WE

E have already seen that the soluble constituents of farm-yard manure are the most valuable, and that they increase during its fermentation; hence we should endeavour to prevent their loss, as far as it lies in our power. Now, as this is the case, it is obvious that with proper management we can retain all the valuable fertilizing substances of manure by non-exposure to rain. Therefore any system where manure can be made under cover will be the best, provided the cost of the building and the character of the farm will admit of this being done. In advocating the box system of feeding we have not merely to look to the increased value of the manure made, but in order to make it in such a way that fermentation shall proceed properly (for this cannot be attained by the use of an indiscriminate or superabundant supply of litter), we effect a great saving in straw, are thus able to keep a greater number of stock upon the farm, and consequently return to the land larger quantities, as well as a better quality, of manure than would otherwise be the case. I say this always provided it is considered desirable to use other food besides that grown on the farm, and in so doing a question arises that is not very often sufficiently looked to— viz., at what price can beef be made per lb., and can it be produced cheaper by oilcake or meal in conjunction with roots and straw, or by roots and straw alone? Now, these certainly will make meat, but the use of cake or corn enables us to do it more rapidly, and also saves the roots very much. Of course, if a man consumes his straw or turnips because the custom of the country won't allow him to do otherwise, he does not consider this point; but this return alone to the land will not tend to ultimately improve it, except under extraordinary cultivation. Although the feeding of cattle seems rather beside the question we are considering, it bears indirectly upon it, for if we cannot properly reduce our straw into good manure, and on some arable farms, where there is a great excess, with out high feeding this is difficult to accomplish, it is perhaps a mistake at times not to dispose of it by sale, and return its, or more than its, manurial value; but provided there is accommodation, and a farmer knows that he can make beef at a profit on artificial food, he can always reduce any amount of straw. I think myself that the sale of straw cannot be advantageous ex. cept under very exceptional circumstances, such as close proximity to a town, where it may be readily delivered, and manure returned in its place. An excess,

*Abstract of paper read before the Wenlock Farmers' Club, by Mr Bowen Jones.

if anywhere, will be found to exist on arable farms, which are often of a light character; and here, if the whole of the straw is not reduced by feeding cattle, the growth of an intermediate crop, such as vetches, which take a great portion of their food from the air, will enable a farmer to keep his waggon horses in the folds the cattle have occupied the previous winter, to consume this crop and make manure, instead of breaking the hedges and damaging the crops of growing cereals, as is so often the case. Whether feeding stock pays directly or not, it is now generally carried out on farms where stock is bred, where it must answer indirectly; for supposing this store stock was sold, it would be at such a price that a margin would be left for profit in feeding; thus to the man who rears there must be a profit to feed, or a loss in rearing.

Some argue that the best way to add an increased value of manure to the land is to get the elements of nutrition in excess in the natural product, by high feeding, even if this excess of manurial value, is counterbalanced by a corresponding loss upon the feeding itself. Superficially you may say that this is as broad as long, as you may as well lay out your money at once in artificial manure; but here comes the question whether this theory is correct or not, for cannot an excess of straw, where its sale is impracticable, thus be properly reduced into a much larger quantity of valuable manure than would otherwise be the case; and secondly, can the farmer determine what speciality he shall invest his money in, to the same advantage as he derives from the production of a universal manure, which accommodates itself, in the increase of fertility, to every variety of plant and soil under almost any circumstances.

ARTIFICIAL FEEDING STUFFS.

By using assistants in feeding we know we can save a large amount of straw and turnips, and consequently feed to a greater extent; we find also that we get a very superior manure. disputed fact, a ton of oilcake consumed producing about 1251⁄2 lbs. of phosphoric acid, 50 lb. of potash, and 109 lb. of nitrogen, equal to 1321⁄2 lb. of ammonia.

That this is the case is an un

Those who favour the application of artifical manures would say, by using one ton of best Peruvian guano, at perhaps £2 more cost, and, supposing it to contain 18 per cent. of ammonia (which is an extreme calculation), you would get 303 lb. of the ammonia as well as other fertilizers, or nearly 21⁄2 times as much as from the ton of cake. They infer then, that supposing oilcake to be worth £11 per ton and guano £13, that £26 worth of oilcake is only equal to 13 worth of

