The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1878-05-30
4 Chemical Fertilizing.

ING Theories Examined. he
General drift of the article Is to
show that myself and others who
advocate the use Of chemical ma
nures. underestimate the value OF
ward II and are lnjurlng the
farming interests thereby =; that 1t
is wrong to call the latter substance
a waste product, which Is so very
valuable as the raw material for the
production OF crops.
Your remarks do not fairly and
and fully represent my oft-repeated
opinion of the value Of yard MA
nure and the place it should c
pv in our system of fertilization, as
the following quotation from my
report on the chemical manures
made in 1875 viii show. After
speaking of the results III the use
of chemicals, the report goes on to
saw: .'Barnyard manure in gener-
al culture will still be king. For
it is and will continue to be an un-
avoidable waste product, incident
to many branches Of farming a
waste product of every form Of dai-
rying; IA waste product OF growing
and fattening beef, pork and NUT
ton. and a waste product caused
by the necessity of keeping teams
to work on farms and other general
transportation. 1t would be the
acme Of ignorance and shlftlessness
not to preserve, husband and use
this and all the matter OF our
slaughtering Establishments, of all
our horn, hoof, hide, bone and glue
establishments; of all u wooden
manufactures: of all our fisheries,
and the sewage Of country, town
and city. But after all this has
been saved and utilized by appllca-
ton to our farms, a vast field will
be left fer the profitable employ
ment of chemical manures, and
the world is asking for the increased
products. The fair and legitimate
conclusion to be drawn from the
experiments with chemicals is that
BARNARD manure, valuable as 1T IS,
is not the best material, or IN the
best form in which to obtain the
food of plants, if that is to be pur-
chased at its ordinary price, The
foregoing quotation | trust Will
satisfy You that | have used the
? term waste products with "a diff
ferent meaning from that which
you represent me as giving 1T. and
that | believe IN saving and using
yard manure.
In the second place your article
attempts to prove that animal ex-
crement in consequence of It's con-
) tent of ammonia and mineral salts,
has a greater money value than the
crops which are consumed to pro-
, duce it. You say Harris pig ate
, 37J cents worth of food, and from
it produced Al cents worth of eX-
! creta: Dana's COW consumed hay
and potatoes a value Of 1872, and
produced anu worth $3.50, esti-
= timated by the analysis Of the food
; consumed.
But again Dana states that the
80, 900 pounds of solid dung con
tanned 1S9 pounds of ammonia.
That is IA remarkable statement. If
! so pray tell me where 1T came from.
= The dung of the COW was her food,
: minus what was taken out of it to
sustain the animal organism and
functions. But the food she ate
: did not contain that quantity of
g ammonia before she substracted
= anything from it. The 4.3S tons
: of hay and 1908 bushels of pota-
:. toes contained but 12S.173 pounds
= of nitrogen, equal to 14S,5l3 OF
:. ammonia, and this is all it could
, have, if the system absorbed none
, of it, all went into solid dung.
Did these animals take out OF
their food any of its elements tc
make milk, bone or muscle ?-11
y not, they were peculiar and profit.
able animals, if they were not
= themselves consumed; but especial.
:. ly if the COW gave a fine quantity
! of milk, and the pig increased in
weight as fast as Harris pigs gen.
orally do. This method of stating
!, the value of excrements is a great
!, error and one calculated to do much
+ harm, as a slight examination OF
- the cases cited will show.
q In the experiment of Mr.. Dana,
% his average COW" consumed q
. pounds of hay, and 124 pounds o
= potatoes per day, or 4.3S tons o.
. hay, and zoos bushels of potatoes
III a year. The entire weight Of
N the hay and potatoes was but -.
. 322 pounds, but in that time she
20 made 80, 200 pounds of solid dung.
= or 16,67S pounds more than the en-.
tire weight of all her food. Did
hnr rrr+ap, olnn-l T..