Mr. Edwin Hoyt, of New Canaan, Conn., sa_Peat and its Uses as Fertilizer and Fuel

barn-yards, and after it becomes thoroughly saturated and intermixed

with the droppings of the stock, it is piled up to ferment, and the yard

is covered again with fresh muck."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., writes:--"In the use of muck

we proceed as follows: Soon after haying we throw up enough for a year's

use, or several hundred loads. In the fall, the summer's accumulation in

hog-pens and barn cellars is spread upon the mowing grounds, and a

liberal supply of muck carted in and spread in the bottoms of the

cellars, ready for the season for stabling cattle. When this is well

saturated with the drippings of the stables, a new supply is added. The

accumulation of the winter is usually applied to the land for the corn

crop, except the finer portion, which is used to top-dress meadow land.

A new supply is then drawn in for the swine to work up. This is added to

from time to time, and as the swine are fed on whey, they will convert a

large quantity into valuable manure for top-dressing mowing land."

A difference of opinion exists as to the treatment of the compost. Some

hold it indifferent whether the peat and manure are mixed, or put in

layers when the composting begins. Others assert, that the fermentation

proceeds better when the ingredients are stratified. Some direct, that

the compost should not be stirred. The general testimony is, that

mixture, at the outset, is as effectual as putting up in layers; but,

if the manure be strawy, it is, of course, difficult or impracticable to

mix at first. Opinion also preponderates in favor of stirring, during or

after the fermentation.

Mr. Hoyt remarks:--"We are convinced, that the oftener a compost pile of

yard manure and muck is worked over after fermenting, the better. We

work it over and add to it a little more muck and other material, and

the air being thus allowed to penetrate it, a new fermentation or

heating takes place, rendering it more decomposable and valuable."

Rev. Wm. Clift, writes:--"Three or four loads of muck to one of stable

manure, put together in the fall or winter in alternate layers, forked

over twice before spreading and plowing in, may represent the method of

composting."

Mr. Adams White, of Brooklyn, Conn., proceeds in a different manner. He

says:--"In composting, 20 loads are drawn on to upland in September, and

thrown up in a long pile. Early in the spring 20 loads of stable manure

are laid along side, and covered with the muck. As soon as it has heated

moderately, the whole is forked over and well mixed."

Those who have practiced making peat composts with their yard, stable,

and pen manure, almost invariably find them highly satisfactory in use,

especially upon light soils.

A number of years ago, I saw a large pile of compost in the farm-yard of

Mr. Pond, of Milford, Conn., and witnessed its effect as applied by that

gentleman to a field of sixteen acres of fine gravelly or coarse sandy

soil. The soil, from having a light color and excessive porosity, had

become dark, unctuous, and retentive of moisture, so that during the

drouth of 1856, the crops on this field were good and continued to

flourish, while on the contiguous land they were dried up and nearly

ruined. This compost was made from a light muck, that contained but

three _per cent._ of ash (more than half of which was sand), and but 1.2

_per cent._ of nitrogen, in the air-dry state--(twenty _per cent._ of

water). Three loads of this muck were used to one of stable manure.

Here follow some estimates of the value of this compost by practical

men. They are given to show that older statements, to the same effect,

cannot be regarded as exaggerated.

Mr. J. H. Stanwood, of Colebrook, Conn., says:--"Experiments made by

myself, have confirmed me in the opinion that a compost of equal parts

of muck and stable manure is equal to the same quantity of stable

manure."

Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., remarks:--"8 loads of muck

and 4 of manure in compost, when properly forked over, are equal to 12

loads of barn-yard manure on sandy soil."

Rev. Wm. Clift, of Stonington, Conn., writes:--"I consider a compost

made of one load of stable manure and three of muck, equal in value to

four loads of yard manure."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., observes of a peat sent by

him for analysis:--"We formerly composted it in the yard with stable

manure, but have remodeled our stables, and now use it as an absorbent

and to increase the bulk of manure to double its original quantity. We

consider the mixture more valuable than the same quantity of stable

manure." Again, "so successful has been the use of it, that we could

hardly carry on our farming operations without it."

Mr. Adams White, of Brooklyn, Conn., states:--"The compost of equal

bulks of muck and stable manure, has been used for corn (with plaster in

the hill,) on dry sandy soil to great advantage. I consider the compost

worth more per cord than the barn-yard manure."

_Night Soil_ is a substance which possesses, when fresh, the most

valuable fertilizing qualities, in a very concentrated form. It is also

one which is liable to rapid and almost complete deterioration, as I

have demonstrated by analyses. The only methods of getting the full

effect of this material are, either to use it fresh, as is done by the

Chinese and Japanese on a most extensive and offensive scale; or to

compost it before it can decompose. The former method, will, it is to be

hoped, never find acceptance among us. The latter plan has nearly all

the advantages of the former, without its unpleasant features.

When the night soil falls into a vault, it may be composted, by simply

sprinkling fine peat over its surface, once or twice weekly, as the case

may require, _i. e._ as often as a bad odor prevails. The quantity thus

added, may be from twice to ten times the bulk of the night soil,--the

more within these limits, the better. When the vault is full, the mass

should be removed, worked well over and after a few days standing, will

be ready to use to manure corn, tobacco, etc., in the hill, or for any

purpose to which guano or poudrette is applied. If it cannot be shortly

used, it should be made into a compact heap, and covered with a thick

stratum of peat. When signs of heating appear, it should be watched

closely; and if the process attains too much violence, additional peat

should be worked into it. Drenching with water is one of the readiest

means of checking too much heating, but acts only temporarily. Dilution

with peat to a proper point, which experience alone can teach, is the

surest way of preventing loss. It should not be forgotten to put a thick

layer of peat at the bottom of the vault to begin with.

Another excellent plan, when circumstances admit, is, to have the

earth-floor where the night soil drops, level with the surface of the

ground, or but slightly excavated, and a shed attached to the rear of

the privy to shelter a good supply of peat as well as the compost

itself. Operations are begun by putting down a layer of peat to receive

the droppings; enough should be used to absorb all the urine. When this

is nearly saturated, more should be sprinkled on, and the process is

repeated until the accumulations must be removed to make room for more.

Then, once a week or so, the whole is hauled out into the shed, well

mixed, and formed into a compact heap, or placed as a layer upon a

stratum of peat, some inches thick, and covered with the same. The

quantity of first-class compost that may be made yearly upon any farm,

if due care be taken, would astonish those who have not tried it. James

Smith, of Deanston, Scotland, who originated our present system of

Thorough Drainage, asserted, that the excrements of one man for a year,

are sufficient to manure half an acre of land. In Belgium the manure

from such a source has a commercial value of $9.00 gold.

It is certain, that the skillful farmer may make considerably more than

that sum from it in New England, _per annum_. Mr. Hoyt, of New Canaan,

Conn., says:--

"Our privies are deodorized by the use of muck, which is sprinkled over

the surface of the pit once a week, and from them alone we thus prepare

annually, enough "poudrette" to manure our corn in the hill."

