MANURES FOR SPECIAL CROPS.
MANURES FOR HOPS.
“For hops,” said the Doctor, “there is nothing better than rich,
well-decomposed farmyard-manure--such manure as you are now making from
your pigs that are bedded with stable-manure.”
“That is so,” said I, “and the better you feed your horses and pigs, the
better will the manure be for hops. In England, Mr. Paine, of Surrey,
made a series of experiments with different manures for hops, and, as
the result of four years trial, reported that _rape-cake_, singly, or
in combination, invariably proved the best manure for hops. In this
country, cotton-seed, or cotton-seed-cake, would be a good substitute
for the rape-cake. Whatever manure is used should be used liberally.
Hops require a large amount of labor per acre, and it is, therefore,
specially desirable to obtain a large yield per acre. This can be
accomplished only by the most lavish expenditure of manure. And all
experience seems to show that it must be manure _rich in nitrogen_. In
the hop districts of England, 25 tons of rich farmyard-manure are
applied per acre; and in addition to this, soot and rags, both rich in
nitrogen, have long been popular auxiliaries. The value of soot is due
to the fact that it contains from 12 to 15 per cent of sulphate of
ammonia, and the fact that it has been so long used with success as a
manure for hops, seems to prove that sulphate of ammonia, which can now
be readily obtained, could be used to advantage by our hop-growers--say
at the rate, in addition to farm-yard manure, of 500 lbs. per acre, sown
broadcast early in the spring.”
MANURES FOR TOBACCO.
When tobacco is grown for wrappers, it is desirable to get a large,
strong leaf. The richest land is selected for the crop, and large
quantities of the richest and most stimulating manures are used.
Like cabbages, this crop requires a large amount of plant-food per acre;
and, like them, it can only be grown by constant and high manuring. More
manure must be used than the plants can take up out of the soil, and
hence it is, that land which has been used for growing tobacco for some
years, will be in high condition for other crops without further
manuring.
Farm-yard or stable-manure, must be the mainstay of the tobacco-planter.
With this, he can use artificial fertilizers to advantage--such as
fish-scrap, woollen-rags, Peruvian guano, dried blood, slaughter-house
offal, sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, etc.
For choice, high-flavored smoking-tobacco, the grower aims to get
quality rather than quantity. This seems to depend more on the land and
the climate than on the manures used. Superphosphate of lime would be
likely to prove advantageous in favoring the early growth and maturity
of the crop. And in raising tobacco-plants in the seed-bed, I should
expect good results from the use of superphosphate, raked into the soil
at the rate of three or four lbs. per square rod.
MANURES FOR INDIAN CORN.
We know less about the manurial requirements of Indian corn, than of
almost any other crop we cultivate. We know that wheat, barley, oats,
and grasses, require for their maximum growth a liberal supply of
available nitrogen in the soil. And such facts and experiments as we
have, seem to indicate that the same is also true of Indian corn. It is,
at any rate, reasonable to suppose that, as Indian corn belongs to the
same botanical order as wheat, barley, oats, rye, timothy, and other
grasses, the general manurial requirements would be the same. Such,
I presume, is the case; and yet there seem to be some facts that would
incline us to place Indian corn with the leguminous plants, such as
clover, peas, and beans, rather than with the cereals, wheat, barley,
oats, etc.
“Why so,” asked the Deacon, “Indian corn does not have much in common
with beans, peas, and clover?”
As we have shown, clover can get more nitrogen out of the soil, than
wheat, barley, and oats. And the same is true of beans and peas, though
probably not to so great an extent.
Now, it would seem that Indian corn can get more nitrogen out of a soil,
than wheat, barley, or oats--and to this extent, at least, we may
consider Indian corn as a renovating crop. In other words, the Indian
corn can get more nitrogen out of the soil, than wheat, barley, and
oats--and when we feed out the corn and stalks on the farm, we have more
food and more manure than if we raised and fed out a crop of oats,
barley, or wheat. If this idea is correct, then Indian corn, when
consumed on the farm, should not be classed with what the English
farmers term “white crops,” but rather with the “green crops.” In other
words, Indian corn is what old writers used to call a “fallow crop”--or
what we call a renovating crop.
If this is so, then the growth and consumption of Indian corn on the
farm, as is the case with clover, should leave the farm richer for
wheat, rather than poorer. I do not mean richer absolutely, but richer
so far as the _available_ supply of plant-food is concerned.
“It may be that you are right,” said the Doctor, “when corn is grown for
_fodder_, but not when grown for the grain. It is the formation of the
seed which exhausts the soil.”
If I could be sure that it was true of corn-fodder, I should have little
doubt that it is true also of corn as ordinarily grown for grain and
stalks. For, I think, it is clear that the grain is formed at the
expense of the stalks, and not directly from the soil. The corn-fodder
will take from the soil as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as the crop
of corn, and the more it will take, the more it approximates in
character to clover and other renovating crops. If corn-fodder is a
renovating crop, so is the ordinary corn-crop, also, provided it is
consumed on the farm.
“But what makes you think,” said the Deacon, “that corn can get more
nitrogen from the soil, than wheat?”
“That is the real point, Deacon,” said I, “and I will ask you this
question. Suppose you had a field of wheat seeded down to clover, and
the clover failed. After harvest, you plow up half of the field and sow
it to wheat again, the other half of the field you plow in the spring,
and plant with Indian corn. Now, suppose you get 15 bushels of wheat to
the acre, how much corn do you think you would be likely to get?”
“Well, that depends,” said the Deacon, “but I should expect at least 30
bushels of shelled corn per acre.”
“Exactly, and I think most farmers would tell you the same; you get
twice as much corn and stalks to the acre as you would of wheat and
straw. In other words, while the wheat cannot find more nitrogen than is
necessary to produce 15 bushels of wheat and straw, the corn can find,
and does find, take up, and organize, at least twice as much nitrogen as
the wheat.”
