Year: 1878

With the cry coming up from all parts
of our State. from Kittery to Quoddy and
Presque Isle. of the running out" or de-
crease of fertility in so many of our cult
waited soils and fields, it is every season
becoming the paramount question. what
shall we do about it--with what material
and how shall we stop this deterioration
and increase the producing capacity of
our acres? In other words what is the
| cheapest and most available means gener-
ally at hand to recuperate our failing and
worn out landsp -l.a sgsa I'D
We are all aware thai BARNARD una
nure will produce this much desired re-
suit effectually and permanently, but the
fact that we haven't enough Of It, and
cannot obtain enough for our purpose. eff
| fectually disposes Of this point So far as
it goes. all right. but what shall we do for
the deficit. Let US look into the subject
little for it is one of vital Importance to
the agricultural wel.being of our State.
1t means all there is between thrifty pay
ing crops and fat fertile fields, and future
barren acres and starvation returns there
from. tan an pael@


For years it has been a pet theory, or
rather supposed to be fixed fact, that
nearly every farm in Maine possessed
magazine of wealth for plant production
and soil recuperation in the innumerable
deposits of muck which nature aided by :
art has so generously dumped" as It
were. here and there in the hollows and
lowlands. and muck and its value. etc..
has been the theme of many an agricultural
article and lecture, and not a few times
has the unctuous subject been discussed
by this Board, until. notwithstanding oc-
casionaliy some daring innovator Wosld
strike sturdy blow in opposition, we, had
almost come to believe that here was the
great panacea--and many of us have
talked and acted accordingly. But right
here and now while we are in this con-
tented mood comes in bold champion,
the Scientific Farmer. and with inoclastic
stroke would demolsh all our
ideas by an article under the cap
ton, "Is muck useful p' And after this
satirical query goes on to assert in effect
that the plant-food contained in a ton of
dry muck is worth one dollar, and If the
muck is moist as when it is dug. it is worth
about three cents per ton. and the differ
ence is that ordinary muck cannot be used
profitably as source of supply for plant
food, as the labor expended in its prepara-
tion would purchase far more plant-food
in the fertilizer market. And again
though II is recommended as an absorbent
where an absorbent is required, II Is furth-
er recommended to haul it from the bed
to the field rather than to the barn for
composing, if it Is desired to use it to
change the physical character OF the SOIL
Now If these opinions and ideas are
true we are all afloat again, for who can
afford to spend his time digging. hauling
and preparing muck If it is worth only
three cents per ton raw and one dollar
per ton dry. But it occurs to me that
there is main idea and fact in connexion
with the subject which has been over
looked. Just as in society there are men,
and men, so in the list OF deposits there
is muck and muck. and what one farmer
carts into his fields or his barnyard as
muck may be a very different material
from what his neighbor, or brother farmer
in distant part of the State, obtains for
the purpose. There is liable to be great
difference in its quality and value, and
have no hesitation in saying that some
muck. or so called muck, is not worth the
hauling Hence it seems to me here is
one main cause of our disagreement and
| the different opinions of writer's as to the
| value of muck for fertilizer. Muck is q



matter, usually found partially or wholly
under water, but its intrinsic value must
depend largely upon its location or time
of deposit and the elements which enter
into its composition. None of us would
| be at a loss to decide which We would
prefer tor a fertilizer, ton Of leaves from
| hardwood trees or ton of pine leaves,
| SO the reason for the difference in, the
quality of muck is easily accounted for,
| from the different articles of which 1t Is
formed. .ta ra st
Again this variation in its quality rem.
ders scientific analysis almost useless ex-
cept Tor particular deposits. as the com.
ponent parts or elements of a specimen
from one bed may vary largely or entire
ly from that of another. Our leading
agricultural chemists have analysed
muck and the tables are open for inspec-
tion, and as whole they are certainly


favorable to the muck.


As it is admitted that the barn manure Is
the most valuable fertilizer as whole.
and must be the farmers main reliance,
let us see what the doctors say in regard
to the comparative value of the material
under consideration. Prof. S. w. John
son, has compared, by chemical analysis,
muck to barn manure, and given as the
result of the comparison, that muck con-
lains in a given quantity. about one-third
more organic matter, an equal amount of
lime and nitrogen, but is deficient in
potash, magnesia, phosphoric and sui
phuric acids. These deficiencies of muck,
as to composition, he declares may be corr
rected as regards potash. by adding to
each ton of it, twenty pounds of potash Uf
commerce. or one hundred pounds Of un-
leached wood ashes; as regards phos-
phoric and suphuric acids, by adding
twenty pounds each of bone dust and
plaster OF Paris. In fact, he says, the ad-


dition Just named will convert any fresh


peat (muck) containing not more than so
per cent of water, and not less than 20


per cent. OF organic matter into mixture


having as much fertilizing matter as stable
dung, with the possible exception OF nj
trogeh. BY this it would seem it will
hardly pay to handle barn-yard manure If