_Peruvian Guano_, so serviceable in its first applications to light

soils, may be composted with muck to the greatest advantage. Guano is an

excellent material for bringing muck into good condition, and on the

other hand the muck most effectually prevents any waste of the costly

guano, and at the same time, by furnishing the soil with its own

ingredients, to a greater or less degree prevents the exhaustion that

often follows the use of guano alone. The quantity of muck should be

pretty large compared to that of the guano,--a bushel of guano will

compost six, eight, or ten of muck. Both should be quite fine, and

should be well mixed, the mixture should be moist and kept covered with

a layer of muck of several inches of thickness. This sort of compost

would probably be sufficiently fermented in a week or two of warm

weather, and should be made and kept under cover.

If no more than five or six parts of muck to one of guano are employed,

the compost, according to the experience of Simon Brown, Esq., of the

Boston _Cultivator_, (Patent Office Report for 1856), will prove

injurious, if placed in the hill in contact with seed, but may be

applied broadcast without danger.

The _Menhaden_ or "_White fish_", so abundantly caught along our Sound

coast during the summer months, or any variety of fish may be composted

with muck, so as to make a powerful manure, with avoidance of the

excessively disagreeable stench which is produced when these fish are

put directly on the land. Messrs. Stephen Hoyt & Sons, of New Canaan,

Conn., make this compost on a large scale. I cannot do better than to

give entire Mr. Edwin Hoyt's account of their operations, communicated

to me several years ago.

"During the present season, (1858,) we have composted about 200,000

white fish with about 700 loads (17,500 bushels) of muck. We vary the

proportions somewhat according to the crop the compost is intended for.

For rye we apply 20 to 25 loads per acre of a compost made with 4,500

fish, (one load) and with this manuring, no matter how poor the soil,

the rye will be as large as a man can cradle. Much of ours we have to

reap. For oats we use less fish, as this crop is apt to lodge. For corn,

one part fish to ten or twelve muck is about right, while for grass or

any top-dressing, the proportion of fish may be increased."

"We find it is best to mix the fish in the summer and not use the

compost until the next spring and summer. Yet we are obliged to use in

September for our winter rye a great deal of the compost made in July.

We usually compost the first arrivals of fish in June for our winter

grain; after this pile has stood three or four weeks, it is worked over

thoroughly. In this space of time the fish become pretty well

decomposed, though they still preserve their form and smell

outrageously. As the pile is worked over, a sprinkling of muck or

plaster is given to retain any escaping ammonia. At the time of use in

September the fish have completely disappeared, bones and fins

excepted."

"The effect on the muck is to blacken it and make it more loose and

crumbly. As to the results of the use of this compost, we find them in

the highest degree satisfactory. We have raised 30 to 35 bushels of rye

per acre on land that without it could have yielded 6 or 8 bushels at

the utmost. This year we have corn that will give 60 to 70 bushels per

acre, that otherwise would yield but 20 to 25 bushels. It makes large

potatoes, excellent turnips and carrots."

Fish compost thus prepared, is a uniform mass of fishy but not

putrefactive odor, not disagreeable to handle. It retains perfectly all

the fertilizing power of the fish. Lands, manured with this compost,

will keep in heart and improve: while, as is well known to our coast

farmers, the use of fish alone is ruinous in the end, on light soils.

It is obvious that _any other easily decomposing animal matters, as

slaughter-house offal, soap boiler's scraps, glue waste, horn shavings,

shoddy, castor pummace, cotton seed-meal, etc., etc._, may be composted

in a similar manner, and that several or all these substances may be

made together into one compost.

In case of the composts with yard manure, guano and other animal

matters, the alkali, _ammonia_, formed in the fermentation, greatly

promotes chemical change, and it would appear that this substance, on

some accounts, excels all others in its efficacy. The other alkaline

bodies, _potash_, _soda_ and _lime_, are however scarcely less active in

this respect, and being at the same time, of themselves, useful

fertilizers, they also may be employed in preparing muck composts.

_Potash-lye_ and _soda-ash_ have been recommended for composting with

muck; but, although they are no doubt highly efficacious, they are too

costly for extended use.

The other alkaline materials that may be cheaply employed, and are

recommended, are _wood-ashes_, leached and unleached, _ashes of peat_,

_shell marl_, (consisting of carbonate of lime,) _quick lime_, _gas

lime_, and what is called "_salt and lime mixture_."

With regard to the proportions to be used, no very definite rules can be

laid down; but we may safely follow those who have had experience in the

matter. Thus, to a cord of muck, which is about 100 bushels, may be

added, of unleached wood ashes twelve bushels, or of leached wood ashes

twenty bushels, or of peat ashes twenty bushels, or of marl, or of gas

lime twenty bushels. Ten bushels of quick lime, slaked with water or

salt-brine previous to use, is enough for a cord of muck.

Instead of using the above mentioned substances singly, any or all of

them may be employed together.

The muck should be as fine and free from lumps as possible, and must be

intimately mixed with the other ingredients by shoveling over. The mass

is then thrown up into a compact heap, which may be four feet high. When

the heap is formed, it is well to pour on as much water as the mass will

absorb, (this may be omitted if the muck is already quite moist,) and

finally the whole is covered over with a few inches of pure muck, so as

to retain moisture and heat. If the heap is put up in the Spring, it may

stand undisturbed for one or two months, when it is well to shovel it

over and mix it thoroughly. It should then be built up again, covered

with fresh muck, and allowed to stand as before until thoroughly

decomposed. The time required for this purpose varies with the kind of

muck, and the quality of the other material used. The weather and

thoroughness of intermixture of the ingredients also materially affect

the rapidity of decomposition. In all cases five or six months of summer

weather is a sufficient time to fit these composts for application to

the soil.

Mr. Stanwood of Colebrook, Conn., says: "I have found a compost made of

two bushels of unleached ashes to twenty-five of muck, superior to

stable manure as a top-dressing for grass, on a warm, dry soil."

N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., states: "I have mixed 25 bushels

of ashes with the same number of loads of muck, and applied it to 3/4 of

an acre. The result was far beyond that obtained by applying 300 lbs.

best guano to the same piece."

The use of "_salt and lime mixture_" is so strongly recommended, that a

few words may be devoted to its consideration.

When quick-lime is slaked with a brine of common salt (chloride of

sodium), there are formed by double decomposition, small portions of

caustic soda and chloride of calcium, which dissolve in the liquid. If

the solution stand awhile, carbonic acid is absorbed from the air,

forming carbonate of soda: but carbonate of soda and chloride of calcium

instantly exchange their ingredients, forming insoluble carbonate of

lime and reproducing common salt.

When the fresh mixture of quick-lime and salt is incorporated with _any

porous body_, as soil or peat, then, as Graham has shown, _unequal

diffusion_ of the caustic soda and chloride of calcium occurs from the

point where they are formed, through the moist porous mass, and the

result is, that the small portion of caustic soda which diffuses most

rapidly, or the carbonate of soda formed by its speedy union with

carbonic acid, is removed from contact with the chloride of calcium.