If these are facts, then the remarks we have made in regard to the value
of clover as a fertilizing crop, are applicable in some degree to Indian
corn. To grow clover and sell it, will in the end impoverish the soil;
to grow clover and feed it out, will enrich the land. And the same will
be true of Indian corn. It will gather up nitrogen that the wheat-crop
can not appropriate; and when the corn and stalks are fed out, some 90
per cent of the nitrogen will be left in the manure.
“You do not think, then,” said the Doctor, “that nitrogen is such an
important element in manure for corn, as it is in a manure for wheat.”
I have not said that. If we want a large crop of corn, we shall usually
need a liberal supply of available nitrogen. But this is because a
larger crop of corn means a much larger produce per acre, than a large
crop of wheat. Forty bushels of wheat per acre is an unusually large
crop with us; but 80 bushels of shelled corn can be grown in a favorable
season, and on rich, well-cultivated land. As the Deacon has said, 30
bushels of corn per acre can be grown as easily as 15 bushels of wheat;
and it is quite probable, in many cases, that a manure containing no
nitrogen, might give us a crop of 35 or 40 bushels per acre. In other
words, up to a certain point, manures containing mineral, or
carbonaceous matter, might frequently, in ordinary agriculture, increase
the yield of Indian corn; while on similar land, such manures would have
little effect on wheat.
“That is so,” said the Deacon, “we all know that plaster frequently
increases the growth of corn, while it seldom does much good on wheat.”
But, after you have got as large a crop as the land will produce, aided
by plaster, ashes, and superphosphate, say 40 bushels of shelled corn
per acre, _then_ if you want to raise 70 bushels per acre, you must
furnish the soil with manures containing sufficient available nitrogen.
Some years ago, I made some careful experiments with artificial manures
on Indian corn.
“Oh, yes,” said the Deacon, “they were made on the south lot, in front
of my house, and I recollect that the N.Y. State Ag. Society awarded you
a prize of $75 for them.”
“And I recollect,” said I, “how you and some other neighbors laughed at
me for spending so much time in measuring the land and applying the
manures, and measuring the crop. But I wish I could have afforded to
continue them. A single experiment, however carefully made, can not be
depended on. However, I will give the results for what they are worth,
with some remarks made at the time:
“The soil on which the experiments were made, is a light, sandy loam. It
has been under cultivation for upwards of twenty years, and so far as I
can ascertain has never been manured. It has been somewhat impoverished
by the growth of cereal crops, and it was thought that for this reason,
and on account of its light texture and active character, which would
cause the manures to act immediately, it was well adapted for the
purpose of showing the effect of different manurial substances on the
corn-crop.
“The land was clover-sod, two years old, pastured the previous summer.
It was plowed early in the spring, and harrowed until in excellent
condition. The corn was planted May 23, in hills 3½ feet apart each way.
“The manures were applied in the hill immediately before the seed was
planted.
“With superphosphate of lime, and with plaster (gypsum, or _sulphate of
lime_), the seed was placed directly on top of the manure, as it is well
known that these manures do not injure the germinating principle of even
the smallest seeds.
“The ashes were dropped in the hill, and then covered with soil, and the
seed planted on the top, so that it should not come in contact with the
ashes.
“Guano and sulphate of ammonia were treated in the same way.
“On the plots where ashes and guano, or ashes and sulphate of ammonia
were both used, the ashes were first put in the hill, and covered with
soil, and the guano or sulphate of ammonia placed on the top, and also
covered with soil before the seed was planted. The ashes and
superphosphate of lime was also treated in the same way. It is well
known that unleached ashes, mixed either with guano, sulphate of
ammonia, or superphosphate, mutually decompose each other, setting free
the ammonia of the guano and sulphate of ammonia, and converting the
soluble phosphate of the superphosphate of lime into the insoluble form
in which it existed before treatment with sulphuric acid. All the plots
were planted on the same day, and the manures weighed and applied under
my own immediate supervision. Everything was done that was deemed
necessary to secure accuracy.
“The following table gives the results of the experiments:
Table Showing the Results of Experiments on Indian Corn.
SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre.
SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre.
TC Total No. of bushels of ears of corn per acre.
ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn.
ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn.
TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn.
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
| Descriptions of manures and | | | | | |
Plots| quantities applied per acre | SdC | SfC| TC |ISdC|ISfC|TIC
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
1. |No manure | 60 | 7 | 67 | .. | .. | ..
2. |100 lbs. plaster (gypsum or | | | | | |
| sulphate of lime) | 70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11
3. |400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes | | | | | |
| and 100 lbs. plaster (mixed) | 68 | 10 | 78 | 8 | 3 | 11
4. |150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia | 90 | 15 | 105 | 30 | 8 | 38
5. |300 lbs. superphosphate of lime | 70 | 8 | 78 | 10 | 1 | 11
6. |150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia | | | | | |
| and 300 lbs. superphosphate of | | | | | |
| lime (mixed) | 85 | 5 | 90 | 25 | .. | 23
7. |400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes, | | | | | |
| (uncertain) | 60 | 12 | 72 | .. | 5 | 5
8. |150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia and | | | | | |
| 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes | | | | | |
| (sown separately) | 87 | 10 | 97 | 27 | 3 | 30
9. |300 lbs. superphosphate of lime, | | | | | |
| 150 lbs. sulph. ammonia, and | | | | | |
| 400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes | 100 | 8 | 108 | 40 | 1 | 41
10. |400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes | 60 | 8 | 68 | .. | 1 | 1
11. |100 lbs. plaster. 400 lbs. | | | | | |
| unleached wood-ashes, 300 lbs. | | | | | |
| superphosphate of lime, and | | | | | |
| 200 lbs. Peruvian guano | 95 | 10 | 105 | 35 | 3 | 38
12. |75 lbs. sulphate of ammonia | 78 | 10 | 88 | 18 | 3 | 21
13. |200 lbs. Peruvian guano | 88 | 13 | 101 | 28 | 6 | 34
14. |400 lbs. unleached wood-ashes, | | | | | |
| 100 lbs. plaster, and | | | | | |
| 500 lbs. Peruvian guano | 111 | 14 | 125 | 51 | 7 | 58
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
“The superphosphate of lime was made on purpose for these experiments,
and was a pure mineral manure of superior quality, made from calcined
bones; it cost about 2½ cents per pound. The sulphate of ammonia was a
good, commercial article, obtained from London, at a cost of about seven
cents per pound. The ashes were made from beech and hard maple (_Acer
saccharinum_) wood, and were sifted through a fine sieve before being
weighed. The guano was the best Peruvian, costing about three cents per
pound. It was crushed and sifted before using. In sowing the ashes on
plot 7, an error occurred in their application, and for the purpose of
checking the result, it was deemed advisable to repeat the experiment on
plot 10.
