IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ 1.0 I.I I !f iiiiiii iM mil 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm V. > ^> /y V /APPLIED A IIVU1GE . Inc .^s; 1653 East Main Street -^= °- Rochester, NY 14609 USA _^^:= Phone: 716/482-0300 -^=r.= Fax: 716/288-5989 © 1993, Applied Image, Inc , All Rights Reserved ^% t^ i>^ <\ '*--•- .' •» ' f I I.— VARIOUS MANURES ON WHEAT. {Field B. Plots 10, 11 and 12.) Having in our 1876, 77 and '78 reports made that ordinary acquaintance with Farm- Yard Manure and the principal fertilizers of this country which was considered hest as introductory to a more thorough and exhaustive knowledge of their conduct, I have now to report the first result of a plan upon these plots, whereby it is proposed to follow up for a series of years, the effects of the various manures specified. It must be obvious to tlie careful reader and thinker, that the agricultural world is still at school in regard to the actual practical value of many forms of food for plant lite. This field of course is an immense one, and has been laborously handled during the last quarter of a century, so much so indeed that to some it may appear a waste of time and means, if not a savouring of pre- sumption, to attempt adding to the of things that go and come like a barometric chart, puzzling alike the scientist and the i-au of mature practical experience. It is not our spirit however to cry "enough" so long as so much of this uncertainity seems to hinge upon variations of soil and climate, nor need it be said that youthfulness as experimenters is in any way a barrier to investigations wortliy of a Liebeg or Lawes. The subject under this head has to be handled briefly by the following divisions: 1. — The object of the experiment. 2. — Previous cropping of plots. 3. — Present manures and cropping. 4. — Midsummer report of condition. 5. — Results as to grain and straw. 6. — Pi-esent conclusions, l.—The Object. Very nearly all farm practice hitherto has been conducted upon the assumption that almost every form of what are termed "artifical," or "special" manures, or "fertilizers" are, or should be conducive to the growth of its crops, and that by a proper knowledge of the soil and plant, as wt'l as the time, form, and modes of the application of food, the cultivator ought to be able to . .antain the fertility of his fields, either with or without the aid of Farm- Yard Manure. Much of the present line of investigation at some of the German anfl AmoHcan ScIiooIh, those in AljorrloenHhiro, an also by thn ontnrpriso of sovoral privato iiidividuaiH, goes to rimko the use of fertilizors a piumcoa for most agricultural ovils, or at least as deserving of attention towards the rtimoval of some of them. It is desirahhs that every encouragement be given such investigations, but during their progress, and pending their final results, it is very dangerous that much of the farming of any country should bo led or misled by their current testimony, real or apparent. As desirous of soothing this fertilizing fever, I start the broad question : Are artificial manures needed in any case with the fact that Farm- Yard Manure contains, in every shape, every material that any artificial or combination of artificials can supply? If we know how to make, preserve, and empfoif our Farm-Yard Manure, along with thorough tillage and systematic rotation, the aid of any fertilizer is surely superfluous. Is it not the fact that most fertilizers are really not manures in the senbo of direct plant food aa associated with Farm-Yard Manure experience 1 Do they not act more as stimulants and correctives under most conditions of soil— pointing to the medicinal use, at certain suc- cessive stages of the working science and practice plan of the intelligent farmer— it may be part long previous to, or only shortly before, sowing, another when sowing, another when growth is far advanced, and another before maturing ? Has not previous practice and experiment gone to show that fertilizers, as a rule, are not of much practical value except on well-cultivated land—to stimulate, to force, to make active, to correct noxious matters, and not so much to add to food of crops? These and other arguments are on hand to support the object of this experimental enquiry. Besides, I cannot follow the chemi.st when h. says that lime, silica, magnesia, potash, soda, sulphuric acid and ammonia — either soluble, insoluble, organic or inorganic are the same things as added to the soil from manufactured rocks or bones, as they are from the animal system, per farm-yard dung, nor are they the same even as those of the same name in the natural composition of the soil itself ; and here, let me say, are reasons for many grevious disappointments in past agricultural practice. We understand so little yet of the ways of the plant and soil in their natural conditions— how the one serves the other, how food is offered and taken — that, it may be, most of the forms in which our special manures have been submitted have been far wrong, or, at least, not in accordance, for the first period of cropping at loast, with the unknown habits of many of our farm crops. The object, therefore, of this experiment is to ascertain, by a series of crops in the ordinary rotation of our farm, how much and to what period of time the soil may be influenced by various manures. It will readily be understood that such an investigation in my hands— those of a practical farmer— can only bo presented by a list of facts without much chemical acumen. As a practical farmer, I make for myself some, and receive certain other, materials said to be fertilizing to crops : I know the physical character of my soil and its general con- stitution by previous cropping, and being aware, as any well-read farmer should, that the conduct of soil, manure and plant, is, for the greater part, regulated by climatic influences, and our own special management, the conclusions to be drawn from particular results thus studied and carefully overlooked should subserve the ends of general farming in our new country more than any elaborate scientific digest — valuable as it would undoubtedly be to many others, and I trust also to every farmer amongst us ere long. First, then, with regard to cr ai bi tr re hi in h( n( 2. — The Previous Cropping. These plots, as forming part of field A, and adjoining the barns as they do, are not likely to have wanted for Farm-Yard Manure previous to Government occupation. In 1875 the crop was Indian corn. " 1876 it was carrots and mangolds, manured with farm-yard dung and mineral superphosphate. " 1877 it was spring wheat, without manure. " 1878 the crop was mangolds, with farm-yard dung, bone dust and salt. It 18 safo to asHume, then, that the Hoil ih n«'ith(«r very rich nor poor by proviouR cropping and manuring, and in any ciiho, a« ovt^ry part of tiin plot wan similarly trt^ato.l and managed each seaHon, wo have now a subject to deal with tliiit in all ordinary proba- bility prcsentH exactly similar conditionH of surface soil - physical and chemical. It is true, however, that by the use of Farm- Yard Manure, Bono Dust, and Salt in 1H78, the resvUs from the application of similar manures since will be different to wliat tliey would have b(!en had nothing been applied after 1876. We have therefore to be careful in keep- ing sight of this, and in paying particular attention to the liehaviour of the sub-plot now held, as that will always be hold, un-mnnuret/. The soil consists of a light clay loam, having a slight north-easterly exposure, is naturally dry, and submitted to careful separation gives the following analysis ; — Coarse grit 1 2 40 Fine gritty sand 16'80 Clayey sand 4880 Very tine clayey sand 800 8G-00 Soluble matter 1400 100 00 It contained 9 per cent, of organic matter, and had a specific gravity of 1 "32. «'• .1 3. — Prtsent Manures and Cropping. It will facilitate future work to have a reference plan of these plots. X. XI. XII. 4 1 4 1 4 1 i'.