guano, and that we consequently should not feed at all with a view to the improvement of the manure. But if we look a little more closely into this argument we shall find it founded on error, for the use of a ton of oilcake gives us a saving in feeding to the extent calculating 6 lb. of cake per day (to save 120 lb. of swedes per day, which is about the estimate), of 20 tons of swedes, or more than an average crop for an acre of land, as well as a large saving in litter, which, together with the production of manure in a form fit to be put on the land (even allowing a beast makes no profit in the feeding), more than overbalances the apparent difference in favour of the guano. We thus come to the conclusion that our system of feeding, as far as regards quantities and description of corn or cake used, must, to a great extent, depend upon the contrasting prices between each of them, and roots, hay, and straw, due regard being taken to consider the nutritive value of each separately; for if an artificial manure can be applied at a much less cost than the use of a particular kind of food will increase the value of farm-yard manure, it is folly not to apply it in that way, although there is always that practical difficulty of getting so good a distribution, and so great a variety of combinations as we attain in farm-yard manure. Our knowledge also at the present time is far from perfect as to many of the forms of combination in which the various elements of nutrition exist in natural manure, and therefore no artificial manure can be made to imitate it. The exclusive use of turnips or any other description of green food causes a considerably larger secretion of both solid and liquid excrements in the animal, and, consequently, a proportionate increase of litter is required for their absorption, while the manure, although made more bulky, is of less value. By thus feeding, therefore, it is to the disadvantage of the manure, and it is also the means of causing the animal to eat larger quantities of straw. The cost of reduction of this bulky material must again be placed to the credit of feeding, to form a good manure, as against purchasing the same in an artificial form. Morton, from experiments and data collected, calculates that the whole of the excrements of cattle fed upon the turnips and straw, amount to three-fourths of the food consumed, the remainder being taken up in the formation of structure and waste: of this the urine weighs one-half more than the solid dung. Putting the consumption of a full-grown animal at 200 lb. of swedes and 14 lb. of straw per day, we should by this calculation get a proportion of 95 lb. of liquid to 65 lb. of solid excrement per diem. Reducing the quantity of swedes to onehalf, or 100 lb., and, in addition, giving 5 lb. or 6 lb. of cake, we shall probably find the straw eaten is rather less than in the above instances, say 8 lb. or 10 lb., instead of 14 lb. The weight of excrements voided from this diet would amount to about 90 lb., but it is found that, when a solid or mixed diet is given, the proportion of liquid is smaller to that of solid excrement, and may be taken as being about one

half of it. We should in this case get about 46 lb. of each; thus, the amount of litter (putting the weight required at about one-third of the liquid excrements) would be, on the turnip and straw diet, about 32 lb. or 33 lb. per day, as against 22 lb. or 23 lb. on the mixed dietary, the general weight calculated for box use, although one-third of weight of straw to liquid would make it still less. Thus, by adopting the latter method of feeding, we should procure a greater value (because a better prepared and more concentrated manure), at this great saving of litter, which would be just sufficient to provide for the wants of half as many again animals, and we should get it at less cost, because the labour, both in supplying and reducing it, would be less. The increased amount of straw on the one hand is necessary for the thorough absorption of the larger amount of liquid produced, as well as for the comfort of the animal, but the action of straw is only as a vessel in this respect to hold these dilute substances in solution; the watery matter, in course of time is given off, and the woody fibre of the straw decomposes, forming humic and ulmic acids, which prevent, by their combination with ammonia, any escape of it from manure; all straw, in addition to the amount required for this purpose, is not much better than so much waste. The quantity of manure produced in boxes, with mixed food and litter, supplied in the proportions I have named, is about 27 cwt. per month, or at the rate of 16 to 17 tons per annum. The quality of this is such that it can be cut out and loaded with a spade, and at once carted to the land, without the slightest depreciation. The principal objection to the box system, I believe, is the expense. At the same time, of course, boxes would not be desirable for the rearing of young stock, but are best fitted for the production of good manure, and the preservation of its fertilizing qualities until carted to the land. The only objection raised to this system is the want of almost sufficient moisture to carry on a proper decomposition. This, however, has no reason to occur except by an injudicious use or an imperfect distribution of litter, which of course is a matter of detail; but still it is not unfrequently the case in these folds, as well indeed as in open ones, where there is a perfect system of tank drainage, to pump the liquid manure over the mixens in dry weather, or at intervals, in order to promote putrefaction, as well as re-absorb the liquid parts of the manure. Why, then, are not these superior systems carried out to a greater extent than is now the case? think I should be answered by those who know more about buildings than I do, "Because it is too expensive, and won't pay.' I am not prepared to go into the cost of the matter (not but that I think great modifications might be made on the extravagant estimates often suggested). I don't say again that the alteration of existing buildings to such an extent at once is scarcely compatible with the returns derived from the fair occupation of land, but I say this is a question that should not be lost sight of, for it must be to the interest of an owner of land to have its