“On plot 5, with 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime per acre, the plants
came up first, and exhibited a healthy, dark-green appearance, which
they retained for some time. This result was not anticipated, though it
is well known that superphosphate of lime has the effect of stimulating
the germination of turnip-seed, and the early growth of the plants to an
astonishing degree; yet, as it has no such effect on wheat, it appeared
probable that it would not produce this effect on Indian corn, which, in
chemical composition, is very similar to wheat. The result shows how
uncertain are all speculations in regard to the manurial requirements of
plants. This immediate effect of superphosphate of lime on corn was so
marked, that the men (who were, at the time of planting, somewhat
inclined to be skeptical, in regard to the value of such small doses of
manure), declared that ‘superphosphate beats all creation for corn.’ The
difference in favor of superphosphate, at the time of hoeing, was very
perceptible, even at some distance.
“Although every precaution was taken that was deemed necessary, to
prevent the manures from mixing in the hill, or from injuring the seed,
yet, it was found, that those plots dressed with ashes and guano, or
with ashes and sulphate of ammonia, were injured to some extent. Shortly
after the corn was planted, heavy rain set in, and washed the sulphate
of ammonia and guano, down into the ashes, and mutual decomposition took
place, with more or less loss of ammonia. In addition to this loss of
ammonia, these manures came up to the surface of the ground in the form
of an excrescence, so hard that the plants could with difficulty
penetrate through it.
“It will be seen, by examining the table, that although the
superphosphate of lime had a good effect during the early stages of the
growth of the plants, yet the increase of ears of corn in the end did
not come up to these early indications. On plot 5, with 300 lbs. of
superphosphate of lime per acre, the yield is precisely the same as on
plot 2, with 100 lbs. of plaster (_sulphate of lime_), per acre. Now,
superphosphate of lime is composed necessarily of soluble phosphate of
lime and plaster, or sulphate of lime, formed from a combination of the
sulphuric acid, employed in the manufacture of superphosphate, with the
lime of the bones. In the 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime, sown on
plot 5, there would be about 100 lbs. of plaster; and as the effect of
this dressing is no greater than was obtained from the 100 lbs. of
plaster, sown on plot 2, it follows, that the good effect of the
superphosphate of lime was due to the plaster that it contained.
“Again, on plot 4, with 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia per acre, we
have 90 bushels of ears of sound corn, and 15 bushels of ears of soft
corn, (‘nubbins,’) per acre; or a total increase over the plot without
manure, of 38 bushels. Now, the sulphate of ammonia contains no
phosphate of lime, and the fact that such a manure gives a considerable
increase of crop, confirms the conclusion we have arrived at, from a
comparison of the results on plots 2 and 5; that the increase from the
superphosphate of lime, is not due to the phosphate of lime which it
contains, unless we are to conclude that the sulphate of ammonia
rendered the phosphate of lime in the soil more readily soluble, and
thus furnished an increased quantity in an available form for
assimilation by the plants--a conclusion, which the results with
superphosphate alone, on plot 5, and with superphosphate and sulphate of
ammonia, combined, on plot 6, do not sustain.
“On plot 12, half the quantity of sulphate of ammonia, was used as on
plot 4, and the increase is a little more than half what it is where
double the quantity was used. Again, on plot 13, 200 lbs. of Peruvian
guano per acre, gives nearly as great an increase of sound corn, as the
150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia. Now, 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano
contains nearly as much ammonia as 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia, and the
increase in both cases is evidently due to the ammonia of these manures.
The 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano, contained about 50 lbs. of phosphate of
lime; but as the sulphate of ammonia, which contains no phosphate of
lime, gives as great an increase as the guano, it follows, that the
phosphate of lime in the guano, had little, if any effect; a result
precisely similar to that obtained with superphosphate of lime.
“We may conclude, therefore, that on this soil, which has never been
manured, and which has been cultivated for many years with the
_Ceralia_--or, in other words, with crops which remove a large quantity
of phosphate of lime from the soil--the phosphate of lime, relatively to
the ammonia, is not deficient. If such was not the case, an application
of soluble phosphate of lime would have given an increase of crop, which
we have shown was not the case in any one of these experiments.
“Plot 10, with 400 lbs. of unleached wood-ashes per acre, produces the
same quantity of _sound corn_, with an extra bushel of ‘nubbins’ per
acre, as plot 1, without any manure at all; ashes, therefore, applied
alone, may be said to have had no effect whatever. On plot 3, 400 lbs.
of ashes, and 100 lbs. of plaster, give the same total number of bushels
per acre, as plot 2, with 100 lbs. of plaster alone. Plot 8, with 400
lbs. ashes, and 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia, yields three bushels of
sound corn, and five bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre, _less_ than plot 4,
with 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia alone. This result may be ascribed to
the fact previously alluded to--the ashes dissipated some of the
ammonia.