-Y. Dung and Superphosphate. F.-Y. Dung and Superphosphate, o. Salt. Bone dust. F.-Y. Dung and salt. F.-Y. Dung and Salt. a. 5 2 6 2 6 2 Superphosphate. F.-Y. Dung. F.-Y. Dung and Bone dust. 1 F.-Y. Dung and Bone dust. a. F.-Y. Dung and Gypsum. F.-Y. Dung and Gypsum. a. 6 3 « 3 6 3 Nitrate of Soda. No manure. i F.-Y. Dung and Nitrate of Soda. F.-Y. Dung and Nitrate of Soda. a. Gypsum. Lime Compost Tl.0 whol.. was fall ploughed (Octobor, 1878). ManurcH wore anpliod Vv Hoittn-intf ovor tho Hurfaco on 2r.th April , ploughinK and harrowing under on •]! I. ; .Iri 1. ? Nation variety of wheat overall on 28th of mune month, at rate of lOr. !I,h p.! a e . 1 r''x,rHt''w"f ' 'T '"": '''^^' ^'^ «*"""""^ "' ''^■'''' -> ^^'' •^"■j^- '^"^j '-v-toa (iuiiii>{ the nrHt wt-ck of AugU8t. The plan nhowH three plotH, 10, 11 and 12, of one-tenth of an acre ,.ach, sub-.Uvided mentB*' 'Th?'." ""' "" ""^ '"'?'"' "'V' «"«-«^»i«th of an acre in each of ihe«e ex^ r ! menta. Iho manures and (luantities used were : ^ Form- Yard Dung, 26 loadH (of 2,000 lbs.) per acre. Superpliosjjhate (mineral) 400 lbs. <• Nitrate of hiodft oqo » •< Bone DuHt 4qO <. .< ^*1* 400 " « ^'ypsujn 400 " '< Compost, 26 loa.ls (of 0,000 lbs.) " „«.. ^^f" '"^^«, *^'r separately, as also, with the exception of Compost, all in duplicate association with Farm- Yard hung, making seventeen distinct applications -tl.atwUhout any manure completing the list. The Farm- Yard Uung was got from cover Jhameirwl ere young cattle were be ng suckled by their dams visiting twice .laily, and fed ou fodder of corn straw, and hay, with a mixture of bran, corn meal, ami a li oik-^ke £ Superphosphate was the ordinary kind from Belleville; Bone Dust from Toronto manufac! e^dZlZZ'f T^ "°* new; Salt from Goderich ; Gypsum (land plaster) from Parts, and the Compost of our own making from two year's gathering of experimental vegetable refuse mixed with one of lime to seven of itself *> F ' "''"i vefeetaoie for t?!:,!'r^''"''f r5 ^T''^^"^ ^""« ^•*'» *^>^' ^^^ purchased fertilizers was primarily for the purpose of testing to what extent they would be artected-for good or bad-by admixture o«« vwnth previous to application, that is on the 1st April, while the others were left to the 28th, or immediately before ploughing and seeding. Ihe man of science may be able to indicate pretty correctly what changes are likely 10 take place on the admixture of certain salts and crushed nfinerals with moTst fS yard dung but I respectfully submit that few coul.l give any safe guide to the pracS farmer aa to what kinds of fertilizers should be associated with farm-yard dunu for at me inore or less in order to add, and how much would be added to their maiSl vairby' uch association. It is not only possible, but stands as a considerable fact that much ui^aown loss and gain is yearly realised in farm practice by the alteration of condit ons from the mixing of one manure with another, either before, with, or after seeding. This^s 4- — Midsummer Report. «^v.;f' * great fleal of the future value of many of our crops depends upon the stage of advncemen about 1st July, when the conditions of growth are often affected by dSes o,dt Sf- ^ °/^«^^«^^her relations, and as special management either by m^anures '; S'ettrm%lZtTd jV '""-^ ''' '^-' - -'' ' '^^ *° -^-^'^ very briS Plot X.— Farm yard manure and superphosphate early mixed, and that without anv manure were poor; farm-yard manure alone was strongest in straw; farl-yld manure and superphosphate mixed on application had plants most advanced in head ; superphos^ ph.at^. alone was abou as poor as 1 and 3; while sub-division 6, under nitrkte of soda was very strong and dark coloured, but irregular. ' .n.i ^''^^ XI.~Bone dust alone was poor, but with farm-yard manure on sub-division 2 early mixed, the crop was very regular and in every respect a good average ; farm-yard ^1 inanurf' rind nitrato of noda early tiiixcMl hiul a stronx rcKulrir crop ; 8/vlt Imd a scry poor hIiow ; furiii-yanl nmmun uiid l)oiu) duMt inixt'd on application wan altout a lat'diuiii ; wliiln Huh-diviMioii 0, an oppoHcd to 3, nIiowwI irrcjjularity, but witli htraw and Idadf much Htron^ur. I'l.oT XII. — Fariii-yard tnaiiurc; and Halt early mixed was rejjular and a f.iir avera;^n ; the wmie inixful oidy on application had a fair exiiiliit, hut not so iiold a.s otli.TM. Karly mixed farni-yurd dun>,' and gypsum had above an average of pointn, hut mmit^what irre- gular ; the other (huIi. r>) wax regular but not «trong in compariHon ; gypMum alone was very irregular and poor, while compost gave strong dark plants, somewhat j.atchy. Altogether a state of titings favourable to early admixture by as much as fifteen per cent.— juilging by ai)pearaiioL'H — tho prominent exception being Farm- Yard iJung and Superphosphate. •'i. — fiesuUs as to first year's Grain and Htm w. Maturing came with little distinction over all, excepting those under Nitrate of Hoda, both with or without Farm- Yard Manure, which were four days later, and had also more 8trong/r««/t weeds than any of the othei-s. Harvesting was well made under favourable conditions, and after careful thrashing and measuring, we had the following table : - Plot. Sub. Diviiion. ManureH Applied. Pkodick Pkp Acrk,. Grain. Straw. Small Grain. X. 1 a 2 3 4 5 U 1 2 a 3 a 4 5 6 1 a 2 (t 3 4 6 6 Farm Yard Manure and Superpliosphate .... Fiiini Viird Miinuro Bushels. 14i^ 131 1 16 Hi 194 23 S! 23 20 2o| 20 204 1'4 Lbs. .3720 3810 3270 3870 3120 .■«40 2820 36S0 3840 3030 3750 4140 3420 2tll0 3.510 3420 3210 3090 Bushels. 2! Without .Manure 1 XI. Farm Yard Manure and Huperphi>Hphate .... .Sni)HrphiiBphate Nitritt'' of Soda Bone i >ttiit 3 P 4 2 1 1 1 1 XII. Fann Yard Manu: e and Bone DuHt Farm Yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda . . . Halt P'arni Yard Manure and U(,v Dunt Farm Yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda. . , . Farm Yard Manure and Salt Farm Yard Manure and Gypsum Lime Compost ?* Farm Van. Manure and Salt 1* Farm Yard Manure ami Gypsum Gypsum 1 Means 184 3466 18 It will be best to sy.stematise the analysis of this table, and make comparisons as we proceed. Those marked with an "a" were early mixed, as elsewhere explained :— 1. — Produce without Manure. 2. — " by Farm- Yard Manure. 3. — " by Lime Compost. 4. — " by Bone Dust. 5. — " by Superphosphate. 6. — " by fJypsum. 7.— " by Salt. 8.— " by Nitrate of Soda. 9. — " by Farm Yard Manure, with early and late admixture of others. 