| OCR Text |
Show I AGRONOMY H Edited by Prof. J. C. Hogcnson. H STARTLING FACTS ABOUT MA- H NURE. H Vast Losses Through Lack of Knowl- ft edge in Handling Several Timc- 1 Honored Beliefs Disprovcn H't by Official Experiments. H American farmers lose between ioo and 125 million dollars a year through H wasteful practices in the handling of H manure, according to authorities on H agriculture and fertilizers. The great H bulk, if not all, of this waste could be H easily saved; in fact, it would be saved H if American farmers were German H farmers, or at least it would be snved H by the farmers of Germany or any H other of the old countries where every I ounce of soil fertility is scrupulously H conserved. I The average successful farmer who H may read this statement will say very H complacently: "Why, I wonder how? I It doesn't strike mc, anyway, for I H know the value of good manure and H I use every bit of it that I can get." I But just a. minute. Arc you certain that you make the best use of all your I manure? When you haul a ton of H manure onto the field, is its fertilizing I content all that it should be and arc you sure that from 10 to so per cent of its fertilizing value has not been I dissipated through leaching, firc-fang-I ing or lack of provision to absorb or conserve the animal urine? Take as H an instance the case of urine alone: H A cow will produce 40 or 50 pounds I of solid manure a day, but she will I also make from 20 to 30 pounds, of I urine and fully one-half of the nitro- gen in her ration goes into that urine. I So it is important to conserve the I urine. Prof. Taliaferro of the Maryland w1 Agricultural Station says that even B;' though manure is highly regarded by I all farmers in sections where fcrtiliz- crs arc needed, nevertheless there is I probably no product of equal value I which is so much neglected and so I poorly cared for. The first great I source of loss, he says, Is through the incomplete absorption of the urine I and that it is not infrequent to see no I attempt being mad cto save this por-I por-I tion of the manure in spite of the fact that it is richer in both nitrogen and potash than is the dung and that these fcrilizcrs arc more available for the plant in the urine than in the dung. Great Loss, Through Leaching. The second greatest source of waste of manure is the loss incurred by leaching. If manure is piled against the side of the stable where the water from the oaves can drip on it, or if it is piled on a slope or other exposed places, every heavy rain washes out large quantities of nitrogen and potash. pot-ash. These leached chemicals arc the most valuable portions of the pile, the most available for plant forcing. The third common source of loss is that incurred by heating and fermenting. ferment-ing. When manure is put in piles it soon heats and throws off more or less gas and vapor. The fermenta-'tion fermenta-'tion which produces these gases is caused by the action of bacteria or minute organisms. The bacteria which produce the most rapid fermentation fermen-tation in manure, in order to work their best, need plenty of air, or, more strictly, oxygen. Therefore fermentation fermen-tation will be most rapid in loosely piled manure. Heat and some moisture mois-ture arc necessary for fermentation, but if the manure is wet, fermentation, is checked because the temperature is lowered and much of the oxygen excluded ex-cluded from the pile. The odor of ammonia, common around a stable, is a simple evidence of the fermentation fermenta-tion and loss which is going on. Surprising Losses in Weight and Strongth. 1 Fresh manure loses in the process of decay from 20 to 70 per cent of its original weight. An 8o-ton heiap of cow manure left exposed for one year lost 66 per cent of its dry substance. Some tests conducted by the Cornell Experiment Station showed that 2 tons of horse manure exposed in a pile for five months lost 57 per cent of its gross weight, 60 per cent of its nitrogen, 47 per cent of its phosphojric acid) and 76 per cent of its potash. Five tons of cow manure exposed for the same length of time in a compact pile lost, through leaching and dissipation dissi-pation of gases, 49 per cent in gross weight, 41 per cent of its nitrogen, 19 per cent of its phosphoric acid and 8 per cent of its potash. Here was a waste, veritably, yet no greater than is to be found in much common farm practice. What would it reduce to in dollars and cents? Take the horse manure, as showing the greater waste. A' ton -of average fresh horse manure, from, animals fed an ordinary balanced ration, contaiiij about 10 pounds of nitrogen, 5 pounds of phosphoric acid and 10 pounds of potash. Of course the quantities of these fertilizing chemicals in manure vary with the animal's ration. A cow-pea cow-pea or clover ration, for instance, is much richer in nitrogen than one of timothy or corn fodder. But taking these figures as a basis: One Ton of Average Manure. Nitrogen, 10 lbs., 60 percent loss, or 6 lbs., at $0.15 ......