Soda and carbonate of soda are more soluble in water and more strongly

alkaline than lime. They, therefore, act on peat more energetically than

the latter. It is on account of the formation of soda and carbonate of

soda from the lime and salt mixture, that this mixture exerts a more

powerful decomposing action than lime alone. Where salt is cheap and

wood ashes scarce, the mixture may be employed accordingly to advantage.

Of its usefulness we have the testimony of practical men.

Says Mr. F. Holbrook of Vermont, (Patent Office Report for 1856, page

193.) "I had a heap of seventy-five half cords of muck mixed with lime

in the proportion of a half cord of muck to a bushel of lime. The muck

was drawn to the field when wanted in August. A bushel of salt to six

bushels of lime was dissolved in water enough to slake the lime down to

a fine dry powder, the lime being slaked no faster than wanted, and

spread immediately while warm, over the layers of muck, which were about

six inches thick; then a coating of lime and so on, until the heap

reached the height of five feet, a convenient width, and length enough

to embrace the whole quantity of the muck. In about three weeks a

powerful decomposition was apparent, and the heap was nicely overhauled,

nothing more being done to it till it was loaded the next Spring for

spreading. The compost was spread on the plowed surface of a dry sandy

loam at the rate of about fifteen cords to the acre, and harrowed in.

The land was planted with corn and the crop was more than sixty bushels

to the acre."

Other writers assert that they "have decomposed with this mixture, spent

tan, saw dust, corn stalks, swamp muck, leaves from the woods, indeed

every variety of inert substance, and in _much shorter time than it

could be done by any other means_." (Working Farmer, Vol. III. p. 280.)

Some experiments that have a bearing on the efficacy of this compost

will be detailed presently.

There is no doubt that the soluble and more active (caustic) forms of

alkaline bodies exert a powerful decomposing and solvent action on peat.

It is asserted too that the _nearly insoluble and less active matters of

this kind_, also have an effect, though a less complete and rapid one.

Thus, _carbonate of lime_ in the various forms of chalk, shell marl,[6]

old mortar, leached ashes and peat ashes, (for in all these it is the

chief and most "alkaline" ingredient,) is recommended to compost with

peat. Let us inquire whether carbonate of lime can really exert any

noticeable influence in improving the fertilizing quality of peat.

In the case of vitriol peats, carbonate of lime is the cheapest and most

appropriate means of destroying the noxious sulphate of protoxide of

iron, and correcting their deleterious quality. When carbonate of lime

is brought in contact with sulphate of protoxide of iron, the two bodies

mutually decompose, with formation of sulphate of lime (gypsum) and

carbonate of protoxide of iron. The latter substance absorbs oxygen from

the air with the utmost avidity, and passes into the peroxide of iron,

which is entirely inert.

The admixture of any earthy matter with peat, will facilitate its

decomposition, and make it more active chemically, in so far as it

promotes the separation of the particles of the peat from each other,

and the consequent access of air. This benefit may well amount to

something when we add to peat one-fifth of its bulk of marl or leached

ashes, but the question comes up: Do these insoluble mild alkalies exert

any direct action? Would not as much soil of any kind be equally

efficacious, by promoting to an equal degree the contact of oxygen from

the atmosphere?

There are two ways in which carbonate of lime may exert a chemical

action on the organic matters of peat. Carbonate of lime, itself, in the

forms we have mentioned, is commonly called insoluble in water. It is,

however, soluble to a very slight extent; it dissolves, namely, in about

30,000 times its weight of pure water. It is nearly thirty times more

soluble in water saturated with carbonic acid; and this solution has

distinct alkaline characters. Since the water contained in a heap of

peat must be considerably impregnated with carbonic acid, it follows

that when carbonate of lime is present, the latter must form a

solution, very dilute indeed, but still capable of some direct effect on

the organic matters of the peat, when it acts through a long space of

time. Again, it is possible that the solution of carbonate of lime in

carbonic acid, may act to liberate some ammonia from the soluble

portions of the peat, and this ammonia may react on the remainder of the

peat to produce the same effects as it does in the case of a compost

made with animal matters.

Whether the effects thus theoretically possible, amount to anything

practically important, is a question of great interest. It often happens

that opinions entertained by practical men, not only by farmers, but by

mechanics and artisans as well, are founded on so untrustworthy a basis,

are supported by trials so destitute of precision, that their accuracy

may well be doubted, and from all the accounts I have met with, it does

not seem to have been well established, practically, that composts made

with carbonate of lime, are better than the peat and carbonate used

separately.

Carbonate of lime (leached ashes, shell marl, etc.), is very well to use

_in conjunction with_ peat, to furnish a substance or substances needful

to the growth of plants, and supply the deficiencies of peat as regards

composition. Although in the agricultural papers, numerous accounts of

the efficacy of such mixtures are given, we do not learn from them

whether these bodies exert any such good effect upon the peat itself, as

to warrant the trouble of making a _compost_.

4.--_Experiments by the author on the effect of alkaline bodies in

developing the fertilizing power of Peat._

During the summer of 1862, the author undertook a series of experiments

with a view of ascertaining the effect of various composting materials

upon peat.

Two bushels of peat were obtained from a heap that had been weathering

for some time on the "Beaver Meadow," near New Haven. This was

thoroughly air-dried, then crushed by the hand, and finally rubbed

through a moderately fine sieve. In this way, the peat was brought to a

perfectly homogeneous condition.

Twelve-quart flower-pots, new from the warehouse, were filled as

described below; the trials being made in duplicate:--

Pots 1 and 2 contained each 270 grammes of peat.

Pots 3 and 4 contained each 270 grammes of peat, mixed-with 10 grammes

of ashes of young grass.

Pots 5 and 6 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes,

and 10 grammes of carbonate of lime.

Pots 7 and 8 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes,

and 10 grammes of slaked (hydrate of) lime.

Pots 9 and 10 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes,

and 5 grammes of lime, slaked with strong solution of common salt.

Pots 11 and 12 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes,

and 3 grammes of Peruvian guano.

In each case the materials were thoroughly mixed together, and so much

water was cautiously added as served to wet them thoroughly. Five

kernels of dwarf (pop) corn were planted in each pot, the weight of each

planting being carefully ascertained.

The pots were disposed in a glazed case within a cold grapery,[7] and

were watered when needful with pure water. The seeds sprouted duly, and

developed into healthy plants. The plants served thus as tests of the

chemical effect of carbonate of lime, of slaked lime, and of salt and

lime mixture, on the peat. The guano pots enabled making a comparison

with a well-known fertilizer. The plants were allowed to grow until

those best developed, enlarged above, not at the expense of the peat,

etc., but of their own lower leaves, as shown by the withering of the

latter. They were then cut, and, after drying in the air, were weighed

with the subjoined results.

VEGETATION EXPERIMENTS IN PEAT COMPOSTS.