10 ment^ named tlTrHnLAlT^] "TT '""'^ ^' ^^'^> ^"'^ ^^^'' ^^' '^^eral treat- tToulh Zl 070 Ih, V 1^ - ," 't ""i '^'^" "P""S ''^'^^ ''^""^t ^>^ s'^'^l to be rich, to ) „ In t ,' °. "^r^"^. '' ^^'''^ *° ^'^^ "'^'^'^ «f 3,466. This result, first of all has to be looked upon as he basis of any further comparison with manures-what the land does without help should be a guide to estimating the effects of any form of fertilizing (2) Remembering that Farm-Yard Manure and Bone Dust were applied in 1878 we have to be cautious in our judgment of 13| bushels of grain and 3 810 lbs o strlw from Farm-Yard Manure this year. What is the meaning%f this,-only the iike oZ Z^ZTr *''* "'''""' ,"r""" '^. '"'^y ^°^*' '^'^* «---th nior; straw? DesCe." made dung of a superior quality, not give grain ; is " muck not the mother of meal" or IS It a breeder of straw only? Is it po.ssible that the management of W8 gave Stion for grain but not for straw ? In order to check this observf the result fronSlarapSr cations this year to those of 1878-that is from Farm Yard Manuil an Eoriust ^^Se mean of sub-divi&ions 2 and 5, from Plot XL, is 21 bushels of erain a, 1 WiQO k«^f tte^Va^llThaTJhetr ^™f V ''I' '"^'^"""^ 'vit^f trials "iid' not saSsfy aee iflrdn^^OiTS' T *^' i"' i * °^ost natural manure, gave considerably over the aver- age ot gram, 20i bushels, and also well up in 8traw_3,510 lbs. The erain is about SmpoS tvrawT-''r't''r." ^"' ^°"^ ^"«*' ^" -'^^^^ indicat:sroni1tion"o (4) Bone Dust alone is 16 bushels of grain and 2,820 lbs. of straw per acre Of apXallon • '"' *T* *!!f "^"■'^"°"" '''''' «^*i- °^ ^°- Dust buTS the 18?8 application in view it would appear that we get only 2| bushels more of grain and one sixth less straw by applying 400 lbs. more of Bone Dust in 1879. In company! however S^rL^rrSw^^pT^^^^^^^ -' '-' --' ^* ^-« -*-"^ ^- bush^elsLXTn .rtiiSr."^^£::S£ -^ sr^^ifr s; jif ^iS:=th^::^S aTellT ^'"''^ "°.' Btraw-producing constituents, so here was ffvourabk o^portuS^^ a specially prepared mineral to make good its reputation as a fertilizer for cereals. One- half bushel more grain and 600 lbs. less straw is the result of its private actioHnd even when associated with Farm-Yard Manure there is nothing in a mean of two to represent over 17 bushels of grain and 3,795 lbs. of straw per acre represent in stml^^l^Tld°? nqo^'''w^t?'TJ' """"Z^^'. "n-manured standard, and slightly deficient ha. nnIZ - ?"^, ^'^^O" W^*b Farm-Yard Manure it rises to 21 bushels ^ain and nas no increase in straw. ° i« » tP .^*/°".''^ ^T' *^** ^^* ^"'^^^' °^ g*"^^^ ^""^ 3,030 lbs. of straw from Salt alrne ZoJ^V^'t T-1 '*! ^^^^ ^''.*¥ «oil-^lietber that want be as direct food or f,. a SaTtoLeTii. -^ on f ^^^°«^ .«^ 300 lbs. per acre in 1878. Farm-Yard Manure and Halt together give 20 bushels grain and 3,420 lbs. straw. ar„i J?J. ^^T' ^**''''*^°f So'i'^' ^itb its 16 and 3,840, is no better than Bone Dust for nln of r? ^""1 a T^^ 'T^ ''' '*''^^- ^^« '^^g^^^* g^^i'i »"^ «traw is from a combina- 3 QQO 11, r ' ''^ ^"''^ ^""^ Farm-Yard Manure, being no less than 23 bushels grain and d,990 lbs. straw per acre,— what they left behind theiu time will tell. t 1 ^V 7^! T'L'^ ^"i^ ^^*^ admixture of the five fertilizers with Farm-Yard Manure have to be looked at first from a classification of them. The two rock materials-Superphos- phate and Gypsum-m their pure ground state, cannot be supposed as of an effervessing nature, that ,s to say exposure or association with moist rotted vegetable matter such as tarm-yard dung for one month should not detract from their value as plant food. The Sri^T?.! f ,1"''?*^'°? ^' otherwise. However, as we have an average of 18 bushels grain and 3,315 lbs straw from early mixing, and as much as 20 bushels grain and 3,540 lbs. of straw from the result of theii- not meeting until the seeding time. Here we must wait i 4 m > i 11 i I the opinion of the Chemist to say whether or not this result may be owing to a locking-up or spoiling of certain constituents from too long admixture before application to the .soil. The Salts proper in this early and late association make no admission in regard to utility one way or another— the result being precisely alike in grain (2U bushels) and only 151 lbs. more straw for the late combination ; this from what has always stood as loosers by exposure seems strange to the practical farmer. The greatest difference in this aspect of our subject occurs with pure Bone Dust, which favours late association with Farm Yard-Manure to the extent of 3 bushels of grain and 120 lbs. of straw. The practical farmer, accordingly, would argue that Bone Dust suffers by being combined with Farm- Yard Dung for one month previous to application to the land at seed time. But another interesting view of these results is this : Farm- Yard Manure alone, and Superphosphate alone, give a mean of 13f bushels grain and 3465 lbs. straw, and in association 14| and 3720 ; Farm-Yard Manure alone, and Nitrate of Soda alone, give a mean of 14f and 3825, and associated, give 19.^ and 3870 ; Farm Yard Manure alone, and Bone Dust alone, give a mean of Uf and 3315, against 19,^ and 3630 by association ; Farm-Yard Manure alone, and Salt alone, give a mean of 15^ and 3421, but associated show 20 and 3420 ; Farm Yard Manure alone, ar i Gypsum alone, give a mean of 15.1 and 3450, and in association give 20| bushels of grain and 3210 lbs. of straw. For easy re- ference - nult the following table of these : — Mean of Separate Results. Result of Association. Grain per acre. 13| 14| 141 15i 15^ Straw per acre. 3465 3825 3315 3421 3450 Grain. Straw. Farm- Yard Manuie and Superphosphate " " " Nitrate of Soda 14i 19i 19i 20 20i 3720 3870 3630 3420 3210 " " " BoneDust • " " Salt " " " Gypsum General mean 15 3495 19 3570 Under independent action the Farm-Yard Manure and five other fertilizers give a general mean of 15 bushels grain and 3495 lbs. of straw per acre, which is 30 per cent. less grain than when associated with each other— or rather when each of the special fer- tilizers are mixed with Farm- Yard Manure, and allowed to exhibit a separate result. The mean of all classes of manures gives 19 j% bushels and 3,504 lbs. for early, and 21-i^j bushels of grain and 3,478 lbs. of straw for late, being 1^ bushels of grain in favour of the late combination of materials, and a proof that our July examination deceived the eye so far as regards ultimate results. The grand result of the seventeen different applications is, — for grain a mean of 19 J bushels, or about 6 bushels over the unmanured, and for straw a mean of 3,460 lbs. 6. — Present Coticlusioiis. What then is the verdict, basing upon these notes of the first year's result of a crop of spring wheat from the application of several manures, alone and in combination with each other, in a commercial point of view ? The commercial conclusion is at present the only one that can guide the practical fanner, who is not, at least at this stage of the experiment, supposed to know anything 12 about tlio chemical conduct of tliese inaiiurea as regards exhaustion of tlieniselves or the soil m which they have been acting,— time alone will effectually solve these. Adopting such a practical form, lot us make a table in the order from greatest to least, and calculating value by $1 per bushel for grain and «5 per 2,000 lbs. for straw. 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 18 Manurb. Farm-Yard Manure ami Nitrate of Soda ^. " " " BonoUust .... Linie Compoflt Farm- Yard Manure and Gvpsum ;; " " Salt ... " " " Superphosphate. Nitrate of Soda Gypsum Salt. Farm-Yard Manure Bone Dust Sujjerphosphate . . . . Without Manure . Mean . Fan equa opp( kind Value of Pi-oduce per acre. 30 29 28 28 2(1 2,'j 2.T 25 23 23 21 21 00 25 25 05 55 50 60 25 05 05 05 80 (15 320 28 N.B, — Cost of Manures per ton and per aero : — p -tr 1 ^r '''°^' ACRE. J*arm-\ard Manure |0 75 $19 50 ^"•npost 75 19 50 Bone Dust 27 00 5 40 ^^1* 4 25 85 Cfypsuiu 5 00 106 Superphosphate 33 00 6 60 Nitrate of Soda 60 00 6 00 The range in value of produce per acre is not so great as might be expected, the highest reaching to 611.35, and the mean only $4.63, over the unmanured. Eann-yard manure as a whole, especially in combination with others is largely over the mean— that IS, it takes a lead in every case except when alone. Allow me to note here that, looking to the many points that go to make a good sample of grain, such as evenness of berries, colour, and plumpness, the one from Lime Compost was best, and Gypsum second. Superphosphate being poorest, with Nitrate of boda and Bone-dust following ; others were almost equal or meilium in sample. Another point that should form part of all careful work of this nature is the propor- tion of small grain in each case as shown in a previous table ; these in another form are : From Farm-yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda j^ Bone Dust 1 II " " Salt ; ; ; j; " " Lime Compost j^ " " « Gypsum "' J " Salt ^/. ;......:;: jj " Gypsum 1 " Bone Dust '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '^^ " Farm- Yard Manure and Salt .' " ' '^ " Nitrate of Soda 1 " No Manure 1. " Super-phosphate 1 " Farm-Yard Manure and Super-phosphate ^ " Farm- Yard Manure alone j up s inal tob the load seve not futu mail rela Mai unn our six ( awa imp Klin 13 es or the ' to least, I'liiiluce ' iiore. 