$0.90 Phosphoric acid, 5 lbs., 47 percent loss, or 2.4 lbs., at $0.06 14 Potash, 10 lbs., 76 percent loss, or 7.6 lbs., at $0.04 34 Total loss in value per ton .$1.38 Here was a loss of $1.38 per ton out of a total estimated value of $2.25 per Jon, which is a fair valuation for a ton of average fresh horse manure. The remedy for such greater or loss losses is simple. The first step to prevent the loss of the fertilizing elements in manure is to provide plenty of bedding or litter in the stable to absorb and save all the liquid parts. The losses due to fermentation can be greatly checked by mixing horse manure with cow manure and making the piles compact so as to exclude ex-clude the air, and by thoroughly wetting wet-ting the manure, which will assist in excluding the air and also reduce the temperature. The use of chemical or mechanical absorbents, such as plaster (gypsum), kainit, finely ground phosphate phos-phate rock (raw), etc., in the stable, o'r sprinkled over the manure, assists in preserving the manure, absorbing the liquids and preventing loss of gases. Loss from washing or leaching leach-ing may be prevented by piling manure ma-nure under cover or in basin-like depressions de-pressions where there is a clay foundation; foun-dation; or still best of all, by hauling out directly to the field and spreading it as soon as produced. "There were no better manure savers sav-ers than some of the thrifty old Scotch farmers," said Secretary Wilson, Wil-son, of the Department of Agriculture, Agricul-ture, in speaking of manure waste. "Their practice was to dig n consid erable hole in clay and put the cows 1 down into this. The animals tramped 1 everything down compactly, and when I the hole was finally full, the manure I was in almost ideal shape. It had re- I taincd practically tall of its strength j and fertilizing value. However," continued con-tinued the Secretary, arid in this he is supported by the consensus of agricultural agri-cultural practice and opinion, "the ideal way on the average farm is to follow the plan, all through the year, of hauling -manure directly from the stable to the field and spreading it at once, at the same time providing plenty of straw or other bedding material ma-terial in the stable to retain all the urine." "How's that?", can be heard from several sides. "Surely Secretary Wilson, Wil-son, who is a most practical farmer, as well as a "professor," certainly didn't say to haul your manure out any month during the year. Why, Miybody, most, knows that if manure is hauled and spread, in midsummer, the sun will scorch it to a tinder and burn out ajl the good." Well, it docs, perhaps, look reasonable reason-able to suppose that it would be better practice to put the fresh manure into the Scotch pit and have it tramped 1 down to spread it out on the field I and have it burnt up by an August I sun; but the facts arc otherwise, and while the manure pit way is second best, Mr. Wilson knew just what he was talking about and has plenty of support for his statement that the ideal way to handle manure is to haul it directly onto the field and spread it, at any time during the year. The government agricultural station in Maryland, just outside of Washington, Washing-ton, decided to determine this matter accurately and its experiments have exploded two very common beliefs, the summer burning theory being one of them. The other common belief which has been proven wrong is that it is better to .plow manure under in the fall than to leave it exposed on the land's surface during the winter and then plow it under in the spring. In the first instance manure spread in July and allowed to stand until the following spring gave better results than that spread in October and still better results than that spread in the 1 following spring just before plowing. 1 In the second experiment better yields I were secured after allowing the ma- I nurc to lie on top of the land all win- I tor and plowing it under in the spring ; than were obtained from plowing it under in the fall. So far as it went, this experiment proved the first one. The manure spreader is a compara- , tivcly recent device which is not only a considerable labor saver but a conservator con-servator of fertility. The practice of dumping manure in piles in the field and then spreading with the fork is uneconomical and moreover causes loss in fertility unless the manure is spread immediately, which is not always al-ways possible. For the small farm, hauling and spreading directly from a cart, is, ac- 1 cording to Prof. Spillman, in charge of "Farm Management" at the Department De-partment of" Agriculture', the most economical and satisfactory method, taking into consideration the considerable consid-erable expense of a manure spreader and the -comparatively short life of such a machine. Triumph for Fresh Over Rotted Manure. Ma-nure. , Another instructive experiment was carried on by the Maryland Experiment Experi-ment Station showing the advantage of using manure fresh from the stable. Three plots of ground were .planted I? to corn, one without manure, one with i 1 10 tons per acre of fresh manure and , one of 10 tons