KEY

A - _Weight of crops in grammes._

B - _Comparative weight of crops, the sum of 1. and 2. taken as unity._

C - _Ratio of weight of crops to weight of seeds, the latter assumed

as unity._

-------------------------------------------+---------------+----+-------

_Nos._ _Medium of Growth._ | A | B | C

-------------------------------------------+---------------+----+-------

1 } | 1.61} | |

2 } Peat alone. | 2.59} 4.20 | 1 | 2-1/2

| | |

3 } | 14.19} | |

4 } Peat, and ashes of grass, | 18.25} 32.44 | 8 | 20-1/2

| | |

5 } | 18.19} | |

6 } Peat, ashes, and carbonate of lime, | 20.25} 38.44 | 9 | 25-1/2

| | |

7 } | 21.49} | |

8 } Peat, ashes, and slaked lime, | 20.73} 42.22 | 10 | 28-1/2

| | |

9 } | 23.08} | |

10 } Peat, ashes, slaked lime, and salt, | 23.34} 46.42 | 11 | 30-1/2

| | |

11 } | 26.79} | |

12 } Peat, ashes, and Peruvian Guano, | 26.99} 53.78 | 13 | 35-1/2

-------------------------------------------+---------------+----+-------

Let us now examine the above results. The experiments 1 and 2,

demonstrate that the peat itself is deficient in something needful to

the plant. In both pots, but 4.2 grammes of crop were produced, a

quantity two and a half times greater than that of the seeds, which

weighed 1.59 grammes. The plants were pale in color, slender, and

reached a height of but about six inches.

Nos. 3 and 4 make evident what are some of the deficiencies of the peat.

A supply of mineral matters, such as are contained in all plants, being

made by the addition of _ashes_, consisting chiefly of phosphates,

carbonates and sulphates of lime, magnesia and potash, a crop is

realized nearly eight times greater than in the previous cases; the

yield being 32.44 grammes, or 20-1/2 times the weight of the seed. The

quantity of ashes added, viz.:--10 grammes, was capable of supplying

every mineral element, greatly in excess of the wants of any crop that

could be grown in a quart of soil. The plants in pots 3 and 4 were much

stouter than those in 1 and 2, and had a healthy color.

The experiments 5 and 6 appear to demonstrate that _carbonate of lime_

considerably aided in converting the peat itself into plant-food. The

ashes alone contained enough carbonate of lime to supply the wants of

the plant in respect to that substance. More carbonate of lime could

only operate by acting on the organic matters of the peat. The amount of

the crop is raised by the effect of carbonate of lime from 32.44 to

38.44 grammes, or from 20-1/2 to 25-1/2 times that of the seed.

Experiments 7 and 8 show, that _slaked lime_ has more effect than the

carbonate, as we should anticipate. Its influence does not, however,

exceed that of the carbonate very greatly, the yield rising from 38.44

to 42.22 grammes, or from 25-1/2 to 28-1/2 times the weight of the seed.

In fact, quick-lime can only act as such for a very short space of time,

since it rapidly combines with the carbonic acid, which is supplied

abundantly by the peat. In experiments 7 and 8, a good share of the

influence exerted must therefore be actually ascribed to the carbonate,

rather than to the quick-lime itself.

In experiments 9 and 10, we have proof that the "_lime and salt

mixture_" has a greater efficacy than lime alone, the crop being

increased thereby from 42.22, to 46.42 grammes, or from 28-1/2 to 30-1/2

times that of the seed.

Finally, we see from experiments 11 and 12 that in all the foregoing

cases it was a limited supply of _nitrogen_ that limited the crop; for,

on adding Peruvian guano, which could only act by this element (its

other ingredients, phosphates of lime and potash, being abundantly

supplied in the ashes), the yield was carried up to 53.78 grammes, or

35-1/2 times the weight of the seed, and 13 times the weight of the crop

obtained from the unmixed peat.

5.--_The Examination of Peat (muck and marsh-mud) with reference to its

Agricultural Value._

Since, as we are forced to conclude, the variations in the composition

of peat stand in no recognizable relations to differences of appearance,

it is only possible to ascertain the value of any given specimen by

actual trial or by chemical investigation.

The method _by practical trial_ is usually the cheaper and more

satisfactory of the two, though a half year or more is needful to gain

the desired information.

It is sufficient to apply to small measured plots of ground, each say

two rods square, known quantities of the fresh, the weathered, and the

composted peat in order, by comparison of the growth and _weight_ of the

crop, to decide the question of their value.

Peat and its composts are usually applied at rates ranging from 20 to 40

wagon or cart loads per acre. There being 160 square rods in the acre,

the quantity proper to a plot of two rods square (= four square rods,)

would be one half to one load.

The composts with stable manure and lime, or salt and lime mixture, are

those which, in general, it would be best to experiment with. From the

effects of the stable manure compost, could be inferred with safety the

value of any compost, of which animal manure is an essential ingredient.

One great advantage of the practical trial on the small scale is, that

the adaptation of the peat or of the compost to the _peculiarities of

the soil_, is decided beyond a question.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the results of experiments can

only be relied upon, when the plots are accurately measured, when the

peat, etc., are applied in known quantities, and when the crops are

separately harvested and carefully weighed.

If experiments are made upon grass or clover, the gravest errors may

arise by drawing conclusions from the appearance of the standing crop.

Experience has shown that two clover crops, gathered from contiguous

plots differently manured, may strikingly differ in appearance, but

yield the same amounts of hay.

The _chemical examination_ of a peat may serve to inform us, without

loss of time, upon a number of important points.

To test a peat for _soluble iron salts_ which might render it

deleterious, we soak and agitate a handful for some hours, with four or

five times its bulk of warm soft water. From a _good fresh-water peat_

we obtain, by this treatment, a yellow liquid, more or less deep in

tint, the taste of which is very slight and scarcely definable.

From a _vitriol peat_ we get a dark-brown or black solution, which has a

bitter, astringent, metallic or inky taste, like that of copperas.

_Salt peat_ will yield a solution having the taste of salt-brine, unless

it contains iron, when the taste of the latter will prevail.

On evaporating the water-solution to dryness and heating strongly in a

China cup, a _vitriol peat_ gives off white choking fumes of sulphuric

acid, and there remains, after burning, brown-red oxide of iron in the

dish.

The above testings are easily conducted by any one, with the ordinary

conveniences of the kitchen.

Those that follow, require, for the most part, the chemical laboratory,

and the skill of the practised chemist, for satisfactory execution.

Besides testing for soluble iron compounds, as already indicated, the

points to be regarded in the chemical examination, are:--

1st. _Water or moisture._--This must be estimated, because it is so

variable, and a knowledge of its quantity is needful, if we will compare

together different samples. A weighed amount of the peat is dried for

this purpose at 212 deg. F., as long as it suffers loss.

2d. The _proportions of organic matter and ash_ are ascertained by

carefully burning a weighed sample of the peat. By this trial we

distinguish between peat with 2 to 10 _per cent._ of ash and peaty soil,

or mud, containing but a few _per cent._ of organic matter.