“Plot 11, with 100 lbs. of plaster, 400 lbs. ashes, 300 lbs. of
superphosphate of lime, and 200 lbs. Peruvian guano (which contains
about as much ammonia as 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia), produced
precisely the same number of total bushels per acre, as plot 4, with 150
lbs. sulphate of ammonia alone, and but 4 bushels more per acre, than
plot 13, with 200 lbs. Peruvian guano alone. It is evident, from these
results, that neither ashes nor phosphates had much effect on Indian
corn, on this impoverished soil. Plot 14 received the largest dressing
of ammonia (500 lbs. Peruvian guano), and produced much the largest
crop; though the increase is not so great in proportion to the guano, as
where smaller quantities were used.
“The manure which produced the most profitable result, was the 100 lbs.
of plaster, on plot 2. The 200 lbs. of Peruvian guano, on plot 13, and
which cost about $6, gave an increase of 14 bushels of shelled corn, and
6 bushels of ‘nubbins.’ This will pay at the present price of corn in
Rochester, although the profit is not very great. The superphosphate of
lime, although a very superior article, and estimated at cost price, in
no case paid for itself. The same is true of the ashes.
“But the object of the experiment was not so much to ascertain what
manures will pay, but to ascertain, if possible, what constituents of
manures are required, in greatest quantity, for the maximum growth of
corn. * * Hitherto, no experiments have been made in this country, on
Indian corn, that afforded any certain information on this point.
Indeed, we believe no satisfactory experiments have been made on Indian
corn, in any country, that throw any definite light on this interesting
and important question. A few years ago, Mr. Lawes made similar
experiments to those given above, on his farm, at Rothamsted, England;
but owing to the coolness of the English climate, the crop did not
arrive at maturity.
“Numerous experiments have been made in this country, with guano and
superphosphate of lime; but the superphosphates used were commercial
articles, containing more or less ammonia, and if they are of any
benefit to those crops to which they are applied, it is a matter of
uncertainty whether the beneficial effect of the application is due to
the soluble phosphate of lime, or to the ammonia. On the other hand,
guano contains both ammonia and phosphate; and we are equally at a loss
to determine, whether the effect is attributable to the ammonia or
phosphate, or both. In order, therefore, to determine satisfactorily,
which of the several ingredients of plants is required in greatest
proportion, for the maximum growth of any particular crop, we must apply
these ingredients separately, or in such definite compounds, as will
enable us to determine to what particular element or compounds the
beneficial effect is to be ascribed. It was for this reason, that
sulphate of ammonia, and a purely mineral superphosphate of lime, were
used in the above experiments. No one would think of using sulphate of
ammonia at its price, [sulphate of ammonia is now cheaper, while
Peruvian guano is more costly and less rich in ammonia], as an ordinary
manure, for the reason, that the same quantity of ammonia can be
obtained in other substances, such as barnyard-manure, Peruvian guano,
etc., at a much cheaper rate. But these manures contain _all_ the
elements of plants, and we can not know whether the effect produced by
them is due to the ammonia, phosphates, or any other ingredients. For
the purpose of experiment, therefore, we must use a manure that
furnishes ammonia without any admixture of phosphates, potash, soda,
lime, magnesia, etc., even though it cost much more than we could obtain
the same amount of ammonia in other manures. I make these remarks in
order to correct a very common opinion, that if experiments do not
_pay_, they are useless. The ultimate object, indeed, is to ascertain
the most profitable method of manuring; but the _means_ of obtaining
this information, can not in all cases be profitable.
“Similar experiments to those made on Indian corn, were made on soil of
a similar character, on about an acre of Chinese sugar-cane. I do not
propose to give the results in detail, at this time, and allude to them
merely to mention one very important fact, _the superphosphate of lime
had a very marked effect_. This manure was applied in the hill on one
plot (the twentieth of an acre,) at the rate of 400 lbs. per acre, and
the plants on this plot came up first, and outgrew all the others from
the start, and ultimately attained the height of about ten feet; while
on the plot receiving no manure, the plants were not five feet high.
This is a result entirely different from what I should have expected. It
has been supposed, from the fact that superphosphate of lime had no
effect on wheat, that it would probably have little effect on corn, or
on the sugar-cane, or other _ceralia_; and that, as ammonia is so
beneficial for wheat, it would probably be beneficial for corn and
sugar-cane. The above experiments indicate that such is the case, in
regard to Indian corn, so far as the production of grain is concerned,
though, as we have stated, it is not true in reference to the early
growth of the plants. The superphosphate of lime on Indian corn,
stimulated the growth of the plants, in a very decided manner at first,
so much so, that we were led to suppose, for some time, that it would
give the largest crop; but at harvest, it was found that it produced no
more corn than plaster. These results seem to indicate, that
superphosphate of lime stimulates the growth of stalks and leaves, and
has little effect in increasing the production of seed. In raising
Indian corn, for fodder or for soiling purposes, superphosphate of lime
may be beneficial, as well as in growing the sorghum for sugar-making
purposes, or for fodder--though, perhaps, not for seed.”
“In addition to the experiments given above, I also made the same
season, on an adjoining field, another set of experiments on Indian
corn, the results of which are given below.
“The land on which these experiments were made, is of a somewhat firmer
texture than that on which the other set of experiments was made. It is
situated about a mile from the barn-yard, and on this account, has
seldom, if ever been manured. It has been cultivated for many years with
ordinary farm crops. It was plowed early in the spring, and it was
harrowed until quite mellow. The corn was planted May 30, 1857. Each
experiment occupied one-tenth of an acre, consisting of 4 rows 3½ feet
apart, and the same distance between the hills in the rows, with one row
without manure between each experimental plot.