I

fertility, and consequently its value, increased; and any outlay on his part that will attain this end can only be considered in the light of a profitable investment; while, on the other hand, any system that causes a loss of fertility in the soil lowers the return of produce, and depreciates the value of the occupation. However desirable such alterations may be, it hardly comes within the range of a tenant's duty to make a large outlay in the construction or alteration of farm buildings; still, if the landlord won't see his own interests, or, as others would put it, won't do his duty, and the tenant feels secure in his occupation, it remains an open question, in my mind, whether a little outlay in trying to preserve the good qualities of the manure produced at home would not prove quite as economical as the same amount laid out in the purchase of artificial manures.

LIQUID MANURE, ETC.

The question of the best means of disposing of the overflow of yards, which so commonly runs to waste at most homesteads, is worthy of a moment's consideration before quitting this part of the subject. We have seen by the analyses given to what an extent liquid manure varies; and when produced from the drainings of open yards, the manure of which is of but inferior quality, its composition will not be found to be such as to be very energetic in its character, still it contains all the most valuable elements of the manure, but in very weak solution. If the nature of the ground is suitable and the position of the buildings will admit of it, it cannot be better disposed of, than by a natural system of irrigation; but when this cannot be done it is not so easy to determine what use to make of it. The process of the pumping is expensive, and the manure being exposed does not require it in the winter, and in the summer it is removed, so that I think about the best thing to be done is to form a water-tight pit, the one side of which may be open, the bottom being a gradual inclined plane, and into which a cart may be backed. This receptacle may receive the drainage of all the folds and the sweeping and accumulations that are always in excess at a farmhouse, and generally form a heap of rubbish (miscalled manure), and by this amalgamation the good properties of the liquid will be absorbed and retained, and a good manure produced. Supposing our manure to be manufactured, we have next to determine what to do with it, and this will all depend upon the way in which it has been produced. If carefully made under cover it will be found in a fit state to cart out for direct application to the land, say every three months, but the produce of the open yard if generally water-soaked to that extent, that fermentation is checked, (for although it is absolutely necessary to have a certain amount of moisture and warmth before fermentation can be set up, an excess of water has exactly an opposite effect, and prevents it), this being the case the manure is generally in a raw state and unfit for immediate use. If it is turned up lightly in the yards to promote decomposition, its

elementary fertilizers, which are rendered more soluble during this process, become more accessible to rain both from their increased solubility, as well as from the looseness of the heap permitting the free admission of penetrating showers, to the continued injury of the manure. If carted to the fields and made into heaps, the expensive item of haulage is at least doubled (for the water contained in this sort of manure will be quite half the weight of the manure proper, due allowance having been made for evaporation and overflow), and the heaps will be more or less liable to the same influences as in the folds, with the difference that the more valuable drainings will run on the land, instead of probably to waste, and this is a doubtful advantage, as a particular spot gets too much of a good thing. Prevention therefore in this matter must be better than cure, as the farmer has everything to gain and nothing to lose by making a good article. If carting in mixens on the fields is a necessity (and where manure is going to stand all the summer it is preferable to turning it in yards) attention should be paid to preventing loss as much as possible. This will be best accomplished by selecting well-sheltered positions for the heaps, keeping them well sided up; and carting over the manure while the mixen is in the course of formation, the mass becomes thereby solidified, and is consequently more impervious to the action of rain. This solidification, however, rather retards the process of decomposition from the exclusion of the air, but as time is no object in such a case, putrefaction will have advanced sufficiently far before application. The practice of covering mixens with soil, road scrapings, gypsum, salt, &c., is all very well as far as their action depends upon throwing off an excess of rain, but I don't believe practically it is of much value -certainly not for the purpose of preventing the evaporation of ammonia, or as we often hear it put, of keeping all the goodness in: for we have already seen that nature has made a provision for fixing this fertilizer, which cannot be surpassed by any imitation we can suggest. The action of salt is useful enough occasionally in very badly formed manure, where a great excess of litter has been used, and a sort of dry decay has set in, but it has no power at all over ammonia; it merely attracts moisture. With regard to the concluding part of our inquiry-the application of farm-yard manure to land--no fixed rule can be laid down to suit all cases. The proper application depends upon the nature and character of the land, upon its condition, and state of cultivation, as well as being considerably influenced by the climate. Thus we find that different districts vary in their custom of applying manure with perfect success in each case. The condition of the manure itself must also affect the time of its application; and here it is that districts where bad manure is made might, in some instances, by improving its quality, improve at the same time the mode of application. Well-made farm-yard manure ought to be fit to be at once put on the land, and where this system can be consistently adopted, its application in