00 25 25 (i5 55 50 GO 25 05 05 i 05 80 . (!5 28 ] ted, the nn-yard u — that ) a good ui Lime trate of propor- m are : Taking the two extremes, it is possible that Nitrate of Soda, in conjunction with Farm-Yard Dung, has a peculiar effect in filling all heads, or every part of each head equally, while Farm-Yard Manure alone, or in company with Super-phosphate, has the opposite effect. The cost of production without reference to labour, and the balance in favour of each kind of manure makes the next table : — No. 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Manurks. < lypsum Salt Without Manure Nitrate of Soda Bone Dust Superphosphate Lime ComrwiHt Farm- Yard Manure and Salt Gypsum " " " Nitrate of Soda . Bone Dust Farm Yard Manure . Cost per Acre. Vahie of Produce, Deductint,' Manures. and Super-phosphate Means .... $1 00 85 00 C 00 5 40 6 00 19 .50 20 35 20 50 25 50 24 90 19 ,50 26 10 $13 50 $24 25 24 20 21 (i5 19 (K) 17 65 15 80 9 75 8 25 8 15 7 .50 5 35 3 55 40 $12 77 If not so much as a kingdom, how little less would we now give for the skill to take up a handful of soil and tell, by a few simple processes, what and how much of the orig- inal soil and manures there are in each of these experimental plots and the crops likely to be raised under an average of seasons, without having to wait, it may be ten years by the farmer's way of it— that is by actual continuous cropping 1 Of course, while apparently a fact that for the first year an application of twenty-six loads of Farm- Yard Manure and 400 pounds of mineral Superphosphate per acre gave seventeen bushels of spring wheat and 3,79.'? pounds of its straw, and left no profit, it is not yet our province to assert that this form of fertilizing was a dead loss, or that their future effects will be more or less ; and, on the other hand, as little right have we to maintain that gypsum, of all the manures used, has given the largest profit when the relations of coming years tell their story. It will be observed that I have placed a value on Lime Compost equal to Farm-Yard Manure, and that it stands between the two extremes of profit. To the matter-of-fact and unreasoning person it will appear strange that so soon as we place a money value upon our home-made farm-yard dung, so soon does the balance sheet narrow itself ; in all the six examples of Farm- Yard Manure, with or without help from others, the profits are away below the mean, and their own mean is only 15.50 per acre. We leave the subject at present, and look to other years for valuable lessons. II.— WHEAT, BARLEY, AND OATS, AFTER ROOTS AND SEVERAL MANURES OF PREVIOUS YEAR. (Plot 36, field B.) By reference to last year's report you will find that this is the second result of an important trial of four manures against each other, beginning with 1878. The applications v>ie comparatively heavy — consisting of 40,000 pounds Farm- Yard Manure ; 600 pounds laineral Superphosphate ; 300 pounds Nitrate of Soda, and 600 pounds of coarse Bone Dust, 14 each per acre. As this plot should be carefully followed up for a number of years, it wiU be best to plan the ground now : ' C B so H O BONE DUST. 73 H < O NITilATE S OF S SODA. 00 00 SUPEK-PHOSPHATE. FARM YARD MANUR a <^ 5 < < E. There are, therefore, twelve distinct experiments under this head The ground was ploughed in fall of 1 878, again ploughed on 24th and seeded on 28th April last, with "Lost Nation " Wheat ; Rennie's Two Rowed Barley, and Swiss Oats. Brairding of wheat on the 15th, Barley on Uth, and Oats on 18th May; Headin- of wheat on 6th, Barley on 8th, and Oats on 9th July. Harvested, Barley on 2nd Wheat on 7th, and Oats on 1 5th August. Those on Superphosphate stood best as regards strength of straw ; with Farm-Yard dung second ; third on Bone dust ; and poorest on Nitrate of »oaa. On JN itrate or Soda the crops were worst rusted. Results of Second Year's Cropping, Manueks Applied in 1878. Wheat, 1879. Barley, 1879. Oats, 1879. Grain, B. Straw, Lbs. Grain, B. Straw, Lbs. Grain, B. Straw, Lbs. Farm-Yard Manure 12§ 114 12 12 2800 2560 2640 2560 ,..-1 33 31§ 26§ 5040 2800 2960 3040 67§ 47i 52i 40 Superphosphate 4400 Nirate of Soda Bone Dust , 3280 4240 3840 Means 12 1 2640 1 30 3460 494 3940 The first strikmg feature in this table is the almost identical amount of grain of wheat from land manured the previous year with four distinct kinds of fertilizers ; the slight lead 18 by Farm-Yard Manure and the least from Superphosphate, but so little all over that practically they come to the mean of 12 bushels per acre. What has to be gathered from 16 8, it will on 28th ss Oats, .ding of Wheat strength trate of 879. Straw, Lbs. 4400 3280 4240 3840 3940 E wheat ;ht lead er that 5d from this? Is It a fact that, after a crop of Mangolds in 1878 manured separately with farm- '7is7o""^' ""'^^'^.^/"P^T^o^Phate, Nitrate of Soda, and Bone Dust, the wheat crop ot 187J shows no difference in amount of grain? Are we to understand that Nitrate of >3oda usually consideretl the most volatile ol our Salts, is as good as substantial Bone Dust and the best of Farm-Yard Manure upon the succeeding crop of wheat? The management ot 1877 and 1876 could not afiect this (being wheat without manure, and turnips with Farm Yard Manure respectively). There is even comparatively little difference in amount of straw per acre, upon the basis of 220 lbs. straw giving one bushel of gi-ain. I am not prepared to explain the chemical changes that have been at work upon soil and manures during the past twelve months, but there is usually supposed to be such a difference in the action of the materials used that the second year would certainly begin to tell it We can- not possibly conclude that all were removed by the 1878 cropping, or are not yet accessible. Another cor elusion may be this : that, incidentally, the character of the 40,000 lbs of .if'"'^n^^n ^^'^"^''t™^'''' ^y "^ ^^'^ corresponding nutritive properties* for wheat, that the 600 lbs Superphosphate, 300 lbs. Nitrate of Soda, and the 600 lbs. of Bone Dust had by distribution over one acre, during the second year. As regards barley after turnips, we have a va'riation in grain not very largely differing among the kinds of manures ; Farm-Yard Dung is again the highest, but only U bushel more than Nitrate of Soda, and 6J bushels over Bone Dust ; this latter result is no doubt considerable, i-epresenting as it does, fully an annual rent per acre, but yet it cannot be called extraordinary. Farm-Yard Dung gives an excessive quantity of barley straw-no less than 2,240 lbs. over that of Superphosphate; there is otherwise