“The manure was applied in the hill, in the same manner as in the first
set of experiments.
“The barnyard-manure was well-rotted, and consisted principally of
cow-dung with a little horse-dung. Twenty two-horse wagon loads of this
was applied per acre, and each load would probably weigh about one ton.
It was put in the hill and covered with soil, and the seed then planted
on the top.
“The following table gives the results of the experiments:
Table Showing the Results of Experiments on Indian Corn, Made Near
Rochester, N.Y., in the Year 1857.
SdC Bushels of ears of sound corn per acre.
SfC Bushels of ears of soft corn per acre.
TC Total No. of bushels of ears of corn per acre.
ISdC Increase per acre of ears sound corn.
ISfC Increase per acre of ears of soft corn.
TIC Total increase per acre of ears of corn.
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
| Descriptions of manures and | | | | | |
Plots| quantities applied per acre | SdC | SfC| TC |ISdC|ISfC|TIC
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
1. | No manure | 75 | 12 | 87 | .. | .. | ..
2. | 20 loads barn-yard manure | 82½ | 10 | 92½| 5½ | .. | 5½
3. | 150 lbs. sulphate of ammonia | 85 | 30 | 115 | 10 | 18 | 28
4. | 300 lbs. superphosphate of lime | 88 | 10 | 98 | 11 | .. | 11
5. | 400 lbs. Peruvian guano | 90 | 30 | 120 | 15 | 18 | 33
6. | 400 lbs. of “Cancerine,” or fish | 85 | 20 | 105 | 10 | 8 | 18
| manure | | | | | |
-----+----------------------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----
“As before stated, the land was of a stronger nature than that on which
the first set of experiments was made, and it was evidently in better
condition, as the plot having no manure produced 20 bushels of ears of
corn per acre more than the plot without manure in the other field.
“On plot 4, 300 lbs. of superphosphate of lime gives a total increase of
11 bushels of ears of corn per acre over the unmanured plot, agreeing
exactly with the increase obtained from the same quantity of the same
manure on plot 5, in the first set of experiments.
“Plot 3, dressed with 150 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia per acre, gives a
total increase of 28 bushels of ears of corn per acre, over the
unmanured plot; and an increase of 22½ bushels of ears per acre over
plot 2, which received 20 loads of good, well-rotted barnyard-dung per
acre.
“Plot 5, with 400 lbs. of Peruvian guano per acre gives the best crop of
this series viz: an increase of 33 bushels of corn per acre over the
unmanured plot, and 27½ over the plot manured with 20 loads of
barnyard-dung. The 400 lbs. of ‘Cancerine’--an artificial manure made in
New Jersey from fish--gives a total increase of 18 bushels of ears per
acre over the unmanured plot, and 12½ bushels more than that manured
with barn-yard dung, though 5 bushels of ears of sound corn and 10
bushels of ‘nubbins’ per acre _less_ than the same quantity of Peruvian
guano.”
MANURES FOR TURNIPS.
To raise a large crop of turnips, especially of ruta-bagas, there is
nothing better than a liberal application of rich, well-rotted
farm-yard-manure, and 250 to 300 lbs. of good superphosphate of lime per
acre, _drilled in with the seed_.
I have seen capital crops of common turnips grown with no other manure
except 300 lbs. of superphosphate per acre, drilled with the seed.
Superphosphate has a wonderful effect on the development of the roots of
the turnip. And this is the secret of its great value for this crop. It
increases the growth of the young plant, developing the formation of the
roots, and when the turnip once gets full possession of the soil, it
appropriates all the plant-food it can find. A turnip-crop grown with
superphosphate, can get from the soil much more nitrogen than a crop of
wheat. The turnip-crop, when supplied with superphosphate, is a good
“scavenger.” It will gather up and organize into good food the refuse
plant-food left in the soil. It is to the surface soil, what clover is
to the subsoil. To the market gardener, or to a farmer who manures
heavily common turnips drilled in with superphosphate will prove a
valuable crop. On such land no other manure will be needed. I cannot too
earnestly recommend the use of superphosphate as a manure for turnips.
For Swede turnips or ruta-bagas, it will usually be necessary, in order
to secure a maximum crop, to use a manure which, in addition to
superphosphate, contains available nitrogen. A good dressing of rich,
well-rotted manure, spread on the land, and plowed under, and then 300
lbs. of superphosphate drilled in with the seed, would be likely to give
a good crop.
In the absence of manure, there is probably nothing better for the
ruta-bagas than 300 lbs. of so-called “rectified” Peruvian guano, that
is, guano treated with sulphuric acid, to render the phosphates soluble.
Such a guano is guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, and 10 per
cent of soluble phosphoric acid, and would be a good dressing for Swede
turnips.
The best way to use guano for turnips is to sow it broadcast on the
land, and harrow it in, and then either drill in the turnip-seed on the
flat, or on ridges. The latter is decidedly the better plan, provided
you have the necessary implements to do the work expeditiously. A double
mould-board plow will ridge up four acres a day, and the guano being
previously sown on the surface, will be turned up with the mellow
surface-soil into the ridge, where the seed is to be sown. The young
plants get hold of it and grow so rapidly as to be soon out of danger
from the turnip-beetle.
MANURES FOR MANGEL-WURZEL OR SUGAR-BEETS.
When sugar-beets are grown for feeding to stock, there is probably
little or no difference in the manurial requirements of sugar-beets and
mangel-wurzel. Our object is to get as large a growth as possible
consistent with quality.
“Large roots,” said the Deacon, “have been proved to contain less
nutriment than small roots.”
