Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1876-04-14
Bones as a Manure.

Mr.. 6, Haskell of Essex County, Mass,
writes to the Country Gentleman:
Nearly twenty years ago you published
the result Of certain experiments made by
me in the use Of ground bone when prepared
as manure in various ways, viz; as phos-
phate ; mixed with ashes, both leached and
unleachad fermented with plaster, with
sand, and with soil. Iu these experiments
it has been clearly proved that the best
method Of preparing bone was to ferment it
with moist, friable soil, and that the best
bone was that which was freshest, or which
had lost least of its grease and geatine.
These same truths appear again in the ex-
periments Of Mr., Carter, referred to by Mr..
Chester in your paper of March 2. In the
case he mentions, | think the infsriority Of
the flour Of bone to that simply ground, was
owing to the inferiority of the bones ground
into flour, the hardest, oldest and dryest
being genearlly ground into flour, the newest
being too unctious for that purpose
Uniermented bone applied to the surface
has very little effect Four years ago | Gu.
deavorod to improve the condition Of rum
outlay field of good soil, but from which
hay crops had been taken in succession,
without top.dressing, for fifteen years. For
ths purpose | applied in the spring a ton
of finely ground pure bone to the acre, on
the surface. This cost SIS per acre, Just
about as much as it would have cost TO plow,
manure and re-sesd the land in the common
method. No effect Of this application was
apparent the first year in the second year
the bottom thickened up some, and there
was a small increase IN the crop; in the
third year the cultivated grasses deepened
in color and increased in vigor The crop,
however, was increased but little, and has
given very poor return for the expense.
Had the bone been fermented with soil be-
fore being applied to the surface, or had it
been narrowed into the soil, the return for
the expense would have been much greater.
Professor Beal Of the Michigan agricul-
tural college says in his report
j. Dixon, Cheshire, says, "After 20 years
Of experience | have no hesitation in pro-
nouncing bones to be preGminent above all
other manures for the Improvement of grass
lands, when permanency as well as cost are
considered. lie is decidedly in favor of
raw bones, ground and applied in early
spring lie cites one case treated with
broken bones 10 years previous, where the
effect was still very marked. In one case,
about |, 900 pounds of bones to the acre in
two years caused the yearly rent of an acre
to 60 from 30 shillings up to 60 shillings,
with greater profit to the tenant. He
gives other cases-among them a farm of
100 acres on which the farmer expended
E3OO sterling worth of bones in year.
The stock formerly kept consisted of 20
COWS, and or horses and colts. After
treating with bones the fields pastured 43
cows, III head of young stock, horses, and
3 colts, aud one.fourth Of the farm in tlllage.
Similar results were produced on almost
every farm in the neighborhood."
Prof. Voelcker modifes this view by
remarking "The effects produced by the
application of bone dust to pastures are very
variable. On the porous land Of Cheshire
and similar soils on the red sandstone for.
nation, the result is very striking. On
land which is wet and cold aud rests on a
poor, undrained subsoi, bones often produce
no effect" lie recommends, in all cases, q
trial on a small scale.