no material difference in straw; and meantime therefore, we have to credit Farm- Yard Manure all over with ^lii per acre more than the average of the three others. Oats give the g^reatest variation in grain production ; Farm-Yard Manure heme again in advance,-l , J- bushels over Bone Dust and 10 bushels more than the mean of all Straw follows grain very closely, so that we have some results more distinct than with wheat or barley. It is evident that oats, after carrots, manured with Bone Dust the previous season, ha^-e not received the same favourable conditions for the production of grain as offered by any of the o her manures and accepted by the like crops; Superphosphate is 7i bushels better in gram but 560 less in straw than the Bone Dust. Has Bone Dust not yet unloosed notTptT 'V Y% :Tlf- ^°^^^ ^''^' ''' ^2-* ^"^^^1« "^°^^ Sr^^^ ^«d 400 lbs. straw not yet lost much of its fertilizing power ? The conclusions for the present stage of this experiment are that the second year's F„T,' %^''^'\^^^^'' ^^nm^A roots of the previous year, is 18 per cent, more valuable from n^^? al 1 1 ■ T f^Z ^°"''' ^"P^'-phosphate, or Nitrate of Soda, and that the mlr« f T^'IT ^I "f P'V'"*- °''"" *^^^ °*^^'-«' ^^^'^'^ tl^^y are 40 cents, bariey of 2,000 lb").-" ^'' ' ""'"'''^"'^ *° *•"" ^""^''^"S ^^^^ ^^^''^^ ^5 P*^'- t«^ Values realised in 1879 from Manures of 187S. Manures. Wheat. Barley. Oats. ■ Total Mean ^^H Value Per ^^H Acre. ^^| Farm- Yard Dung Superphosphate a c. 19 66 17 75 18 CO 18 40 8 c. 32 30 24 00 26 40 23 60 8 c. 34 10 27 20 31 60 25 60 69 ^H Nitrate of Soda Bone Dust , .... 98 ^H 53 ^H 22 SO |__| Means 18 60 26 52 29 62 24 92 BS * See previous paragraph— "i, The Object." 16 III— CATTLE FEEDING FOR BEEF- -liREEDS AGAINST EACH OTHER. Along with tho knov ledge of what foods and the forms thereof are best for the rapid production of good and clieap flesh, there arises the very important point of what breeds are best under like conditions,— whether of age, management, kind and form of food, quantity of it, return per head per centum of cost, proportion of offal to marketable beef, mutton, or pork, and otherwise, the bearing of the animal in general farm economy. In previous reports we have so far eliminated the relations of Durham grade steers in several of these connections, and now have pleasure in reporting an experiment conducted here between tv»o distinct grades or cross breeds of cattle during the past winter. On 6th December, 1878, we purchased five steers of the stamp called Durham grades, or the first cross by a thoroughbred Short Horn bull out of a Canadian cow, ageing then, as near as could be ascertained, about 29 months ; and also, five Hereford cross steers, that is, the produce cf a thoroughbred Hereford bull out of a Canadian cow, the average age of which was 35 months. As the experiment was conducted solely with a view to testing increase of flesh, irrespective of cost, it is unnecessary meantima to enter upon the latter. Of course it will be understood that, in purchasing as we had to do, there always exists some uncertainty in regard to the exact breeding, especially whether the dam had or had not much, if any. Short Horn blood, in her veins ; as, indeed, it may well be asked, What is a Canadian cow? "Without attempting to tell this, I shall merely class her by saying that if not an Ayrshire in detail figure she is very much so in size and milking— not so far behind in quantity and decidedly better in quality of milk— with an irregularity in form that speaks, it may be of distant Durham relationship from the United States, or the earlier Canadian importations from Britain. In order to allow the animals to settle down and get accustomed to changes the food given being the same as in the future experiment — twenty-one days were passed ere weighing for entry, so that on the 27th December we had the following : 5 Durham grades 5,416 lbs. 5 Hereford crosses 6 245 lbs. To start with therefore we had Herefords, on an average, 166 lbs. per head more than the 0v^ers, two of them weighing no less than 1,402 each, the lowest being 1,051 lbs., or 20 less than the smallest l3urham. The animals were tied up in pairs by sliding chain, in the usual manner, in a large range among fifty others ; no exercise was given except to water once daily at about fifty feet from the stalls, and to weekly weighings 150 feet distant. The duration of the experiment was for 151 days, ending 6th May 1879. Food con- sisted of, daily :— 90 lbs. pulped roots ; (turnips from 27th December to 28th March ; mangolds from 29th March to 6th May ;) 10 lbs. cut straw and bay, and corn fodder ; 10 lbs. meal of pease and corn ; (9 lbs. of pease meal from 27th December to 6th March ; 10 lbs. of corn meal from 7th March to 14th April; 13 lbs. of com meal from 15th April to 6th May). ^ The progressive conduct of animals under similar treatment being interesting, examine first the following weighings : — Durham grades. Hereford croBsea 1. 6416 5469 6245 I 6440 3. 550O 6540 4. 6540 6546 6595 6510 5581 6556 6824 6832 8. 9. .5890 5988 6872 I 6890 10. 6029 7034 11. 62a5 7108 12. 6459 13. 6415 7344 I 7334 In this observe the steady, increase in weight — with one exception in each — from commencement up to the 6th stage, being a term of 42 days, in which we have a gain of 12. 13. 459 344 6415 7334 17 165 lbs. for the Durham grades and 311 for the Hereford crosses, or under one pound oer head per day for the one, and U lbs. per head per day for th^ other FoUow^nfthk weighing was not made for 14 days, so that from No's. 6 to 7 lepresents that fTtni^ht • roTthe%?fco "l «t F. ^t. ^^'" "^"^- ^' '' "°* ^^"^ *° g"««« '^* *''« <^'^"«e or causes ofTnv sot at that in "^^^ ' ^Tu' ""^ 'T'' "^ ^"^ ^'^*™ 8"°'' conditions, nor cliange 01 any sort at that time, so it must be set down as one of those irreeuhirities brou^),^ the"slretoK'dth;f'"f"f P^^*^''"^ ^'^^"«^' ^"'^^ - te^p^ZirdlfferSn ™e was kctual V S"ir '^ ? "^^"'^ ^''Y ^"^" *° ^'g°''°"« assimih.tion. The Here?ords ^ " P'' ^"""^ P"" ^^^^ ^°'" ^^^^ Durhams, and 6| lbs. for the the,r?erir/*^'';h*lr^?wT "^ J" experiment, both classes show a steady addition to L"L uS;;:;: '''' ''^"•"^ ''^ "^ ^°^"™" '' ^^^'"S been caused by the ha'y being given £s?i??-S being 1^ lbs. per head per day,-making therefore 9 per cent, in favour of the Herefords Final average weight per head : Durhams . Herefords 1,243 lbs. 1,467 lbs. Increase upon original weight,-18% for Durhams and 17% for Herefords. IV.-SHEEP FEEDING-DIFFERENT BREEDS AND KINDS OF FOOD. experfmT^IL'S^rll^f?^^^^^^^^^ and making provision for anticipated changes Xeieafwl f A "''^"' "* association beef, as in the van now, may ha?e ere lon/to divide Sp ^.^ 1 lif the commercial world ; and why, I shall at present^eave with thf spe ^ £ ^W^^^^^ Thf "^^"r"'-/'--. ^ow, indicate the following heads of argument :-' "^"^'"^^ ^^^^^^ ^"°^ "»« 1. Greater choice of adaptable varieties of animals. 2. Earlier returns. 3. As a manurial agent. 4. Two crops per annum. more S:y;ret;fng':f~e sizZi^tin ^'"p 'r'^'^'^^-^ ^« -^" ^--. -y foods is a safe sort' of^ kno^^tdge fTe^'ery fa me Z\'tT ,^'=^-i-*--^„-th theiir to the special feeder. I am fully alive to the S.^L. ? f , times especially valuable produce good and cheap muttr from finnH" ^ . '^""^"^ ^^ P^^*'^^ upon, how to I accom^plished by suprrirl^X^rdthT^t:^^^^^^^^ rraCu^srsp^Sti:^^^^^^ head for exportation ' ^ ^natenah, m view of quicker and heavier weights per practical purposes the analysis of one countrrwiH suit'tTat oi atlhT"'' *'^* '''' ^" B l8 Water. Ash. Oroanio Matter. 