, 1873-05-17

voked in the preparation of this paper.
Professor johnson says that formerly in
Flanders the annual wastes of domestic life
were valued al SO (gold) for each person.
1t is hardly possible that, with the general
advance in prices, their present value
should not be much more than this. From
a considerable experience in the use of
manure, including night-soil, [ am conf
dent that the total wastes Of each indivi-
dual, including his proportion Of the slops
thrown from the kitchen, &C., cannot he
Justly estimated (at least in the more Fas-
tern State+) at less than $40. Whether this
estimate would apply over the whole coun-
try may fairly be questioned, but one-halt
of the amount, or S. per head, would
bring the amount wasted by the whole
population of The country to a sun that
would more than pay the interest on the
national debt.
There is another view Of the case, which
is also suggested in the foregoing question,
that has an Importance not to be expressed
in dollars and cents. The f%erti'it of the
soil depends on constituents which it con-
tains in very small proportion. These
constituents enter into the composition of
the crops p.oduced, and at harvest they
are removed from the soil. A very fertile
soil may withstand this removal for many
wears, but, sooner or later, even the most
fertile soil in the world %(unless it is enrich
ed by %alluvial deposiD must show the effect
of this constant substraction. Probably as
rich a soil as the world has ever offered was
that of our western p%raries, where it was
believed, twenty years ago, that the f%ertili-
ty would be perpetual. To-day it is stated
by the agricultural writers of that region,
that, "He manure question IS, after all, the
great question q title Vest as wcU as the East"
This waning fertility has an importance
that cannot be measured with money. It
portends, if it is allowed to go on, a lessen
ed ability, first, TO produce, for the support
of other classes, a surplus over the
needs of The farmer, and then to support
the farmer himself. In other words, it
threatens a condition in which money will
have no further value. OF course no peo-
pie like our own will allow the impover-
ishment of the soil to reach such a point
but it would be impossible to compute the
amount of the I'M jury that must result,
even from so much impOverishment as will
make the yearly application of manure ne
cessary to the production of paying crops
on lands that are now fertile with only
occasional application. AS man is more
richly fed than the lower animals, so his
feces is the most valuable as manure. This
is the only standard by which the question
of value can be decided. The feces are
simply the refuse of the food which has
been taken into the system, and they con-
tain only the manuriaI constituents of that
food, less the very little that the body loses
or uses in another way. AS a rule, this is
but little more, in a whole lifetime, than is
embraced in the hair that has been grown,
the young that have been produced, (and,
in the case of sucking animals, the milk
that has gone to feed other bodies,) and the
weight ofthe body at death. All the rest
probably ninety-nlne percent. ofthe food
is represented, so tar as regards matter
taken from the soil, in the manure that is
voided. The quantity and quality of the
manure is in direct relation to the quantity
and quality of the food.
Not only does human manure contain
the most that is of value, but, under our
usual system, it is the one that is the most
universally wasted. Even on soils that are
but slightly deteriorated the dung of do
nestle animals is sought after and used for
manure, but not until a long time after this
-onlv when the usp of manure is ahSOlutn-