This experiment may be made in a rough way, but with sufficient accuracy

for common purposes, by burning a few lbs. or ozs. of peat upon a piece

of sheet iron, or in a sauce pan, and noting the loss, which includes

both _water_ and _organic matter_.

3d. As further regards the organic matters, we ascertain _the extent to

which the peaty decomposition has taken place_ by boiling with dilute

solution of carbonate of soda. This solvent separates the humic and

ulmic acids from the undecomposed vegetable fibers.

For practical purposes this treatment with carbonate of soda may be

dispensed with, since the amount of undecomposed fiber is gathered with

sufficient accuracy from careful inspection of the peat.

Special examination of the organic acids is of no consequence in the

present state of our knowledge.

4th. The _proportion of nitrogen_ is of the first importance to be

ascertained. In examinations of 30 samples of peat, I have found the

content of nitrogen to range from 0.4 to 2.9 _per cent._, the richest

containing seven times as much as the poorest. It is practically a

matter of great moment whether, for example, a Peruvian guano contains

16 _per cent._ of nitrogen as it should, or but one-seventh that amount,

as it may when grossly adulterated. In the same sense, it is important

before making a heavy outlay in excavating and composting peat, to know

whether (as regards nitrogen) it belongs to the poorer or richer sorts.

This can only be done by the complicated methods known to the chemist.

5th. The estimation of _ammonia_ (actual or ready-formed,) is a matter

of scientific interest, but subordinate in a practical point of view.

6th. _Nitric acid_ and _nitrates_ can scarcely exist in peat except

where it is well exposed to the air, in a merely moist but not wet

state. Their estimation in composts is of great interest, though

troublesome to execute.

7th. As regards the ash, its red color indicates _iron_. Pouring

hydrochloric acid upon it, causes effervescence in the presence of

_carbonate of lime_. This compound, in most cases, has been formed in

the burning, from humate and other organic salts of lime. _Sand_, or

_clay_, being insoluble in the acid, remains, and may be readily

estimated.

_Phosphoric acid_ and alkalies, especially _potash_, are, next to lime,

the important ingredients of the ash. _Magnesia_ and _sulphuric acid_,

rank next in value. Their estimation requires a number of tedious

operations, and can scarcely be required for practical purposes, until

more ready methods of analyses shall have been discovered.

8th. The quantity of _matters soluble in water_ has considerable

interest, but is not ordinarily requisite to be ascertained.

6.--_Composition of Connecticut Peats_.

In the years 1857 and 1858, the author was charged by the Connecticut

State Agricultural Society[8] with the chemical investigation of 33

samples of peat and swamp muck, sent to him in compliance with official

request.

In the foregoing pages, the facts revealed by the laborious analyses

executed on these samples, have been for the most part communicated,

together with many valuable practical results derived from the

experience of the gentlemen who sent in the specimens. The analytical

data themselves appear to me to be worthy of printing again, for the

information of those who may hereafter make investigations in the same

direction.--See Tables I, II, and III, p.p. 89, 90, and 91.

The specimens came in all stages of dryness. Some were freshly dug and

wet, others had suffered long exposure, so that they were air-dry; some

that were sent in the moist state, became dry before being subjected to

examination; others were prepared for analysis while still moist.

A sufficient quantity of each specimen was carefully pulverized,

intermixed, and put into a stoppered bottle and thus preserved for

experiment.

The analyses were begun in the winter of 1857 by my assistant, Edward H.

Twining, Esq. The samples 1 to 17 of the subjoined tables were then

analyzed. In the following year the work was continued on the remaining

specimens 18--33 by Dr. Robert A. Fisher. The method of analysis was the

same in both cases, except in two particulars.

In the earlier analyses, 1 to 17 inclusive, the treatment with carbonate

of soda was not carried far enough to dissolve the whole of the soluble

organic acids. It was merely attempted to make _comparative_

determinations by treating all alike for the same time, and with the

same quantity of alkali. I have little doubt that in some cases not more

than one-half of the portion really soluble in carbonate of soda is

given as such. In the later analyses, 18 to 33, however, the treatment

was continued until complete separation of the soluble organic acids was

effected.

By acting on a peat for a long time with a hot solution of carbonate of

soda, there is taken up not merely a quantity of organic matter, but

inorganic matters likewise enter solution. Silica, oxyd of iron and

alumina are thus dissolved. In this process too, sulphate of lime is

converted into carbonate of lime.

The total amount of these soluble inorganic matters has been determined

with approximate accuracy in analyses 18 to 33.

In the analyses 1 to 17 the collective amount of matters soluble in

water was determined. In the later analyses the proportions of organic

and inorganic matters in the water-solution were separately estimated.

The process of analysis as elaborated and employed by Dr. Fisher and the

author, is as follows:

I. To prepare a sample for analysis, half a pound, more or less, of the

substance is pulverized and passed through a wire sieve of 24 meshes to

the inch. It is then thoroughly mixed and bottled.

II. 2 grammes of the above are dried (in tared watch-glasses) at the

temperature of 212 degrees, until they no longer decrease in weight. The

loss sustained represents the _amount of water_, (according to MARSILLY,

Annales des Mines, 1857, XII., 404, peat loses carbon if dried at a

temperature higher than 212 degrees.)

III. The capsule containing the residue from I. is slowly heated to

incipient redness, and maintained at that temperature until the organic

matter is entirely consumed. The loss gives the total amount of

_organic_, the residue the total amount of _inorganic_ matter.

NOTE.--In peats containing sulphate of the protoxide of iron, the loss

that occurs during ignition is partly due to the escape of sulphuric

acid, which is set free by the decomposition of the above mentioned salt

of iron. But the quantity is usually so small in comparison with the

organic matter, that it may be disregarded. The same may be said of the

combined water in the clay that is mixed with some mucks, which is only

expelled at a high temperature.

IV. 3 grammes of the sample are digested for half an hour, with 200

cubic centimeters (66.6 times their weight,) of boiling water, then

removed from the sand bath, and at the end of twenty-four hours, the

clear liquid is decanted. This operation is twice repeated upon the

residue; the three solutions are mixed, filtered, concentrated, and

finally evaporated to dryness (in a tared platinum capsule,) over a

water bath. The residue, which must be dried at 212 degrees, until it

ceases to lose weight, gives the _total amount soluble in water_. The

dried residue is then heated to low redness, and maintained at that

temperature until the organic matter is burned off. The loss represents

the amount of _organic matter soluble in water_, the ash gives the

quantity of _soluble inorganic matter_.

V. 1 gramme is digested for two hours, at a temperature just below the

boiling point, with 100 cubic centimeters of a solution containing 5

_per cent._ of crystallized carbonate of soda. It is then removed from

the sand bath and allowed to settle. When the supernatant liquid has

become perfectly transparent, it is carefully decanted. This operation

is repeated until all the organic matter soluble in this menstruum is

removed; which is accomplished as soon as the carbonate of soda solution

comes off colorless. The residue, which is to be washed with boiling

water until the washings no longer affect test papers, is thrown upon a

tared filter, and dried at 212 degrees. It is the _total amount of

organic and inorganic matter insoluble in carbonate of soda_. The loss

that it suffers upon ignition, indicates the amount of _organic matter_,

the ash gives the _inorganic_ matter.