1. Linseed Cake 2. Palm-Nut Meal 11 6 9 14 3 14-4 7-9 3-9 2-4 1-5 80 '6 87-1 8. Pease 83-3 841 12 2 3-8 84-0 Here then are four distinct kinds of feeding stuffs, having no relation to each other, even in scientific classification : the first being the seed of the lint or flax, made into cake after the extraction of the oil, the second the kernel of palm fruit from Lagos, Africa, ground into meal, from the manufactory of Alex. Smith and Co., of Liverpool, England ; the third, our ordinary golden-vine pea in the unbroken state ; and the last the common horse-tooth corn (or Maize), also unbroken, got as "high grade." If it follows that the less water any food material possesses the more value it is pro- portionally to weight; the Palm-nut Meal should be in advance in this respect, with Linseed, Pease, and Corn in order respectively ; and it is worth noting that what are always spoken of as dry foods afford no less than a mean of 12 -2 per cent, of water, or moisture in certain form. The ash or mineral ingredients are considered to indicate value in framing the animal body by growth of bone, tfec. ; in which relation we would expect order according to the list in the previous table. The mean of 3-8 per cent, is not high however, at least compara- tively so with others such as the grasses and clovers for hay, which give 7 per cent, on an average of thirty varieties. The close agreement of proportion of organic or vegetable matter of the four will be noted, — an agreement which goes through nearly all kinds of grain, and makes us therefore advance another step in order to ascertain wherein lies the difference of value for feeding. Crude Fibre. Albuminoids. Extractive MATTER free FROM Nitrogen. Fat, &o. 1. Linseed Gate 2. Palm-Nut Meal 11-0 28-6 6-4 5 -5 28-3 18-5 22-4 100 « 37-3 367 52-5 62 1 10-0 3-3 3. Pease 2-0 4. Com 6-5 12-9 19-8 47-1 5-4 What is called Crude Fibre, or rough indigestible matter, must largely affect the nutritive properties of any form of food, and in our present examples we have nearly one- third of Palm-Nut Meal thus characterized,— corn especially showing only 5 J per cent, of it. The Albuminoids, to use plain language, are the solid gases of food or flesh, — indicating richness for feeding according to the Wheat standard which is 13 per cent. ; if then, our II o •w a fo n( Oroanio Matter. SOU «7'1 88'8 84-1 84-0 •0 each other, X, made into jagos, Africa, lol, England ; the common ilue it is pro- svith Linseed, Iways spoken ire in certain ig the animal jrding to the sast compara- per cent, on I four will be i US therefore B for feeding. Fat, &c. 10-0 3'3 2-0 66 6-4 ely affect the e nearly one- 5er cent, of it. I, — indicating ; if then, our 19 cake, meal, pease, and corn, give other ingredients in proportion to this albumen, 4eed cake and pease. We have now to di.stinguish two great classes in fattening materials,— one, Nitrogmoiia, which inelud(! the Albuminoids, the JVon-iiitroffenous, having no Nitrogen, but (Jarbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen,— hence called also Carbo-Hydrates, which includes the fatty groups. Of course, both classes are indispensable to animal life, but, when we come to force that life or overfeed it, we find the non-nitrogenous clivsa the better for the purpose. Ex- amine therefore the culumn of " Extractive matter free from Nitrogen " and judge that corn should lead in tliis respect,— followed respectively by pease, linseed cake, and palm- nut meal, the mean being 47 per cent., or nearly one-half of the whole weight of the four kinds of food under discussion, wheat being 66 per cent. Yet again, however, the next column exhibits fatty matter or oils, which, if guiding the value of animal fattening would place linseed cake first, corn second, palm-nut meal third, and pease as last of the list. Now gather up all these facts and make the following table : Nourishing Constituents. Albumen. Carbo- hydrates. Fat. Totals. Linseed Cake 23 '8 18-5 20 '2 8-4 29-0 33-8 49-9 57-8 8-9 3-3 17 4-8 707 B4'8 71-8 70-2 Palm-Nut Meal Pease Corn Means 177 427 47 67 . '^^"^' y°" "^i'^ observe, the non-nitrogenous or carbo-hydrates largely in the lead and indicating high fattening properties. This may be good or poor according to the proportion of the one thing to the other, the albumen to the carbo-hydrate especially ; so that taking wheat as our standard we have in it a proportion of 1 of albumen to 5^ of carbo-hydrates, and in our four : Linseed Cake 1 to 1 J roughly. Palm-Nut Meal 1 '< 2 " Pease 1 " 2A " Corn 1 " 7 " Mean 1 " 3i " In one case higher, in all the others much lower, and on the average 50% less than the Wheat standard. Finally, in these introductory notes, consider, for a while the relative cash value of the four foods used. If we take Wheat again as our type and call it 1, it is easy to make the next table of feeding ratios : — Feeding R.atio. Wheat 1 -00 Linseed Cake \ .52 Pil-"-Nut Meal ..!!..!..!.. 1-20 I 1-39 Corn .94 20 f'heck thiH with the actual average of market prices :— Wheat ^, Linneed Cake *?5 P^"*. *""• Palm-Nut Meal 'it „ 5^"^^'' 20 " <^°'" 18 .« But chemically they Htand thus : Wheat 4„„ . Linseed Cake ^Z ^^'"a Palm-Nut Meal }i „ Pease ^^ p ^ 46 " Corn 3j „ of thise four k!ndf o7 fl'.^ r f f '^^''«»'«.''* ^^^^^'^ the market and chemical values ^L ?I r * • °^ ,°''' "^^'i'"^' *** °"°" P«»nts t« the need of repeated experiments in the feedmg of various classes of animals, and makes us look with some interesT o the results now to be examined in this sheep one. interest to tlie made^l^^*^ ^^''^ *^' ^"""''^''^ ''•''*^°'' °^ ^^'^^ '^"''^^ «f «I^«ariing aethers was 4 Cotswolds, pure bred. 4 South Downs, pure bred. 4 Oxford Down crosses, out of Canadian grade ewes, by a pure bred Oxford Down ram. For one month previous the animals were similarly treated to hay bran and man golds, m the pens set apart for this experiment, and for the last week of^hIt month Tach class received the special experimental food that was to be continued durinTthe first sta^e of the regular experimental period. The result of this latter proof Cs^d^2uat^nt weight m every case except two, as follows :— i' "^ wu,s a aivunuatton m Cotswolds, on Pease f^o^ 269 to 265 pounds. ^orn K 265 " 254 " South Downs, on Linseed Cake .. " 17^ " lfi7 " " Palm-Nut Meal ..:;;:: : '< 1.^3 " 159 » Oxford Down crosses, on Mixture << 296 " 293 << Cotswolds, on Mixture ". '.' << 289 " 296 " The regular experiment began on 17th March by placing the animnla +w« » a^ together, in order to duplicate each sort of food, so tha^i reTmlJfnrthe Lus ^t tTll imders and that all were checked by alternating, not only with diffient breeds C £ with different animals of the same breed every three weeks Th^^ V,ori 1 ^^^p out also to water and rock salt, and were fed daily at f I^ S'a. J. ^d 5 3^ "T. '^ '" *^"" The course extended to eighteen weeks, or six stages of three weeks P«r.|, nnrl *«,. *v BvL '"■■';!"i;;;;;;::;;:;::;::;;; spounds. Mangolds t « ?_t?Vn "''"^^"^'^g *:^° «*^,gf ' ^ place of hay and mangolds, green fodder of red eJuvei- Mid lucerne, was given without stint. ' a l. .luer, oi rea Having thus shown the plan we are left to deal with two tbinira ■ n \ ti,« u m. m. mical values )eriraent8 in erest to the i^ethers was Down ram. I, and man- month each e first stage inuation in ro and two ts, you will is, but also tt all times md for the re supplied ler, of red e alternate 2) different Pimt, with reference to 21 Food aoaivst Food. (a.) lAnsaed Cake. Two sheep in three weeks for each item. 1. Increase from 360 lbs. to 380 lbs. " " 321 " 322 " 3. 4. 5. 6. 