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

lid dunC more nitrogen than was
contained IN her food IN ITS orlgl-
nal condition has At the same tline
xoided 1000 lbs. of urine, when
- consequence of the fertIlizlng
1t derived from her food
worth , to / OF the solid. IN
This case. where. could the elements
,.ome from which were IN the urine,
for we have found that much more
tban all which the food contained
were IN the solid dung.-Nlth
these facts in mind, note now the
Great money value of the expert
mcnts Of this cow.-The solid dung
which contained more than all the
elements originally in her food,
were worth, it is stated, $40, the
elements I'm the urine, which were
worth , TO |, $50, the whole worth
of course $3.50.
Now this cannot be true: but Tor
the sake of being courteous to the
experimenter ! will admit that 1t
is. and examine further and see
what the elements were worth III
this form, as compared with the
form of chemical salts. Joseph
Harris, in the same essay from
which you quote the remarkable
PIG which made Az cents worth OF
manure, while consumlng3'3 cents
worth Of food, say that these are
chemical ggurs, and he supposes
figures will not lie." But he sees
his dollars disappear in purchasing
food for his swine. and 1t requires
some faith to see them IN that heap
of manure in the barnyard. In
fact he does not see them, and goes
on to quote from Lawes and Gil
bets experiments to show why.
"Those gentlemen grew barley,
SAYS Mr.. H., for nineteen success
sive a on two plots of: land side
by side. One plot was annually
MANFRED with farm-yard dung, and
the other with chemical salts. Du-
ring the nineteen years the dunged
plot received in that substance To-
1872 lbs. of mineral matter, and
$500 lbs. of nitrogen.-Ihe Other
plot received, in the form Of chem
icals, 500 lbs. of mineral salts,
and 10 lbs. of nitrogen, and the
yield of the two plots, for the nlEe-
teen years, was just equal. In
other words, forty-one pounds Of
nitrogen in ammoniacal salts pro.
duced a great effect as two hundred
pounds in farm-yard manure"
Lawes and Gilbert tried this eX.
pertinent with a great variety Of
farm crops, besides barley. and ex-
tending over IA reriod of 35 years.
and if anything can be settl-l, they
have settled the comparative value
of the elements in these two foEms
and give the figures as Determines
by the crops produced. From this
data therefore, let us settle the real
value of a years product OF manure
by DR.. Dana's COW. Allowing the
manure contained all the ele-
ments which were in the food
Though this is an error,) and es-
timating their value at the market
price Of the same in chemical forms,
and the manure was worth $40,
Lawes and Gilbert's experiment
say it was worth but One-tifth, OF
S24, and that is as much as an in
telligent practical farmer would
estimate the value of the manure
made by any COW in a year, and il
more than he could get out of i
with any crop. This applies will
equal sorce to n made b.
Harris pig, Quincy's cows, and al
estimates of the value of manure
based on an ANALYSIS of the food OF
the manure, and the market price
of the elements IN chemical form
1t should be remembered tina
availability is the prime factor il
determining he practical value 0
the elements of food, as it is al
"amazing delusion" to believ'
them of equal value, whatever ma,
be the form in which they are oh
tanned. For example, 100 lbs. o
nitrogen in the form of sulphate 0
ammonia may be worth $50, but il
the form of sole leather it woul,
not be worth one. Any attempt t
appreciate and d%epreciate farm
yard dung in the opinion of intel
ligent practical farmers is perfec
folly.-Leu Stockbridge, Mass
agricultural College, tn Mass
Pl0ugAman.