NOTE.--The time required to insure perfect settling after digesting with

carbonate of soda solution, varies, with different peats, from 24 hours

to several days. With proper care, the results obtained are very

satisfactory. Two analyses of No. 6, executed at different times, gave

_total insoluble in carbonate of soda_--1st analysis 23.20 _per cent._;

2d analysis 23.45 _per cent._ These residues yielded respectively 14.30

and 14.15 _per cent._ of ash.

VI. The quantity of _organic matter insoluble in water but soluble in

solution of carbonate of soda_, is ascertained by deducting the joint

weight of the amounts soluble in water, and insoluble in carbonate of

soda, from the total amount of organic matter present. The _inorganic

matter insoluble in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda_, is

determined by deducting the joint weight of the amounts of inorganic

matter soluble in water, and insoluble in carbonate of soda, from the

total inorganic matter.

VII. The amount of nitrogen is estimated by the combustion of 1 gramme

with soda-lime in an iron tube, collection of the ammonia in a standard

solution of sulphuric acid, and determination of the residual free acid

by an equivalent solution of caustic potash and a few drops of tincture

of cochineal as an indicator.

The results of the analyses are given in the following Tables. Table I.

gives the direct results of analysis. In Table II. the analyses are

calculated on dry matter, and the nitrogen upon the organic matters.

Table III. gives a condensed statement of the external characters and

agricultural value[9] of the samples in their different localities, and

the names of the parties supplying them.

TABLE I.-COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

KEY:

A - _Soluble in water._

B - _Insol. in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda._

C - _Insol. in water and carbonate of soda._

D - _Total._

E - _Water._

F - _Nitrogen._

G - _Total matters soluble in water._

-------------------------+-----------------------+

| ORGANIC MATTER. |

_From Whom and |-----+-----+-----+-----+

Whence Received_ | A | B | C | D |

-------------------------+~~~~~v~~~~~+-----+-----+

1. Lewis M. Norton. | | | |

Goshen Conn. | 17.63 |34.79|52.42|

2. " " " | 60.02 |11.65|71.67|

3. " " " | 50.60 |29.75|80.35|

4. Messrs. Pond & Miles.| | | |

" Milford Conn. | 65.15 |11.95|77.10|

5. " " " | 67.75 |16.65|84.40|

6. Samuel Camp. | | | |

Plainville Conn. | 43.20 | 8.90|52.10|

7. Russell U. Peck. | | | |

Berlin Conn. | 38.49 |30.51|69.00|

8. Rev. B. F. Northrop. | | | |

Griswold Conn. | 42.30 |10.15|52.45|

9. J. H. Stanwood. | | | |

Colebrook Conn. | 49.65 | 7.40|57.05|

10. N. Hart, Jr. | | | |

West Cornwall Conn.| 55.11 |10.29|65.40|

11. A. L. Loveland. | | | |

North Granby " | 38.27 | 2.89|41.16|

12. Daniel Buck, Jr. | | | |

Poquonock " | 27.19 |48.84|76.03|

13. " " " | 33.66 |40.51|74.17|

14. Philip Scarborough | | | |

Brooklyn Conn. | 51.45 |25.00|76.45|

15. Adams White. | | | |

Brooklyn " | 54.38 |23.14|77.52|

16. Paris Dyer. | | | |

Brooklyn " | 18.86 | 5.02|23.88|

17. Perrin Scarborough. | | | |

Brooklyn Conn. | 43.27 |16.83|60.10|

18. Geo. K. Virgin. | | | |

Collinsville Conn.| 2.21|20.57| 8.25|31.03|

19. " " " | 1.12| 9.19| 5.10|15.41|

20. " " " | 0.72| 9.31| 3.65|13.68|

New Haven Conn. | 3.30|40.52| 8.20|52.02|

New Canaan " | 2.84|13.42| 7.55|23.81|

23. " " " | 2.34|13.49| 8.05|23.88|

24. " " " | 1.15|17.29| 8.00|26.44|

Rockville " | 3.43|52.15| 8.65|64.23|

26. " " " | 3.87|71.57| 8.44|83.88|

27. " " " | 3.87|44.04| 4.25|52.16|

Brooklyn " | 2.45|46.25| 6.35|55.05|

New Haven " | 1.80|45.42|10.35|57.57|

Stonington " | 3.33|51.68| 9.80|64.81|

South Salem N. Y. | 2.13|45.12|12.05|59.30|

Salisbury Conn. | 1.71|42.87|10.65|55.23|

Stonington " | 5.40|16.72| 7.25|29.37|

| | |-----| |

Average | | | 2.06| |

-------------------------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----