167 177 309 306 " 183 " " 178 " " 310 •' " 324 " + 20 lbs, + 1 " + 16 " + 1 " + 1 " + 18 « head per day. Total Increase = + 57 lbs., or nearly \ lb. per (b.) Palm-Nut Meal. 1. Increase from 315 lbs. to 320 lbs. 2. " " 380 " 400 '• 3. " '« 159 " 176 « 4. " '« 183 " 189 " 5. Decrease 311 " 306 " 6. " " 310 " 326 " + 5 lbs. + 20 " + 17 " + 6 " — 5 " + 16 " head per day. Total Increase = + 59 lbs., or nearly { lb. per (o.) Pease. 1. Increase from 265 to 280 lbs. 2. Decrease " 271 " 270 " 3. Increase " 189 " 190 " 4. " « 178 " 198 " 5. " " 326 " 339 " 6. " " 345 " 366 " = + = + = + = + 21 15 1b& 1 '« 1 '« 12 " 13 " head per day. Total Increase = + 61 lbs., or nearly \ lb. per (d.) Corn. 1. Increase from 254 to 271 lbs. 2. Decrease " 306 " 296 " 3. Increase <' 177 " 178 " 4. " " 190 " 209 " 5. 6. « II 11 II II 325 " 345 " 332 " 361 " + 17 lbs. — 10 " + 1 " + 19 " + 20 " + 29 " head per day. Total Increase = + 76 lbs., or nearly ^ lb. per (b.) Mixture of Linseed, Palm-Nut Meal, Pease and Com. 1. Decrease from 362 to 350 lbs. = 12 lbs 2. " " 304 « 299 « = _ 5 " ■ 3. Increase " 350 " 360 " = + 10 " 4. « '< 299 " 314 " = + 15 " 5. " '< 211 " 223 " = + 12 " 6. 190 " 196 " 6 II II 223 II 246 II := + 23 II II f>ffreMo from 280 to '27 i \\m. = — 6 Ilm. 10. fm'JvvMio " 2'J7 " :(()() " = + 9 " 11. Decfetti^. '• 312 " 309 " =_ 3 " 12. Increawo " .100 " .'HI " = + ;. <• Total InuroHHf - + (i7 Ilm. Hat ime to oonipare with othtsrH — + .'J.'U HtH., or iir hcdd [M)r (lay. ' j f Total Incnintes compnrfil: From LiiiHowl Cako ,17 jbg " Palm-Nut Meal fi9 «' " PtittHO g I t( " C.'wrn 7(j (t " Mixture 3^;^ « Mean = 57J lbs. Wf! have now niatcrial to work up Homc rather important chemical and practical feeding questions ; but tirnt let us ascertain what (juantitics of food were consumed in each case : Linseed Cake 90^ lbs. Palm-Nut Meal Hot " Pease 117 \ " Corn 1591 u Mixture : — Linseed Cake 63 lbs. \ Palm-Nut Meal e.*) " ( „„, ,, Pease 125.^ " ("^ ^^ Corn 12r)| " ) Half for comparison ~ 190^ lbs. In addition therefore to the accompaniments of liay, bran, and mangolds, it took 90i lbs. of Linseed Cake to produce b7 lbs. of mutton and wool. 80| " Palm-Nut Meal " S9 " " « 177A " Pease " 61 " " " 159| " Corn " 76 " «« « 190| " Mixture «' 33^ " " «• The clmmical values of these, according to pr \iouK data, are as follows : 90i^ llj'i of Linseed Cake costs, chewiailly, $2 2,^ 80| " Palm-Nut Meal ' '• 1 60 177| " Pease " " 4 08 159i " Corn « " 2 50 190i " Mixture " " 4 00 The relative chemical cost of production is By the Linseed Cake 4 cts. per lb. " Palm-Nut Meal 2| " " Pease ..." 6J " ' ' '. 'rrn 3^f « " Mixture 2i " Mean of 3 9^ " But the market, or actual cost of the increased flesh has been, m III tl St ci ol Li Vi Pf Cc CO ea 98 I, !b. pf«r practical Humcd in ; took By LinnPfd Cake 2ij ctH. per lb. " Pulni Vnt Meal 2 ctH. (fully) p.-r !»). " Pease 2V'o ctB, pur lb. " Com 1 ^j '• " Mixture 6| " Mean of 3i " It appears that chinnical and mai'k«t valueh *gree IwHt in the following mler :- Ist, Palm-Nuf Meal. 2nd, LiriHei'd ( n,k»>. 3rd, Mixture, 4th, Corn. Bth, Pease. The final present result of the experiment of food against fooci as regu ^ roat, \h Ist, or least cost fm- the Com. 2nd " " Palm-Nut Meal. 3rd •• " Liiiseod Cako. 4th ♦• " Pease. 6th " " Mixture. Let us briefly review l)y saying it appears that the effects of these foods on ^ sep are not regulated by the amount of water in their ouiposition, nor by the (iiuintit' '' ash. nor by thi; amount of crude fibre present ; to a '•crtain exd-nt they agr<'.> witli ^nst quantity of albuminoids beingyiVs^ in results, bur this may be only ii»cidental. Ist, Corn r= 10 of Albuminoids 2nd, Palm-Nut Meal . . . . = 18.^ " 3rd, Pease = L*2| " 4th, Linseed = L'6 •* Neither do they agree witli the proportions of fatty or oily matters ; note, however, the rather close agreement there is with the noi nitrogenous elements ; and, keepim strictly to the suggestion given in the intiHKluctory | vt of this chapter, by which we ant cipatcd conclusions according to relative positions of rtain chemical elements in each kind of food, let us summarize their order. Linseed Cake .... Palm-Nut Meal.. Pease Corn Water. Ash. Crude Fibre, Albumen. 2nd Ist 3rd 1st Ist 2nd 4th 3rd 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd 4th 4th Ist 4th . )N- Fat and NlTKc ENOUS. Oils. 3ird 1st 4th 3rd 2n. 4th l8t 2nd Wheat Standard. 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Totals. 15 20 18 17 Placing Linseed Cake 1st, Corn 2nd, Pease 3rd, and J'alm-Nut Meal 4th. Breed against Breed. Examine now how the several breeds of sheep gave account of the different foods consumed by them in submitting which the means of the results reduced are to one head of each breed for twenty-one days. X. ^>^A t 24 On Linseed Cake. Cotbwolds increased from 170 lbs. to 175i lbs (South Downs " 853 u qq* Ox. Downs Crosses " 153 « 152 = 5i.lbi Mean = 6J lbs. On Palm-Nut Meal. Coltswolds increased from 174 to 180i lbs. South Downs " 854 " 91 Ox. Down Crosses " I55 « 153 (I (I 6i lbs. 5| « 8 " Mean = 6f lbs. On Pease. Cotswolds increased from 134 to 1374 lbs South Downs " 91| " 95 << Ox. Down Crosses " 1724 " 183 " Mean = 5f lbs. On Corn. Cotswolds increased from 140 to 1414 lbs. South Downs " 9l| « ggi « " Ox. Down Crosses " 166 " 1804 " Mean \\ lbs. 5 " 14^" 7 lbs. On Mixtures. Cotswolds increased from 164| to; 1654 lbs. South Downs " 1024 " 1094 " Ox. Down Crosses " 1544 « 155 « 1 lb. 6f lbs. #« Mean = 2f lbs. 1st Oxford Down Cross, ^ lbs. per head per stage. 2nd, South Down, 5 <« .< ® 3rd, Cotswold, 31 « « There was a little scourinc: amonc the r!ota«'old° HuHnrr +K- =, j x among the Houth Downs in the first stage of the experiment ° ^""^ '^^'' ^' ^^«° As regards Breed again, t Breed, it results that the Oxford Down cross is Wi n.r A 26 2nd. Experiment with Sheep. In this I wish simply to record the weights of several breeds of one and two shear wethers put up together from December 1878 to September 1879, as fed upon hay, pease, bran and green fodder. j> f y The weights are an average of each kind : Leicesters, two shear 258 lbs. per head. South Down crosses, one shear 205 " Cotswolds, two shear 195 « Oxford Down crosses, one shear 175 " South Downs, two shear 158 " The South Down crosses were from grade Cotswold-Leicester ewes by a pure South Down ram, and the Oxford Down crosses out of similar ewes by a pure Oxford Down ram. Allow me to mention that several of these wethers after being bought from us took 1st and 2nd prizes both at the Toronto Industrial, and the Dominion Exhibition, at Ottawa, this year. ncreased us also 143 per )ver the v.