True, but it does not follow from this that rich land, or heavy manuring
is the chief cause of this difference. It is much more likely to be due
to the variety selected. The seed-growers have been breeding solely for
size and shape. They have succeeded to such an extent that 84 gross tons
of roots have been grown on an acre. This is equal to over 94 of our
tons per acre. “That is an enormous crop,” said the Deacon; “and it
would require some labor to put 10 acres of them in a cellar.”
“If they were as nutritious as ordinary mangels,” said I, “that would be
no argument against them. But such is not the case. In a letter just
received from Mr. Lawes, (May, 1878,) he characterizes them as ‘bladders
of water and salts.’”
Had the seed-growers bred for _quality_, the roots would have been of
less size, but they would contain more nutriment.
What we want is a variety that has been bred with reference to quality;
and when this is secured, we need not fear to make the land rich and
otherwise aim to secure great growth and large-sized roots.
It certainly is not good economy to select a variety which has been bred
for years to produce large-sized roots, and then sow this seed on poor
land for the purpose of obtaining small-sized roots. Better take a
variety bred for quality, and then make the land rich enough to produce
a good crop.
We are not likely to err in making the land too rich for mangel-wurzel
or for sugar-beets grown for stock. When sugar-beets are grown for
sugar, we must aim to use manures favorable for the production of sugar,
or rather to avoid using those which are unfavorable. But where
sugar-beets are grown for food, our aim is to get a large amount of
nutriment to the acre. And it is by no means clear to my mind that there
is much to be gained by selecting the sugar-beet instead of a good
variety of mangel-wurzel. It is not a difficult matter, by selecting the
largest roots for seed, and by liberal manuring, and continuously
selecting the largest roots, to convert the sugar-beet into a
mangel-wurzel.
When sugar-beets are grown for food, we may safely manure them as we
would mangel-wurzel, and treat the two crops precisely alike.
I usually raise from ten to fifteen acres of mangel-wurzel every year.
I grow them in rotation with other crops, and not as the Hon. Harris
Lewis and some others do, continuously on the same land. We manure
liberally, but not extravagantly, and get a fair yield, and the land is
left in admirable condition for future crops.
I mean by this, not that the land is specially rich, but that it is very
clean and mellow.
“In 1877,” said the Deacon, “you had potatoes on the land where you grew
mangels the previous year, and had the best crop in the neighborhood.”
This is true, but still I do not think it a good rotation. A barley crop
seeded with clover would be better, especially if the mangels were
heavily manured. The clover would get the manure which had been washed
into the subsoil, or left in such a condition that potatoes or grain
could not take it up.
There is one thing in relation to my mangels of 1876 which has escaped
the Deacon. The whole piece was manured and well prepared, and dibbled
in with mangels, the rows being 2½ feet apart, and the seed dropped 15
inches apart in the rows. Owing to poor seed, the mangels failed on
about three acres, and we plowed up the land and drilled in corn for
fodder, in rows 2½ feet apart, and at the rate of over three bushels of
seed per acre. We had a _great crop_ of corn-fodder.
The next year, as I said before, the whole piece was planted with
potatoes, and if it was true that mangels are an “enriching crop,” while
corn is an “exhausting” crop, we ought to have had much better potatoes
after the mangels than after corn. This was certainly not the case; if
there was any difference, it was in favor of the corn. But I do not
place any confidence in an experiment of this kind, where the crops were
not weighed and the results carefully ascertained.
Mr. Lawes has made some most thorough experiments with different manures
on sugar-beets, and in 1876 he commenced a series of experiments with
mangel-wurzel.
The land is a rather stiff clay loam, similar to that on which the wheat
and barley experiments were made. It is better suited to the growth of
beets than of turnips.
“Why so,” asked the Deacon, “I thought that black, bottom land was best
for mangels.”
“Not so, Deacon,” said I, “we can, it is true, grow large crops of
mangels on well-drained and well-manured swampy or bottom land, but the
best soil for mangels, especially in regard to quality, is a good,
stiff, well-worked, and well-manured loam.”
“And yet,” said the Deacon, “you had a better crop last year on the
lower and blacker portions of the field than on the heavy, clayey land.”
In one sense, this is true. We had dry weather in the spring, and the
mangel seed on the dry, clayey land did not come up as well as on the
cooler and moister bottom-land. We had more plants to the acre, but the
roots on the clayey land, when they once got fair hold of the soil and
the manure, grew larger and better than on the lighter and moister land.
The great point is to get this heavy land into a fine, mellow condition.
But to Mr. Lawes’ experiments. They are remarkably interesting and
instructive. But it is not necessary to go into all the details. Suffice
it to say that the experiments seem to prove, very conclusively, that
beets require a liberal supply of available nitrogen. Thus, without
manure, the yield of beets was about 7½ tons of bulbs per acre.
With 550 lbs. nitrate of soda per acre, the yield was a little over 22
tons per acre. With 14 tons of farmyard-manure, 18 tons per acre. With
14 tons of farmyard manure and 550 lbs. nitrate of soda, over 27½ tons
per acre.
Superphosphate of lime, sulphates of potash, soda, and magnesia, and
common salt, alone, or with other manures, had comparatively little
effect.
Practically, when we want to grow a good crop of beets or mangels, these
experiments prove that what we need is the richest kind of
barnyard-manure.
If our manure is not rich, then we should use, in addition to the
manure, a dressing of nitrate of soda--say 400 or 500 lbs. per acre.
If the land is in pretty good condition, and we have no barnyard-manure,
we may look for a fair crop from a dressing of nitrate of soda alone.
“I see,” said the Deacon, “that 550 lbs. of nitrate of soda alone, gave
an increase of 14½ tons per acre. And the following year, on the same
land, it gave an increase of 13½ tons; and the next year, on the same
land, over 9 tons.”