| INORGANIC MATTER. | | |

_From Whom and |-----+-----+-----+-----| | |

Whence Received_ | A | B | C | D | E | F | G

-------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

Goshen Conn. | | | |35.21|12.37| 1.28| 1.54

2. " " " | | | | 8.00|20.33| 1.85|

3. " " " | | | | 4.52|15.13| 1.90| 2.51

" Milford Conn. | | | | 3.23|19.67| 1.20| 1.63

5. " " " | | | | 2.00|13.60| .95| 3.42

6. Samuel Camp. |~~~~~v~~~~~| | | | |

Plainville Conn. | 14.90 |14.80|29.20|18.70| 2.10| 2.50

Berlin Conn. | | | |13.59|17.41| 1.62| 2.61

Griswold Conn. | | | |34.70|12.85| 1.31| 1.64

Colebrook Conn. | | | | 4.57|38.38| 1.23| 1.83

West Cornwall Conn.| | | |14.89|19.71| 2.10| 6.20

North Granby " | | | |47.24|11.60| 1.00| .75

Poquonock " | | | | 5.92|18.05| 2.40| 2.94

13. " " " | | | | 8.63|17.20| 2.40| 1.80

Brooklyn Conn. | | | | 7.67|15.88| 1.20| 1.43

Brooklyn " | | | | 9.03|13.45| 2.89| 5.90

Brooklyn " | | | |67.77| 8.35| 1.03| 2.63

Brooklyn Conn. | | | |25.78|14.12| 0.86|15.13

Collinsville Conn.| 0.32| 9.41|48.05|57.78|11.19| 0.64| 2.53

19. " " " | 0.28| 1.08|48.65|50.01|34.58| 0.34| 1.40

20. " " " | 0.25| 0.76|28.20|29.21|57.11| 0.28| .97

New Haven Conn. | 2.60|10.02|23.90|36.52|11.46| 1.51| 5.90

New Canaan " | 2.72|19.88|46.30|68.90| 7.29| 0.45| 5.56

23. " " " | 1.54|12.42|56.20|70.16| 5.96| 0.90| 3.88

24. " " " | 1.67|14.13|51.10|66.90| 6.66| 1.01| 2.82

Rockville " | 0.35| 0.16| 4.90| 5.41|30.36| 1.62| 3.78

26. " " " | 0.23| | 1.98| 2.21|13.91| 1.32| 4.10

27. " " " | 0.51| 4.07| 5.05| 9.63|38.21| 1.88| 4.38

Brooklyn " | 0.32| 0.65| 5.40| 6.37|38.58| 0.84| 2.77

New Haven " | 0.35| 7.98|18.80|27.13|15.30| 1.68| 2.15

Stonington " | 2.82| | 5.86| 8.68|26.51| 0.95| 6.15

South Salem N. Y. | 0.78| 3.79|16.70|21.27|19.43| 1.57| 2.91

Salisbury Conn. | 1.02| 1.33|14.35|16.70|28.07| 1.76| 2.73

Stonington " | 7.40| 6.40|48.05|61.85| 8.78| 1.32| 2.80

| | |-----| | |-----|-----

Average | | | 1.44| | | 1.37| 3.72

TABLE II.-COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

_Calculated in the dry state: the percentage of nitrogen

calculated also on organic matters._

KEY:

A - _In this table the matters soluble in water and the

nitrogen are calculated to two places of decimals;

the other ingredients are expressed in round

numbers._

B - _Soluble in water._

C - _Insol. in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda._

D - _Insol. in water and carbonate of soda._

E - _Total._

F - _Total matters soluble in water._

G - _Nitrogen._

H - _Nitrogen in per cent. of the organic matter._

-------------------------+-----------------------+

| ORGANIC MATTER. |

|-----+-----+-----+-----+

A | B | C | D | E |

-------------------------+~~~~~v~~~~~+-----+-----+

1. Lewis M. Norton. | | | |

Goshen Conn. | 20 | 40 | 60 |

2. " " " | 75 | 15 | 90 |

3. " " " | 60 | 35 | 95 |

5. Messrs. Pond & Miles.| | | |

" Milford Conn. | 81 | 15 | 96 |

5. " " " | 79 | 19 | 98 |

6. Samuel Camp. | | | |

Plainville Conn. | 53 | 11 | 64 |

7. Russell U. Peck. | | | |

Berlin Conn. | 46 | 37 | 83 |

8. Rev. B. F. Northrop. | | | |

Griswold Conn. | 48 | 11 | 59 |

9. J. H. Stanwood. | | | |

Colebrook Conn. | 75 | 11 | 86 |

10. N. Hart, Jr. | | | |

West Cornwall Conn.| 69 | 13 | 82 |

11. A. L. Loveland. | | | |

North Granby " | 43 | 4 | 47 |

12. Daniel Buck, Jr. | | | |

Poquonock " | 33 | 60 | 93 |

13. " " " | 41 | 49 | 90 |

14. Philip Scarborough. | | | |

Brooklyn Conn. | 61 | 30 | 91 |

15. Adams White. | | | |

Brooklyn " | 63 | 27 | 90 |

16. Paris Dyer. | | | |

Brooklyn " | 21 | 5 | 26 |

17. Perrin Scarborough. | | | |

Brooklyn Conn. | 62 | 8 | 70 |

18. Geo. K. Virgin. | | | |

Collinsville Conn.| 2.48| 23 | 9 | 35 |

19. " " " | 1.72| 14 | 8 | 23 |

20. " " " | 1.67| 22 | 8 | 32 |

New Haven Conn. | 3.70| 48 | 9 | 60 |

New Canaan " | 3.05| 14 | 8 | 26 |

23. " " " | 2.47| 14 | 8 | 25 |

24. " " " | 1.23| 18 | 9 | 28 |

Rockville " | 4.90| 75 | 12 | 92 |

26. " " " | 4.50| 83 | 10 | 97 |

27. " " " | 6.24| 71 | 7 | 84 |

Brooklyn " | 4.01| 76 | 10 | 90 |

New Haven " | 2.11| 54 | 12 | 68 |

Stonington " | 4.56| 71 | 13 | 88 |

South Salem N. Y. | 2.66| 56 | 15 | 73 |

Salisbury Conn. | 2.37| 59 | 15 | 76 |

Stonington " | 5.93| 18 | 8 | 32 |

-------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

-------------------------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----

| INORGANIC MATTER. | | |

|-----+-----+-----+-----| | |

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H

-------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

Goshen Conn. | | | | 40 | 1.75| 1.46| 2.25

2. " " " | | | | 10 | | 2.32| 2.58

3. " " " | | | | 5 | 2.95| 2.23| 2.36

" Milford Conn. | | | | 4 | 2.03| 1.49| 1.55

5. " " " |~~~~~v~~~~~| | 2 | 3.97| 1.09| 1.12

6. Samuel Camp. | 18 | 18 | | | |

Plainville Conn. | | | | 36 | 3.08| 2.58| 4.03

Berlin Conn. | | | | 17 | 3.27| 1.96| 2.34

Griswold Conn. | | | | 41 | 1.88| 1.50| 2.49

Colebrook Conn. | | | | 14 | 2.77| 1.99| 2.15

West Cornwall Conn.| | | | 18 | 7.75| 2.61| 3.21

North Granby " | | | | 53 | .85| 1.13| 2.43

Poquonock " | | | | 7 | 3.58| 2.92| 3.15

13. " " " | | | | 10 | 2.16| 2.89| 2.23

Brooklyn Conn. | | | | 9 | 1.70| 1.42| 1.57

Brooklyn " | | | | 10 | 6.78| 3.33| 3.72

Brooklyn " | | | | 74 | 2.85| 1.12| 4.31

Brooklyn Conn. | | | | 30 |17.59| 1.00| 1.43

Collinsville Conn.| 0.35| 11 | 54 | 65 | 2.83| 0.72| 2.06

19. " " " | .43| 2 | 75 | 77 | 2.15| 0.51| 2.20

20. " " " | .58| 2 | 66 | 68 | 2.25| 0.65| 2.04

New Haven Conn. | 2.92| 11 | 27 | 40 | 6.62| 1.70| 2.90

New Canaan " | 2.92| 21 | 50 | 74 | 6.07| 0.48| 1.88

23. " " " | 1.63| 13 | 60 | 75 | 4.10| 0.95| 3.76

24. " " " | 1.79| 15 | 55 | 72 | 3.02| 1.08| 3.82

Rockville " | .50| | 7 | 8 | 5.40| 2.32| 2.52

26. " " " | .27| | 2 | 3 | 4.77| 1.53| 1.57

27. " " " | .82| 7 | 8 | 16 | 7.06| 3.04| 3.64

Brooklyn " | .52| 1 | 8 | 10 | 4.58| 1.36| 1.52

New Haven " | .40| 9 | 22 | 32 | 2.51| 1.98| 2.91

Stonington " | 3.86| | 8 | 12 | 8.42| 1.29| 1.46

South Salem N. Y. | .97| 5 | 21 | 27 | 3.63| 1.98| 2.64

Salisbury Conn. | 1.40| 2 | 20 | 24 | 3.77| 2.44| 3.18

Stonington " | 8.13| 7 | 53 | 68 |14.06| 1.44| 4.49

-------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

TABLE III.--DESCRIPTION, ETC., OF PEATS AND MUCKS.