per acre of well-rotted 1 manure. The following table shows the results (average of 2 years' tests) in grain and fodder yields: Grain Fodder (bu.) (lbs.) Unmanurcd 65 5.150 I Fresh manure 92 7,225 Rotted manure 82 ,500 The results show clearly in .favor of the use of fresh manure. Even had the yield from the use of the fresh and I rotted manure been the same, the ad- I vantage would have been with the ' fresh manure, since each ton of rotted ! manure represents from a ton and a I half to two tons of fresh manure. When it is considered that the use of manure fresh from the stable docs away with at least one handling, the relative profits arc still greater. There arc the results in figures, and !thc experiment was accurately and scientifically impartial; but well, how can chaffy, fresh manure, dry and light in weight, possibly be as good as heavy rotted manure? Why, anyone can see that it is two-thirdb straw and stalks. Very true; yet straw is' a fer-H fer-H tilteer and a mighty good one, to say nothing of the large amount of coiv ccntratcd fertilizing chemicals which it has absorbed in the stable, and which as stated, are largely dissipated in "rotting." But note what straw alone did, in a government experiment. experi-ment. Fresh wheat straw was broadcasted broad-casted at the rate of 2 tons per acre. The land thus "manured" produced 58 bushels of corn per acre and 19 bushels bush-els of wheat, against land "unmanurcd" "unma-nurcd" with straw or otherwise with a yield of 34 bushels of corn and 16 bushels of wheat per acre. So that straw alone is a good manure. Here arc a couple more bits of evidence evi-dence on the subject: On the Canada Central Experiment Farm a plat of oats receiving fresh manure yielded 56 bushels per acre, while another plat receiving an equal weight of wcll-rot-led manure yielded 52 bushels. On the Sakatchcwan Farm, barley" receiving receiv-ing fresh manure yielded 53 bushels per acre, while that receiving wcll-rottcd wcll-rottcd manure yielded 49 bushels. If you have never tried the fresh manure plan, give it a fair test alongside along-side of the old method, and if it docs not prove a surprise, the Talisman would like 0 know it." It is perhaps a little "agin" reason until you begin to study the established fact's relative to chemical loss in the rotting process under ordinary conditions and the further fact that the millions of soil bacteria, whose presence in the soil is largely responsible for plant growth, arc vastly more active in soil fertilized with unrottcd than with rotted manure. ma-nure. Manure Conserves Soil Moisture. The virtue of manure is believed in by probably every farmer in the country; coun-try; but in making a study of its relative rela-tive value as compared with commercial commer-cial fertilizers, there is more to consider con-sider than the question of its actual chemical composition. Where the application ap-plication consists exclusively of commercial com-mercial fertilizer the "complaint is often of-ten heard that there is "burning of the land." This is more tlrn apt to be the case. The burning may be worse in some seasons than others and vf. 3c on some soils than others, but it is always questionable .practice to use large quantities of commercial concentrated fertilizers alone. While manure may contain exactly the same amount of actual fertilizing constituents consti-tuents as a given amount of- commercial commer-cial -fertilizer,: its benefit to theCsoil is generally much greater, owing to the humus it supplies. When manure is incorporated with a soil it greatly improves im-proves its texture, loosening a heavy, compact soil and generally binding to gcthcr a light, leachy one, making the soil more friable, warmer, more retentive re-tentive of moisture and in cvory way more congenial to plants. Prof. King conducted some experiments at the Wi consin Agricultural Experiment Station and showed that certain well-manured well-manured lands contained 18 tons more water per acre in the upper foot o! soil than similar land unmanurcd, and 34 tons more in the soil to a depth of three feet. He concludes that manure ma-nure will aid in equalizing the supply and distribution of water in the soils and states that manured land is least subject to the denuding effects of wind and rain. Manures act chemically chemical-ly on soils, giving off carbonic gas which unites with the soil waters and increases its dissolving action on the locked-up mineral plant food already in the soil. It also causes the formation form-ation of what arc known as "hu-mates" "hu-mates" in the soil and thus renders inert mineral plant food available. The temperature of soils will be materially ma-terially raised by these chemical actions. ac-tions. Experiments have shown that in general farm practice it is most profit? able to use about bne-half.-'the. quantity quanti-ty of manure required for the soil and supplement it with commeccial I fertilizers. But this question of the I relative values of manures and1 ferti- lizers and the. proper proportions to ufo ..is another- story-i MajdvviH's Talisman. |
