Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1879-08-27

The abundance of ammonia contained
in good sample of peat may be easily
proved by mixing it with lime, when the
powerful odor that will be apparent will
speak for itself. The writer has had large
quantities of muck dug out from swamp
from which the pungent odor of ammonia
was so strong Us to inconvenience the
workmen, and was much more powerful
than that Of n very foul horse stable. This
being the case, then, it may be taken as Il
fact that, so far as the inorganic elements
are concerned, muck is worth at least as
much as the best stable manure, and as
regards ammonia, it is worth twice to four
times as much. No farmer, therefore,
who owns deposit of swamp muck can
afford to neglect this generous provision
of nature for his benefit, for, estimated at
the money value of ammonia, single
load is worth to him, for the ammonia
alone, at least ten dollars. This may sur
prise the farmer who has many acres on
his farm, each of which contains two
thousand loads or more, of muck above
water level, and who, therefore, may hard
ly be able to realize that the actual value
of each acre to him is twenty thousand
tains forty pounds of ammonia, that is
worth twenty-five cents per pound in the
market, and if he should buy guano,
nitrate of soda, or any other ammoniacal
manure, he would pay that price for each
pound of ammonia in the fertilizer. The
fact cannot be changed, simply because, in
the one case he buys the ammonia, and in
the other he already owns it. 1t is sur
prising, but it is true, and it is important
that farmers should know, that mines of
wealth are hidden beneath the coarse
weeds and unsightly boys and marshes
which disfgure their farms; and how
much value they can extract from them
by merely cutting sufficient bitches
through them to free them from water and
make them fit for cultivation York
Times
1t is just such nonsense as this which
has disguised lots of good practical farm
ers with what they call scientific" or
:" book farming" and which in so many
cases may be book " but is certainly not
scientific -" farming, or scientific any
thing else.
There are plenty of farmers who use
muck, with more and less of success, but
we don't believe one can be found who
will estimate the worth of the most valu-
able of muck at many times that of good
stable manure.
We cannot disprove the statement made
that load or ton of muck contains forty
pounds or ton dollars worth of ammonia,
but we don't believe it; and if it were
true, the muck would have to be compost
ed with some less powerful fertilizer TO
make it safe and available.
Concerning the value of muck, it was
stated in some of the superintendent
meetings, in Caledonia county, we believe,
that muck from cedar swamps had never
proved of any benefit, but rather dam
age where applied.
The logic of the Irishman who asked,
"lf an apple pie is so good with little
ounce, how good would an apple pie be,
made of all quincesp" does not always
prove sound. A hundred pounds of gyp-
sum applied to piece of land may do a
certain amount of good, and be worth a
certain amount in money, but it by no
means follows that double the amount ap-
piled would produce double the amount of
good result, or the second amount would
pay for its application, though the first
might amply do SO.
In reports of experiments made under
the auspices of the agricultural college
and state university. nitrogen applied to
crops did not as rule pay its cost; yet
nitrogen is fertilizer, and an indspensa-
BILE one to certain amount, but beyond
which its application will entail loss. Pot
ash is also an indispensable fertilizer, but
an excess applied proves a damage rather
than benefit. But 1t also by no means
follows, that because some have made
statements which are not true, that there
is no such thing as truth. There are
great scientific truths which underlie our
work, and practical farmers must furnish
the facts from which the scientific theories
and reasons may be dedpced,