Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-02-03


on the character Of the food supplied to the
animal that furnishes it, is pretty well under.
stood by the intelligent class If farmers
But after all, we doubt if the whole "phi.
losophy Of the thing " is taken in, in its full
length and breadth, by many, even Of those
| who nominally agree to the truth of the
statement as given above. Else, why do we
hear so much said about the superior value
Of "hog manure" "sheep manure" and
hen manure Is there any power in the
animal to make the manure better or worse
| viii bushel Of corn fed to a hog, a sheep,
or a hen, Yield any more plant food than
the same quantity fed to a COW or a horse
The consideration Of this question would
make a frst-rate subject for discussion at
farmers club, or grange meeting, and we
should very much like to hear what ten or
twelve bright farmers would have to say
about it. We believe that before the dis
cussion was over, some very important and
profitable points would be brought out
Let us take the questionon little broader
scale. Suppose a farmer has so many tons
Of hay, so much straw, so many roots and
such number Of bushels Of grain to feed
out during the winter,-will it make any
difference in the value of the manure
whether it is fed to cattle, horses, or sheep
We incline TO believe that most farmers
would say that it would. And as a pract-
cal fact, under the ordinary methods Of
feeding and handling manure, we are sure
ourself that it would But we are also sure
that the manure as it comes from the ami
mails, would be Of substantially equal value,
let them be cattle, sheep or horses. Aud
when the matter is thoroughly examined, we
shall find out that the difference between
the theoretical and the practical result in
wolves lesson that has often been taught,
but which few of us have yet thoroughly
learned and reduced to practice
Hog manure, sheep manure and hen ma
nure are universally recognized as being very
strong fertilizers, much more so than the
ordinary manure from horse and COW stables
What then, makes the difference, supposing
that the food is the same or equivalent in
character2 We think it is mainly in this
one simple fact that the larger animals dis
charge their liquid excremcnt in large guam
titles, and that it is more or less wasted for
want Of suitable ahsorbents, phile hogs and
sheep void theirs in such small quantities at
a time that it is absorbed by the bedding
and manure under them, without waste. In
the latter case we get all the manure which
the feed is converted into, while in the
former a part-often a great parts lost.
Fowls do not pass off any portion Of their
excrement in liquid form, and consequently
their manure contains all the fertilizing ma
terial yielded.by the food PROFESSIONALLY
the manure from lage animals, feeding upon
hay and straw, viii be more bulky than that
from swine, which eat more concentrated
food; but this does not come into the question,
which is not, (Which manure is the most
valuable, pound for pound?" but, (which
manure is the most valuable from an equal
amount OF the same food ="
The practical lesson which the considera-
ton Of the subject seems to teach us, with
remarkable force, is that we must save the
liquid manure, or suffer heavy loss. To
our mind it is powerful argument in favor
of barn cellars, since we have rarely seen
barn otherwise constructed in which the
greater part of the liquid manure was not lost.
A foot thick of straw under the animals will
not save it, as we have repeatedly proved to
those who thought it would A foot Of dry
sawdust, dry muck, or dry earth would be
sufficient, il it were renewed often enough
but this is very seldom done.