straw in a heap, wet it, and let it rot down into manure; and should place in another heap a ton of cut corn-fodder, and in another heap a ton of cut clover-hay, wet them, and let them also rot down into manure; and in another heap a ton of pulped-turnips, and in another heap a ton of corn-meal, and in another heap a ton of bran, and in another a ton of malt-sprouts, and let them be mixed with water, and so treated that they will ferment without loss of ammonia or other valuable plant-food, I think no one will say that all these different heaps of manure will have the same value. And if not, why not?” “Because,” said Charley, “the ton of straw does not contain as much valuable plant-food as the ton of corn-fodder, nor the ton of corn-fodder as much as the ton of clover-hay.” “Now then,” said I, “instead of putting a ton of straw in one heap to rot, and a ton of corn-fodder in another heap, and a ton of clover in another heap, we feed the ton of straw to a cow, and the ton of corn-fodder to another cow, and the ton of clover to another cow, and save _all_ the solid and liquid excrements, will the manure made from the ton of straw be worth as much as the manure made from the ton of corn-fodder or clover-hay?” “No,” said Charley. --“Certainly not,” said the Doctor. --“I am not so sure about it,” said the Deacon; “I think you will get more manure from the corn-fodder than from the straw or clover-hay.” “We are not talking about bulk,” said the Doctor, “but value.” “Suppose, Deacon,” said he, “you were to shut up a lot of your Brahma hens, and feed them a ton of corn-meal, and should also feed a ton of corn-meal made into slops to a lot of pigs, and should save _all_ the liquid and solid excrements from the pigs, and all the manure from the hens, which would be worth the most?” --“The hen-manure, of course,” said the Deacon, who has great faith in this kind of “guano,” as he calls it. “And yet,” said the Doctor, “you would probably not get more than half a ton of manure from the hens, while the liquid and solid excrements from the pigs, if the corn-meal was made into a thin slop, would weigh two or three tons.” “More, too,” said the Deacon, “the way you feed your store pigs.” “Very well; and yet you say that the half ton of hen-manure made from a ton of corn is worth more than the two or three tons of pig-manure made from a ton of corn. You do not seem to think, after all, that mere bulk or weight adds anything to the value of the manure. Why then should you say that the manure from a ton of corn-fodder is worth more than from a ton of straw, because it is more bulky?” “You, yourself,” said the Deacon, “also say the manure from the ton of corn-fodder is worth more than from the ton of straw.” --“True,” said I “but _not_ because it is more bulky. It is worth more because the ton of corn-fodder contains a greater quantity of valuable plant-food than the ton of straw. The clover is still richer in this valuable plant-food, and the manure is much more valuable; in fact, the manure from the ton of clover is worth as much as the manure from the ton of straw and the ton of corn-fodder together.” “I would like to see you prove that,” said the Deacon, “for if it is true, I will sell no more clover-hay. I can’t get as much for clover-hay in the market as I can for rye-straw.” “I will not attempt to _prove_ it at present,” said the Doctor; “but the evidence is so strong and so conclusive that no rational man, who will study the subject, can fail to be thoroughly convinced of its truth.” “The value of manure,” said I, “does not depend on the quantity of water which it contains, or on the quantity of sand, or silica, or on the amount of woody fibre or carbonaceous matter. These things add little or nothing to its fertilizing value, except in rare cases; and the sulphuric acid and lime are worth no more than the same quantity of sulphate of lime or gypsum, and the chlorine and soda are probably worth no more than so much common salt. The real chemical value of the manure, other things being equal, is in proportion to the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, that the manure contains. “And the quantity of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash found in the manure is determined, other things being equal, by the quantity of the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash contained in the food consumed by the animals making the manure.” CHAPTER XII. FOODS WHICH MAKE RICH MANURE. The amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, contained in different foods, has been accurately determined by many able and reliable chemists. The following table was prepared by Dr. J. B. Lawes, of Rothamsted, England, and was first published in this country in the “Genesee Farmer,” for May, 1860. Since then, it has been repeatedly published in nearly all the leading agricultural journals of the world, and has given rise to much discussion. The following is the table, with some recent additions: TD: Total dry matter. TM: Total mineral matter (ash). Ph: Phosphoric acid reckoned as phosphate of lime. P: Potash. N: Nitrogen. V: Value of manure in dollars and cents from 1 ton (2,000 lbs.) of food. -----------------------+----------------------------------+------- | Per Cent. | +------+------+------+------+------+ | TD | TM | Ph | P | N | V -----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------- 1. Linseed cake | 88.0 | 7.00 | 4.92 | 1.65 | 4.75 | 19.72 2. Cotton-seed cake* | 89.0 | 8.00 | 7.00 | 3.12 | 6.50 | 27.86 3. Rape-cake | 89.0 | 8.00 | 5.75 | 1.76 | 5.00 | 21.01 4. Linseed | 90.0 | 4.00 | 3.38 | 1.37 | 3.80 | 15.65 5. Beans | 84.0 | 3.00 | 2.20 | 1.27 | 4.00 | 15.75 6. Peas | 84.5 | 2.40 | 1.84 | 0.96 | 3.40 | 13.38 7. Tares | 84.0 | 2.00 | 1.63 | 0.66 | 4.20 | 16.75 8. Lentils | 88.0 | 3.00 | 1.89 | 0.96 | 4.30 | 16.51 9. Malt-dust | 94.0 | 8.50 | 5.23 | 2.12 | 4.20 | 18.21 10. Locust beans | 85.0 | 1.75 | .... | .... | 1.25 | 4.81 11. Indian-meal | 88.0 | 1.30 | 1.13 | 0.35 | 1.80 | 6.65 12. Wheat | 85.0 | 1.70 | 1.87 | 0.50 | 1.80 | 7.08 13. Barley | 84.0 | 2.20 | 1.35 | 0.55 | 1.65 | 6.32 14. Malt | 95.0 | 2.60 | 1.60 | 0.65 | 1.70 | 6.65 15. Oats | 86.0 | 2.85 | 1.17 | 0.50 | 2.00 | 7.70 16. Fine pollard† | 86.0 | 5.60 | 6.44 | 1.46 | 2.00 | 13.53 17. Coarse pollard‡ | 86.0 | 6.20 | 7.52 | 1.49 | 2.58 | 14.36 18. Wheat-bran | 86.0 | 6.60 | 7.95 | 1.45 | 2.55 | 14.59 19. Clover-hay | 84.0 | 7.50 | 1.25 | 1.30 | 2.50 | 9.64 20. Meadow-hay | 84.0 | 6.00 | 0.88 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 6.43 21. Bean-straw | 82.5 | 5.55 | 0.90 | 1.11 | 0.90 | 3.87 22. Pea-straw | 82.0 | 5.95 | 0.85 | 0.89 | .... | 3.74 23. Wheat-straw | 84.0 | 5.00 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 2.68 24. Barley-straw | 85.0 | 4.50 | 0.37 | 0.63 | 0.50 | 2.25 25. Oat-straw | 83.0 | 5.50 | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.60 | 2.90 26. Mangel-wurzel | 12.5 | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 1.07 27. Swedish turnips | 11.0 | 0.68 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.91 28. Common turnips | 8.0 | 0.68 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.86 29. Potatoes | 24.0 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 1.50 30. Carrots | 13.5 | 0.70 | 0.13 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.80 31. Parsnips | 15.0 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.22 | 1.14 -----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------- * The manure from a ton of undecorticated cotton-seed cake is worth $15.74; that from a ton of cotton-seed, after being ground and sifted, is worth $13.25. The grinding and sifting in Mr. Lawes’ experiments, removed about 8 per cent of husk and cotton. Cotton-seed, so treated, proved to be a very rich and economical food. † Middlings, Canielle. ‡ Shipstuff. Of all vegetable substances used for food, it will be seen that decorticated cotton-seed cake is the richest in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, and consequently makes the richest and most valuable manure. According to Mr. Lawes’ estimate, the manure from a ton of decorticated cotton-seed cake is worth $27.86 in gold. Rape-cake comes next. Twenty-five to thirty years ago, rape-cake, ground as fine as corn-meal, was used quite extensively on many of the light-land farms of England as a manure for turnips, and not unfrequently as a manure for wheat. Mr. Lawes used it for many years in his experiments on turnips and on wheat. Of late years, however, it has been fed to sheep and cattle. In other words, it has been used, not as formerly, for manure alone, but for food first, and manure afterwards. The oil and other carbonaceous matter which the cake contains is of little value for manure, while it is of great value as food. The animals take out this carbonaceous matter, and leave nearly all the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash in the manure. Farmers who had found it profitable to use on wheat and turnips