— HOW MUCH SHOULD BE PAID FOR STEERS TO FATTEN. It is well to be acquainted with the chemical and actual values of all our field pro- ducts, as also how they act upon varieties of animal life, but one of the primary conditions of success, in the case of not having any from your own breeding, is to know the inaxi- mum price it is safe to give for the particular animal, independently of the indespensable and peculiar knack of choosing the best for the purpose. Of course as a rule in present times, it is a poor steer that will not pay to be bought ia at 3 cents per lb. live weight, but, can any one say that a superior one will do so at 4 cents ? Our past winter's experience in the purchase and feeding of cattle will help to show this ; as owing to several disadvantages, such as difficulty in obtaining the right sort and at a great distance from home, and for a certain purpose, the animals were got at a higher figure than, it may be, the purely profit seeker would venture to give. The lot comprised fourteen head of two and a half year old steers and two three year old heifers, mostly Durham grades, all in medium condition from a month's stall feeding. The sixteen head weighed 17,529 lbs., and cost delivered $728, or an average of 4i^ cents per lb. They consumed the following quantities, and cost, of food during five months December to May : — Swede turnips 162.480 lbs. at 8 cents per 60 Mangolds 54.480 " 10 " " Pea Meal 12.960 " 1 " lb. Corn Meal 10.448 " 45 cents per 56 Fodder 24.000 ". $4 per 2000 Total cost of food consumed = $569 00 $217 20 90 50 129 60 83 70 48 00 The cost of attendance was $52 50 And cost of bedding 15 00 |67 50 Total expenditure $636 50 26 P II ' I i" b '4 Mi 4,593^11*^' '"'^ °^ ^^' '"°"^^' *^' ^""''^^' ''''^^''^ 22,122 lbs., being an increase of They were disposed of for $974.80 or 4l cents per pound, live weight. First Balance Sheet therefore: Cost of 16 steers bought in ^ ^^28 00 Cost of food, attendance and bedding 636 .50 $1,364 50 ^^^" 974 00 Present debit $390 50 The story, so far, may be a surprise. It is well known that few, very few farmers ever know the actual cost of making up a fat beast; they put no value upon knythine except grain, no value upon fodder, roots, bedding and attendance, so that were we or they, to deduct those items, amounting as they do in this case to S423 '0 there would appear the small credit of $32.70, but I ask for no such conces.sion The next question is, upon what authority do we place 8 and "lO cents per bushel for turnips and mangolds respectively 1 The answer is-from our own pa.st experience here with British hgures as a check, and with the acknowledgement that the rates are hi'^h' though It has also to be admitted that by thorough management in root cultivation— when tillage, manuring and cropping are considered in their invaluable effects upon future croDs they may well be thrown into the bargain, or go all for present credit ' Let it be held '^oyever, that by the keep of 16 head of steers during five months we have an apparent deficit of $390.50. ° _ Now-a-days it is not enough to say, with reference to any form of manure, " throw it into the bargain, " let it stand for attendance and bedding," or, " slump it at fifty cents per load. This unsound mode of valuation even under the old regime of straw and turnip feeding, is certainly much more so with the addition of grain and cake and therefore, keeping to the times, I beg to submit a valuation of the materials used iii food m this instance, according to the chemical money standards established by Dr Lawes of Rothamstead, England. Of course, the figures given have been fixed upon chemical data and cannot in every case be taken as the real commercial value of the animal droppings or other so-called refuse in the management of these steers : 80 17 ^ 5 12 Quantity Consumed. tons Swede turnips " Mangolds . . . . " Pea Meal . . . . " Corn Meal . . . . " Fodder Value Per Ton $1 00 1 25 15 50 7 50 2 50 Total Value $80 00 22 00 100 00 37 00 30 00 $269 00 Such is the apparent or real extravagance of these figures in comparison with what we have always been accustomed to recosnise as the value of Farm-Yard Manure that much caution is desirable in admitting this sum of $269, as the actual commercial stand- ing of the materials from 16 steers during five months of winter. Our old practice would have said—" one steer will give about one load per month, so that really we cannot cal culate upon more then 100 tons at 75 cents, or say $75.00 in all." This will not do now aa otherwise science is no handmaiden of practice. ' farmers 27 Debit of first balance ^390 50 Credit Manure 269 00 Second balance, being debit $121 50 It appears then that after debiting and crediting every possible item, it does not pay to purchase steers at 4l cents, per lb., feed them on some of the best of materials, and at the end of five months dispose at 4;^ cents, per lb. live weight. It will be asked, how was it that hardly any advance per lb. was obtained for better beef; two reasons: the one for- merly mentiond, (1) that extra expenses were incurred in purchasing, and (2) the animals had to be sold at a time when the market was unusually low by reason of the uncertainty of the trade with Britain during cattle plague restriction. There must not only be an increase of weight, there must also be an advance of price per lb., and this, I need hardly say, is always the case with well-doing animals. I am justified then in making the final balance sheet, thus : Purchase of 16 steers, 17,527 lbs. at 4^ $728 00 Cost of keep, &c 636 00 $1364 50 Actual sale of 22,122 lbs. 4| cents per lb $974 00 Sum overpaid for cattle, 3^ cents, being ordinary market value 112 00 Would have received 5^ per lb. in place of 4? : difference 187 qO Value of manure 269 00 1542 00 Balance being credit $177 50 This balance is equal to 43 per cent, per annum on the original investment. VI.— WHAT IT COSTS TO MAKE BEEF. Few of us have any idea, as I have elsewhere remarked, as to the actual cost of feed- ing, because few of us are in the habit of placing a value upon the produce consumed upon our own farms. Dr. Laws, of England, recently asserted that in no case would an animal pay for the cost of its food by the direct increase of its weight from such food. What has been our own experience here of late % 1878— To make 1,610 lbs. cost $193.27, or 12 cents per lb. 1879— To make 4,593 lbs. cost $636.00, or 13 cents per lb.' 6,203 Mean 12| cents per lb. This is charging every possible item in food, bedding, and attendance; and I have no doubt the figures are in correspondence with the average of the country. So then it costs 12| cents per lb. live weight to make good beef that is usually sold at 6 cents per lb. live weight ! How is this accounted fori 88 Debit, as above Credit actual increase at market price for improved beef Credit also for extra quality given by 6,203 lbs. new to 26,139 original lbs. = 4 at 2 cents per lb. . . Credit manure, according to chemical value, $0 06c. ( " " ordinary value, 02c. j $0 12^ $0 05^ 08 04 m „ , Balance, being credit of $0 05 per lb. over all the animals. This needs explanation. We purchase a steer, or take one of our own breeding, and put it into regular systematic feeding when 1163 lbs. weight and worth $40.70 at 3i cents, per lb. During six months it is fed upon materials that cost, with attendance and bed- ding, the sum of $43, which have added 360 lbs. to its weight, thus making the prime animal 1523 lbs. But the food has not only added 360 lbs. to weight, it has improved all the original 1163 lbs. —raising them from H to 5| cents, per lb., as a purely marketable subject. It it obvious therefore that tJie food and its associations have to be credited with what they have done at the ratio of 4, that is every 1 lb. of new weight improved the quality of 4 of the old, thus making 8 cents, as given in foregoing statement. The real value of manure not being known, or rather, as the chemist and practical farmer do not agree as to its value, I have adopted a mean, or 4 cents., as resulting from the refuse th: t goes to make every additional lb. of flesh. Our example steer cost originally $40 70 And to feed, (fee, cost 43 00 $83 70 It sold for $83 76 Showing no profit or loss. But according to honest bookeeping there is, as we have seen, 5 cents per lb. on 360 lbs. or $18 of clear profit for six months from an investment of $83, which is equal to 43 per cent, per annum. Compare this result with that shown at end of previous chapter. Wm. Brown, Professor of Agriculture and Farm Superintendent. Guelph, Ist October, 1879. ' -3