_No._ _Color._

1. Lewis M. Norton |chocolate-brown,|

| |.

2. " " | " " |

| |

3. " " |light-brown, |

| |

4. Messrs. Pond & Miles|chocolate-brown,|

| |

5. " " |brownish-red, |

| |

6. Samuel Camp |black, |

| |

7. Russell U. Peck |chocolate-brown,|

| |

8. Rev. B. F. Northrop |grayish-brown, |

| |

9. J. H. Stanwood |chocolate-brown,|

| |

10. N. Hart, Jr |brownish-black, |

11. A. L. Loveland |black, |

| |

12. Daniel Buck, Jr |chocolate-brown,|

| |

13. " " | " " |

14. Philip Scarborough | |

| |

15. Adams White |chocolate-brown,|

| |

16. Paris Dyer |grayish-black, |

| |

17. Perrin Scarborough |chocolate-brown,|

| |

18. Geo. K. Virgin |light |

| brownish-gray |

| |

19. " " |chocolate-brown,|

| |

20. " " |black, |

21. Solomon Mead |grayish-brown, |

| |

22. Edwin Hoyt |brownish-gray, |

| |

23. " " | " |

| |

24. " " | " |

| |

25. A. M. Haling |chocolate-brown,|

26. " " | " " |

27. " " | " " |

| |

28. Albert Day |dark-brown, |

| |

29. C. Goodyear |black, |

| |

30. Rev. Wm. Clift |chocolate-brown,|

| |

31. Henry Keeler |light-brown, |

| |

32. John Adams | " |

| |

33. Rev. Wm. Clift |dark ash-gray, |

| |

_Condition at Time of Analysis,

_No._ Reputed value, etc._

1. Lewis M. Norton |air-dry, tough, compact, heavy; from bottom;

| 3 to 4 feet deep; very good in compost.

2. " " | " tough, compact, heavier than 1, from

| near surface; very good in compost.

3. " " | " coherent but light, from between 1 and

| 2, very good in compost.

4. Messrs. Pond & Miles| " coherent but light, surface peat,

| considered better than No. 5; good in

| compost.

5. " " | " very light and loose in texture, from

| depth of 3 feet, good in compost.

6. Samuel Camp | " hard lumps, half as good as yard manure,

| in compost equal to yard manure.

7. Russell U. Peck | " is good fresh, long exposed, half as

| good as barn-yard manure.

8. Rev. B. F. Northrop | " light, easily crushed masses containing

| sand, has not been used alone, good in

| compost.

9. J. H. Stanwood |moist, hard lumps, used fresh good after first

| year; excellent in compost.

10. N. Hart, Jr |air-dry, hard lumps, excellent in compost.

11. A. L. Loveland | " hard lumps, contains grains of coarse

| sand.

12. Daniel Buck, Jr | " coherent cakes, good as top dressing on

| grass when fresh; excellent in compost.

13. " " | " light surface layers of No. 12.

14. Philip Scarborough | " after exposure over winter, has

| one-third value of yard-manure.

15. Adams White | " hard lumps, good in compost, causes

| great growth of straw.

16. Paris Dyer | " easily crushed lumps, largely admixed

| with soil.

17. Perrin Scarborough | " well-characterized "vitriol peat;" in

| compost, after 1 year's exposure, gives

| indifferent results.

18. Geo. K. Virgin | " light, coherent surface peat; sample

| long exposed; astonishing results on

| sandy soil.

19. " " |moist, crumbly, contains much sand, four feet

| from surface.

20. " " |wet.

21. Solomon Mead |air-dry, light, porous, coherent from grass

| roots; long weathered, good; fresh,

| better in compost.

22. Edwin Hoyt | " loose, light, much mixed with soil,

| good in compost.

23. " " | " No. 22 saturated with horse urine,

| darker than No. 22.

24. " " | " No. 22 composted with white fish,

| darker than No. 23; fish-bones evident.

25. A. M. Haling |moist, fresh dug.

26. " " |air-dry, No. 25 after two year's weathering.

27. " " |moist, fresh dug, good substitute for yard

| manure as top-dressing on grass.

28. Albert Day | " coherent and hard; fresh dug, but from

| surface where weathered; injurious to

| crops; vitriol peat. (?)

29. C. Goodyear |air-dry, very hard tough cakes; when fresh dug,

| "as good as cow dung."

30. Rev. Wm. Clift |moist, from an originally fresh water bog,

| broken into 100 years ago by tide, now

| salt marsh; good after weathering.

31. Henry Keeler |air-dry, leaf-muck, friable; when fresh, appears

| equal to good yard manure.

32. John Adams |moist, overlies shell marl, fresh or weathered

| does not compare with ordinary manure.

33. Rev. Wm. Clift |air-dry, from bottom of salt ditch, where tide

| flows daily; contains sulphate of iron.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] The oxygen thus absorbed by water, serves for the respiration of

fish and aquatic animals.

[3] This sample contained also fish-bones, hence the larger content of

nitrogen was not entirely due to absorbed ammonia.

[4] Reichardt's analyses are probably inaccurate, and give too much

ammonia and nitric acid.

[5] These analyses were executed--A by Professor G. F. Barker; B by Mr.

O. C. Sparrow; C by Mr. Peter Collier.

[6] _Shell marl_, consisting of fragments and powder of fresh-water

shells, is frequently met with, underlying peat beds. Such a deposit

occurs on the farm of Mr. John Adams, in Salisbury, Conn. It is eight to

ten feet thick. An air-dry sample, analyzed under the writer's

direction, gave results as follows:

"Water 30.62

{soluble in water 0.70}

Organic matter { } 6.52

{insoluble in water 5.82}

Carbonate of lime 57.09

Sand 1.86

Oxide of iron and alumina, with traces of potash,

magnesia, sulphuric and phosphoric acid 3.91

-------

100.00

Another specimen from near Milwaukee, Wis., said to occur there in

immense quantities underlying peat, contained, by the author's

analysis--

Water 1.14

Carbonate of lime 92.41

Carbonate of magnesia 3.43

Peroxide of iron with a trace of phosphoric acid 0.92

Sand 1.60

------

99.50

[7] To the kindness of Joseph Sheffield, Esq., of New Haven, the author

is indebted for facilities in carrying on these experiments.

[8] At the instigation of Henry A. Dyer, Esq., at that time the

Society's Corresponding Secretary.

[9] Derived from the communications published in the author's Report.

Trans. Conn. State Ag. Soc. 1858 p.p. 101-153.

Mr. Edwin Hoyt, of New Canaan, Conn., says:--"We use muck largely in our