“Yes,” said I, “the first three years of the experiments (1871-2-3), 550
lbs. of nitrate of soda alone, applied every year, gave an average yield
of 19¼ tons of bulbs per acre. During the same three years, the plot
dressed with 14 tons of barnyard-manure, gave an average yield of 16¼
tons. But now mark. The next year (1874) all the plots were left without
any manure, and the plot which had been previously dressed with nitrate
of soda, alone, fell off to 3 tons per acre, while the plot which had
been previously manured with barnyard-manure, produced 10¾ tons per
acre.”
“Good,” said the Deacon, “there is nothing like manure.”
MANURES FOR CABBAGE, PARSNIPS, CARROTS, LETTUCE, ONIONS, ETC.
I class these plants together, because, though differing widely in many
respects, they have one feature in common. They are all artificial
productions.
A distinguished amateur horticulturist once said to me, “I do not see
why it is I have so much trouble with lettuce. My land is rich, and the
lettuce grow well, but do not head. They have a tendency to run up to
seed, and soon get tough and bitter.”
I advised him to raise his own seed from the best plants--and especially
to reject all plants that showed any tendency to go prematurely to seed.
Furthermore, I told him I thought if he would sow a little
superphosphate of lime with the seed, it would greatly stimulate the
_early_ growth of the lettuce.
As I have said before, superphosphate, when drilled in with the seed,
has a wonderful effect in developing the root-growth of the young plants
of turnips, and I thought it would have the same effect on lettuce,
cabbage, cauliflowers, etc.
“But,” said he, “it is not _roots_ that I want, but heads.”
“Exactly,” said I, “you do not want the plants to follow out their
natural disposition and run up to seed. You want to induce them to throw
out a great abundance of tender leaves. In other words, you want them to
‘head.’ Just as in the turnip, you do not want them to run up to seed,
but to produce an unnatural development of ‘bulb.’”
Thirty years ago, Dr. Gilbert threw out the suggestion, that while it
was evident that turnips required a larger proportion of soluble
phosphates in the soil than wheat; while wheat required a larger
proportion of available nitrogen in the soil, than turnips, it was quite
probable, if we were growing turnips _for seed_, that then, turnips
would require the same kind of manures as wheat.
We want exceedingly rich land for cabbage, especially for an early crop.
This is not merely because a large crop of cabbage takes a large amount
of plant-food out of the soil, but because the cultivated cabbage is an
artificial plant, that requires its food in a concentrated shape. In
popular language, the plants have to be “forced.”
According to the analyses of Dr. Anderson, the outside leaves of
cabbage, contain, in round numbers, 91 per cent of water; and the heart
leaves, 94½ per cent. In other words, the green leaves contain 3½ per
cent more dry matter than the heart leaves.
Dr. Vœlcker, who analyzed more recently some “cattle-cabbage,” found 89½
per cent of water in the green leaves, and 83¾ per cent in the heart and
inner leaves--thus confirming previous analyses, and showing also that
the composition of cabbages varies considerably.
Dr. Vœlcker found much less water in the cabbage than Dr. Anderson.
The specimen analyzed by Dr. V., was grown on the farm of the Royal Ag.
College of England, and I infer from some incidental remarks, that the
crop was grown on rather poor land. And it is probably true that a large
crop of cabbage grown on rich land, contains a higher percentage of
water than cabbage grown on poorer land. On the poor land, the cabbage
would not be likely to head so well as on the rich land, and the green
leaves of cabbage contain more than half as much again real dry
substance as the heart leaves.
The dry matter of the heart leaves, however, contains more actual
nutriment than the dry matter of the green leaves.
It would seem very desirable, therefore, whether we are raising cabbage
for market or for home consumption, to make the land rich enough to grow
good heads. Dr. Vœlcker says, “In ordinary seasons, the average produce
of Swedes on our poorer fields is about 15 tons per acre. On weighing
the produce of an acre of cabbage, grown under similar circumstances,
I found that it amounted to 17½ tons per acre. On good, well-manured
fields, however, we have had a much larger produce.”
In a report on the “Cultivation of Cabbage, and its comparative Value
for Feeding purposes,” by J. M. M’Laren, of Scotland, the yield of Swede
turnips, was 29¾ tons per acre, and the yield of cabbage, 47¾ tons per
acre.
“It is very evident,” said the Deacon, “that if you grow cabbage you
should make the land rich enough to produce a good crop--and I take it
that is all you want to show.”
“I want to show,” I replied, “that our market gardeners have reason for
applying such apparently excessive dressings of rich manure to the
cabbage-crop. They find it safer to put far more manure into the land
than the crop can possibly use, rather than run any risk of getting an
inferior crop. An important practical question is, whether they can not
grow some crop or crops after the cabbage, that can profitably take up
the manure left in the soil.”
Prof. E. Wolff, in the last edition of “Praktische Düngerlehre,” gives
the composition of cabbage. For the details of which, see Appendix, page
345.
From this it appears that 50 tons of cabbage contain 240 lbs. of
nitrogen, and 1,600 lbs. of ash. Included in the ash is 630 lbs. of
potash; 90 lbs. of soda; 310 lbs. of lime; 60 lbs. of magnesia; 140 lbs.
of phosphoric acid; 240 lbs. of sulphuric acid, and 20 lbs. of silica.
Henderson, in “Gardening for Profit,” advises the application of 75 tons
of stable or barn-yard manure per acre, for early cabbage. For late
cabbage, after peas or early potatoes, he says about 10 tons per acre
are used.
Brill, in “Farm Gardening and Seed Growing,” also makes the same
distinction in regard to the quantity of manure used for early and late
cabbage. He speaks of 70 to 80 tons or more, per acre, of well-rotted
stable-manure as not an unusual or excessive dressing every year.