this way will be the most economical; for, although we have seen that the fertilizing effects are more fully developed by manure becoming well rotted, there is a certain amount of loss attendant upon its reduction as well as usually great waste, which, instead of being otherwise dissipated, would under these circumstances be taken up by the soil or the plant. An objection might be raised that it is impossible at any time to apply manure to the land, and plough it under, but I do not see why the latter requisition should prevent the surface application, for we have dispelled, I trust, that great bugbear and illusion-I mean the supposition that valuable matters are evaporated-and the soil under these circumstances would get the benefit of any solutions the rain might wash out. The successful application, however, all depends upon taking into proper consideration the character of the land itself, and the crop to which it is applied. If fresh farm-yard manure is ploughed in at once, the soil will gradually absorb its elementary constituents as they are eliminated during the process of slow decomposition, and consequently such an application, although less active, is more durable in its effects, and the results will possibly be more apparent in the subsequent crop than in the one to which it is applied. The following experiment, which I recollect being tried, bears out in practice this theory, arrived at by the researches of chemistry. The land was of a rather heavy character, and might be called a calcareous clay. One and a-half acres were measured off and divided into three equal parts. Part I was manured with about 5 tons of fairly-rotten manure, in the middle of October, which was at once spread. Part 2 received at the same time about the same quantity, which was placed in small heaps. Part 3 was dressed also with about 5 tons, but this was not applied till the middle of March, at which time the three plots were ploughed. This ground was sown with swedes. Plot I produced 5 tons 18 cwt.; plot 2, 5 tons 16 cwt. I qr. 20 lb.; plot 3, 5 tons 18 cwt. This shews that the manure that had been exposed all the winter, spread on the ground, had as good an effect as that ploughed in fresh. The power of absorption and combination with manurial elements is much greater in some lands than others, especially in those soils that come under the category of clays. This faculty diminishes gradually in soils of a less retentive character, and is scarcely recognisable in the lighter sandy soils.

We here have it prepared in such a way, that the solid and liquid excrements are thoroughly mixed with just such a quantity of straw as will perform the functions I have adverted to; the treading solidifies the mass, and we save both litter, manual labour, and

haulage as well as all the waste that occurs so much from exposure to weather.

STALL-FEEDING SYSTEM.

With regard to stalls, I may remark that the principal advantage supposed to be derived from their use is the small quantity of litter required by the feeding cattle on this system. This saving is effected by the drainage of the urine direct from the animals; but if this liquid portion (which we have seen is of considerable value) is not made use of, its waste amounts to so much loss of fertilizing value out of the manure that is in the course of formation. The drains, however, usually run into the pit into which the clearings of the stalls are emptied two or three times a-day; but instead of saturating the mixen, they very often enter it at the bottom for the sake of the fall. As the amount of litter used is small, we should here have no superfluous straw requiring saturation, in order to produce fermentation; consequently, if, as is often the case, stall manure is thrown loosely twice a-day all through the winter into an open yard or pit, and exposed to the rain that falls upon it when in this very assailable condition, with perhaps, for want of spouting, the rainfall of the buildings also assisting in the washing process, it becomes greatly deteriorated of the valuable fertilizers which the good food used in its production have added to it. It is true this may be in a measure obviated by stalls being placed contiguous to young stock folds (and this is a point to which practical farmers should attend), as the rich and concentrated manure thrown out would become well trodden down and incorporated with that of an inferior description, in which an excess of straw, combined with its more compact position, would tend to some extent to save its good qualities from being so readily injured by the action of rain.

OPEN-YARD SYSTEM.

We next come to the open-yard system of making manure, and the one in which perhaps the larger proportion in this county is produced, and however many sources of loss we may be able to point out from this method being pursued, we cannot pretend that it is possible at once to alter it; we should therefore first turn our attention towards its improvement as generally carried out. The principal cause of loss is the rainfall, but irrespective of this, the manure of yards generally being produced by the young stock on the farm, is of an inferior character to that produced by feeding cattle, for the reasons that young stock are stock. Practically we only require them for feeding purposes, and there is no question of their superiority over any other system, especially in the production of

manure.