The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-03-03


Pigeons or hens dung he says, is
Incompatible One load is worth ten
loads of other dung" In his Ele-
ments of Agriculture, George e.
Waring says: "Next to night-soil,
among domestic manures, are the ex-
crements of poultry, pigeons, etc.
Poultry dung is nearly equal in value to
Peruvian guano Except that it con-
tains more water). 1t is as well worth
81 per bushel as guano is 1915 per
ton" Scion Robinson, in his Facts
for Farmers, says: The hen-roosts
should be constructed with special ref
erence to saving all the droppings of
the fowls, because it is the most valua-
BILE manure made about the farmery."
James j. II. Gregory, the Marblehead
farmer and gardener, says of poultry
dung: Il consider the droppings of one
hen for one year worth about twelve
cents " agricultural Department of the
WATCHMAN of February 10), and the
editor endorses this opinion regarding
its value. Is there any other way to set
tie this question than for each farmer, by
practical experience, to I" become fully
persuaded in his own mind?' E.
Montpelier, February ~, 1886.
REMARKS BY AGRICULTURAL Ed
ToR.-We are glad that our friend
"E" has brought up this question
again, because the facts in regard to all
fertilizing materials need much more
study than they have yet received. The
quotation with which he begins, about
the disagreements of" DOCTORS" is worn
rather threadbare, and yet that might
be better understood than it is. "Doc-
tor" means wise man, but good
many, so-called, are otherwise. Peo-
pie who thoroughly understand SUBJ
ject will not differ about it. The dis
cord is due to imperfect knowledge.
But sometimes a difference is imagined
where none really exists. "E " seems
to think there is marked and clear
difference of opinion between Professor
johnson Gohnston) and the other au-
thorities quoted, and Mr.. Gregory, or
the Agricultural Editor. But this is not
really the fact. No matter how good
thing may be, its value may be over
rated. The manure of fowls is good,
but not so good as some think. And
again, the manure of birds has no fixed
or uniform value. 1t differs greatly,
according to the kind of food from
which it originates. In our twenty
years of experience as an agricultural
writer we have found few facts so little
understood by farmers, and so often
forgotten or overlooked by them, as the
fact that the value of the manure from
our animals depends primarily upon
their feed, and, only in much smaller
degree upon the kind of animal that
drops it.
Peruvian guano is the most powerful
natural fertilizer that has ever been
used. In its early purity it would an
alyze worth just about double the value
of our best commercial fertilizers. Now,
without question, Peruvian guano was
almost pure fowls dung. 1t was the
dung of exclusively fish-eating birds,
accumulated upon rocky islands under
tropical sun and in a rainless climate.
This was pure bird manure under the
most favorable conditions-rich food,
perfect preservation, almost entire free
dom from moisture. Compare this with
the manure of hens fed upon grain and
household waste, and an immense diff
ference appears under chemical analy-
sis. An unusually favorable and nearly
pure specimen, more dry than the av-
erage, is reported upon in the Connec
ticut Agricultural Report for 1878, page
3O7. In the same volume (Appendix,
page 23) is given an analysis of Peru
Wan guano, and Con page 21) of Brad
ley's superphosphate. Let us compare
them:
=. - -