Now, according to Wolff’s table, 75 tons of fresh stable-manure, with
straw, contains 820 lbs. of nitrogen; 795 lbs. of potash; 150 lbs. soda;
315 lbs. of lime; 210 lbs. of magnesia; 420 lbs. of phosphoric acid; 105
lbs. sulphuric acid; 2,655 lbs. of silica, and 60 lbs. of chlorine.
“Put the figures side by side,” said the Deacon, “so that we can compare
them.”
Here they are:
------------------+--------------+-----------
| _75 tons |
| Fresh Horse | _50 tons
| Manure._ | Cabbage._
------------------+--------------+-----------
Nitrogen | 820 lbs. | 240 lbs.
Potash | 795 ” | 630 ”
Phosphoric acid | 420 ” | 140 ”
Soda | 150 ” | 90 ”
Lime | 315 ” | 310 ”
Magnesia | 210 ” | 60 ”
------------------+--------------+-----------
“That is rather an interesting table,” said the Doctor. “In the case of
lime, the crop takes about all that this heavy dressing of manure
supplies--but I suppose the soil is usually capable of furnishing a
considerable quantity.”
“That may be so,” said the Deacon, “but all the authorities on market
gardening speak of the importance of either growing cabbage on land
containing lime, or else of applying lime as a manure. Quinn, who writes
like a sensible man, says in his book, ‘Money in the Garden,’ ‘A
top-dressing of lime every third year, thirty or forty bushels per acre,
spread broadcast, and harrowed in, just before planting, pays
handsomely.’”
Henderson thinks cabbage can only be grown successfully on land
containing abundance of lime. He has used heavy dressings of lime on
land which did not contain shells, and the result was satisfactory for a
time, but he found it too expensive.
Experience seems to show that to grow large crops of perfect cabbage,
the soil must be liberally furnished with manures rich in nitrogen and
phosphoric acid.
In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that cabbage require a large
quantity of potash. I think, however, that when large quantities of
stable or barn-yard manure is used, it will rarely be found that the
soil lacks potash.
What we need to grow a large crop of cabbage, is manure from well-fed
animals. Such manure can rarely be purchased. Now, the difference
between rich manure and ordinary stable or barnyard-manure, consists
principally in this: The rich manure contains more nitrogen and
phosphoric acid than the ordinary stable-manure--and it is in a more
available condition.
To convert common manure into rich manure, therefore, we must add
nitrogen and phosphoric acid. In other words, we must use Peruvian
guano, or nitrate of soda and superphosphate, or bone-dust, or some
other substance that will furnish available nitrogen and phosphoric
acid.
Or it may well be, where stable-manure can be bought for $1.00 per
two-horse load, that it will be cheaper to use it in larger quantity
rather than to try to make it rich. In this case, however, we must
endeavor to follow the cabbage by some crop that has the power of taking
up the large quantity of nitrogen and other plant-food that will be left
in the soil.
The cabbage needs a large supply of nitrogen in the soil, but removes
comparatively little of it. We see that when 75 tons of manure is used,
a crop of 50 tons of cabbage takes out of the soil less than 30 per cent
of the nitrogen. And yet, if you plant cabbage on this land, the next
year, without manure, you would get a small crop.
“It cannot be for want of nitrogen,” said the Deacon.
“Yes it can,” said I. “The cabbage, especially the early kinds, must
have in the soil a much larger quantity of available nitrogen than the
plants can use.”
I do not mean by this that a large crop of cabbage could be raised, year
after year, if furnished only with a large supply of available nitrogen.
In such a case, the soil would soon lack the necessary inorganic
ingredients. But, what I mean, is this: Where land has been heavily
manured for some years, we could often raise a good crop of cabbage by a
liberal dressing of available nitrogen, and still more frequently, if
nitrogen and phosphoric acid were both used.
You may use what would be considered an excessive quantity of ordinary
stable-manure, and grow a large crop of cabbage; but still, if you plant
cabbage the next year, without manure of any kind, you will get a small
crop; but dress it with a manure containing the necessary amount of
nitrogen, and you will, so far as the supply of plant-food is concerned,
be likely to get a good crop.
In such circumstances, I think an application of 800 lbs. of nitrate of
soda per acre, costing, say $32, would be likely to afford a very
handsome profit.
For lettuce, in addition to well prepared rich land, I should sow
3 lbs. of superphosphate to each square rod, scattered in the rows
before drilling in the seed. It will favor the formation of fibrous
roots and stimulate the growth of the young plants.
In raising onions from seed, we require an abundance of rich,
well-rotted manure, clean land, and early sowing.
Onions are often raised year after year on the same land. That this
entails a great waste of manure, is highly probable, but it is not an
easy matter to get ordinary farm-land properly prepared for onions. It
needs to be clean and free from stones and rubbish of all kinds, and
when once it is in good condition, it is thought better to continue it
in onions, even though it may entail more or less loss of fertility.
“What do you mean,” asked the Deacon, “by loss of manure?”
“Simply this,” said I. “We use a far greater amount of plant-food in the
shape of manure than is removed by the crop of onions. And yet,
notwithstanding this fact, it is found, as a matter of experience, that
it is absolutely necessary, if we would raise a large and profitable
crop, to manure it every year.”
A few experiments would throw much light on this matter. I should
expect, when land had been heavily dressed every year for a few years,
with stable-manure, and annually sown to onions, that 800 lbs. of
sulphate of ammonia, or of nitrate of soda, or 1,200 lbs. of Peruvian
guano would give as good a crop as 25 or 30 tons of manure. Or perhaps a
better plan would be to apply 10 or 15 loads of manure, and 600 lbs. of
guano, or 400 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.