Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-04-19

as follows: 81 was quite interested in your
article on Chemical Farming aud would
like to ask some questions bearing upon the
subject, as | have had some experience in
that line, and am in favor of it so far as it
can be made profitable. see it stated in
an agricultural work that charcoal dust is
worth as much in bulk as plaster, and ]
would ask If tits Of equalvalu as chemical
agent II IL is, prefer TO use 1t, as II is
much cheaper in cost and transportation but
think It's chief valne is as an absorbent
Pure charcoal dust is of no value what
ever as a direct fertilizer; that is, it contains
no plant food except very little potash
and trihe of phosphoric acid, which would
be found in the ashes produced by burning
iD. Charcoal is nearly pure carbon, and is
one Of the most indestructibe forms OF mat
ter, at ordinary temperatures. 1t is found
unchanged in tombs Of the old mound-build-
ers Of the West When burned, it combines
with the oxygen Of the air, producing car
bonic acid. This is plant food, but as it ex-
lists in sufficient abundance at all times in
the atmosphere (whence it is taken by the
leaves Of growing plants), we have no occa-
sion to provide it artiicially 1t is supposed
that charcoal in the soil will act as an ab-
sorbent Of ammonia, but its value in this
respect is doubtful. What we have said APP
plies to pure charcoal. But what is known
as charcoal bottoms" the fine matter left
where wood has been burned into charcoal,
is very powerful fertilizer, since it contains
a great deal of ashes. 1t cannot however be
compared with plaster since they fulfil diff
ferent purposes. One of the most difficult
ideas to eradicate from the popular mind is
the one that one special fertilizer can be sub
stituted for another. Thus people will say
ashes are better than phosphates,' or, as
in this case, that charcoal is better than
plaster" 1t would be quite as well to say
that starch is better food for a man than beef
extract, or the reverse, when the fact is that
a man would soon starye to death on either
alone. A plant, or an animal, must be fur
nished in its food with every element neces.
sary TO its growth, or IL will perish. There.
fore, as plants require the potash of ashes,
the phosphoric acid of bones or phosphates,
and the sulphuric acid and lime of plaster,
no one of them alone (unless the others, or
their constituents in other forms, already
exist in the SOLD is sufficient; and as all are
necessary, no single one can be said to be
better than the others.
While il cannot, therefore, be said of
special fertilizers, supplying only one or two
elements of plant food, that one is better
than another Except in the special cases
where the others are already in the SOLD, yet
of general fertilizers, such as stable manure,
properly made composts, or chemical mix.
lures like those advised by Professor Stock
bridge, the comparison is allowable, and we
may rightly say that one is better than the
other, for several reasons. As all of these
contain all the necessary ingredients, one may
be preferable to the other on account of
greater soubility, easier applicability, free
dom from weed-seeds, cheapness, or because
it leaves the land in better physical condi
ton. This latter reason, that they leave the
soil more open to the air, and also give it q
darker color, thus making it warmer by re
tanning the suns heat, and also because they
attract more moisture, is why we prefer sta
ble manure and vegetable composts to chem
icals as a regular means of fertilization.
r. @. n. goes on to say 81 want to asl
how it can be that feed is increased in valu'
as a fertilizer by running through animals
when it is stated by agricultural authors
that sixty per cent. of the food they ea
passes off through the lungs and the porei
of the skin"
There are several reasons for this In tn,
first place, mastcation aud digestion put thu
hay, corn-stalks, grain, and other feed into
mush more soluble condition, and fit It, b,
its improved mechanical condition. also fo
use as plant food. II is objected, by thos'
who have tried bran, pea meal. etc, as fer
tilizers in the hill, that they dry the soil an,
prevent the seed from terminating or, i
the season is wet, they form a cake so har,
that the roots cannot penetrate it. Tn
reason for this is on account of the starch
matter, and the gluten they contain. Nov
10y digestion the starch il separated from tn
other constituents, aud, being composed, lik
charcoal, mostly of carbon, it is consume,
in the generation of animal heat, escaping
from the lungs and skin in the form Of cal
bonic acid, just as charcoal does from tn
FIRE when burned. This carbonaceous maj
ter, though necessary to the animal, is of n
value in the manure as plant food. BY re
ferring 10 the tables in our article Oh "Chem
zeal Farming" X. G.. N. will notice that tn
weight Of the constituents of bran aud pc
meal valuable as fertilizers is but SINAI
percentage of the whole. The remainder
consisting mainly of the carbonaceous ele
ments, is valuable Ia the animal as food
while its removal is a benefit to the manure
The gluten, as well as the starch, is di
gestcd, and as this gluten is heterogeneous
and by decomposition furnishes ammonia t
the manure, its loss would reduce the valu
Of the latter. But it is not lost, for, thougl
it goes TO build up the muscular and cart
laginous tissues Of the animal, an equa
quantity of the same heterogeneous matte
takes its place from the waste of these yer
tissues. The same is true of the phosphates
which replace the wear and tear Of the bon
and nervous parts. This is on the presumr
ton that we are feeding the bran and PEI
meal to full-grown animals, whose bones an,
muscles are not increasing. When fed I,
young stock, there would be a loss. Also, i
fed TO cows whose milk Is sold or mad
into cheese, there would be loss. But fe,
to butter cows or fatting stock, there woul,
be no loss, since butter aud fat are entirel
carbonaceous, taking only the starch an,
sugar OF the food and these, as said above
are of no Importance as plant food in tn
manure. There is probably slight loss o
ammonia in the breath, but this is more thar
paid for by the increased value impaired by
digestion.
TEMPERANCE QUESTION.
X. e. n. also wants to know if parerti
are not responsible for the conduct Of mino
children, under the liquor law, for furnish
ing alcoholic liquor TO intoxication. ant
what shall be done when the proper town
ofiicials fail IN axaenta fI. la,, 90