You will find that the farmers in England do not expect to make their land rich, by growing clover and selling the produce. After they have got their land rich, by good cultivation, and the liberal use of animal and artificial manures, they may expect a good crop of wheat from the roots of the clover. But they take good care to feed out the clover itself on the farm, in connection with turnips and oil-cake, and thus make rich manure.
164 And so it is in this country. Much as we hear about the value of clover for manure, even those who extol it the highest do not depend upon it alone for bringing up and maintaining the fertility of their farms. The men who raise the largest crops and make the most money by farming, do not sell clover-hay. They do not look to the roots of the clover for making a poor soil rich. They are, to a man, good cultivators. They work their land thoroughly and kill the weeds. They keep good stock, and feed liberally, and make good manure. They use lime, ashes, and plaster, and are glad to draw manure from the cities and villages, and muck from the swamps, and not a few of them buy artificial manures. In the hands of such farmers, clover is a grand renovating crop. It gathers up the fertility of the soil, and the roots alone of a large crop, often furnish food enough for a good crop of corn, potatoes, or wheat. But if your land was not in good heart to start with, you would not get the large crop of clover; and if you depend on the clover-roots alone, the time is not far distant when your large crops of clover will be things of the past.
AMOUNT OF ROOTS LEFT IN THE SOIL BY DIFFERENT CROPS.
“We have seen that Dr. Voelcker made four separate determinations of the amount of clover-roots left in the soil to the depth of six inches. It may be well to tabulate the figures obtained:
CLOVER-ROOTS, IN SIX INCHES OF SOIL, PER ACRE.
R/A Air-dry roots, per acre. NR/A Nitrogen in roots, per acre. PhR/A Phosphoric acid in roots, per acre. |
| | R/A | NR/A | PhR/A |
| 1st Year. | | | |
No. 1. | Good Clover from brow of the hill | 7705 | 100 | |
” 2. | Bad Clover from brow of the hill | 3920 | 31 | |
| 2nd Year. | | | |
” 3. | Good Clover from bottom of the field | 7569 | 61 | 27 |
” 4. | Thin Clover from brow of the hill | 8064 | 66 | |
” 5. | Heavy crop of first-year clover mown twice for hay | | 24½ | |
” 6. | Heavy crop of first-year clover mown once for hay, and then for seed | | 51½ | |
” 7. | German experiment, 10¼ inches deep | 8921 | 191½ | 74¾ |
I have not much confidence in experiments of this kind. It is so easy to make a little mistake; and when you take only a square foot of land, as was the case with Nos. 5 and 6, the mistake is multiplied by 43,560. Still, I give the table for what it is worth.
165 Nos. 1 and 2 are from a one-year-old crop of clover. The field was a calcareous clay soil. It was somewhat hilly; or, perhaps, what we here, in Western New York, should call “rolling land.” The soil on the brow of the hill, “was very stony at a depth of four inches, so that it could only with difficulty be excavated to six inches, when the bare limestone-rock made its appearance.”
A square yard was selected on this shallow soil, where the clover was good; and the roots, air-dried, weighed at the rate of 7,705 lbs. per acre, and contained 100 lbs. of nitrogen. A few yards distance, on the same soil, where the clover was bad, the acre of roots contained only 31 lbs. of nitrogen per acre.
So far, so good. We can well understand this result. Chemistry has little to do with it. There was a good stand of clover on the one plot, and a poor one on the other. And the conclusion to be drawn from it is, that it is well worth our while to try to secure a good catch of clover.
“But, suppose,” said the Doctor, “No. 2 had happened to have been pastured by sheep, and No. 1 allowed to go to seed, what magic there would have been in the above figures!”
Nos. 3 and 4 are from the same field, the second year. No. 4 is from a square yard of thin clover on the brow of the hill, and No. 3, from the richer, deeper land towards the bottom of the hill.
There is very little difference between them. The roots of thin clover from the brow of the hill, contain five lbs. more nitrogen per acre, than the roots on the deeper soil.
If we can depend on the figures, we may conclude that on our poor stony “knolls,” the clover has larger and longer roots than on the richer parts of the field. We know that roots will run long distances and great depths in search of food and water.
Nos. 5 and 6 are from a heavy crop of one-year-old clover. No. 5 was mown twice for hay, producing, in the two cuttings, over four tons of hay per acre. No. 6 was in the same field, the only difference being that the clover, instead of being cut the second time for hay, was allowed to stand a few weeks longer to ripen its seed. You will see that the latter has more roots than the former.
There are 24½ lbs. of nitrogen per acre in the one case, and 51½ lbs. in the other. How far this is due to difference in the condition of the land, or to the difficulties in the way of getting out all the roots from the square yard, is a matter of conjecture.
Truth to tell, I have very little confidence in any of these figures. It will be observed that I have put at the bottom of the table, the result of an examination made in Germany. In this case, the nitrogen in the roots of an acre of clover, amounted to 191½ lbs. per 166 acre. If we can depend on the figures, we must conclude that there were nearly eight times as much clover-roots per acre in the German field, as in the remarkably heavy crop of clover in the English field No. 5.
“Yes,” said the Deacon, “but the one was 10¼ inches deep, and the other only six inches deep; and besides, the German experiment includes the ‘stubble’ with the roots.”
The Deacon is right; and it will be well to give the complete table, as published in the American Agriculturist:
TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF ROOTS AND STUBBLE LEFT PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT CROPS, AND THE AMOUNT OF INGREDIENTS WHICH THEY CONTAIN PER ACRE.
| No. of lbs. of stubble & roots (dry) per acre to a depth of 10¼ inches. | No. of lbs. of Nitrogen per acre. | No. of lbs. of ash, free from carbonic acid, per acre. |
Lucern (4 years old) | 9,678.1 | 136.4 | 1,201.6 |
Red-Clover (1 year old,) | 8,921.6 | 191.6 | 1,919.9 |
Esparsette (3 years old) | 5,930.9 | 123.2 | 1,023.4 |
Rye | 5,264.6 | 65.3 | 1,747.8 |
Swedish Clover | 5,004.3 | 102.3 | 974.6 |
Rape | 4,477. | 56.5 | 622.3 |
Oats | 3,331.9 | 26.6 | 1,444.7 |
Lupine | 3,520.9 | 62.2 | 550. |
Wheat | 3,476. | 23.5 | 1,089.8 |
Peas | 3,222.5 | 55.6 | 670.7 |
Serradella | 3,120.1 | 64.8 | 545.6 |
Buckwheat | 2,195.6 | 47.9 | 465.5 |
Barley | 1,991.4 | 22.8 | 391.1 |
CONTENTS OF THE ASHES, IN POUNDS, PER ACRE.
| Lime. | Magnesia. | Potash. | Soda. | Sulphuric Acid. | Phosphoric Acid. |
Lucern | 197.7 | 24.2 | 36.7 | 26.4 | 18.7 | 38.5 |
Red-Clover | 262.9 | 48.4 | 58.3 | 20.0 | 26.1 | 74.8 |
Esparsette | 132.8 | 28.7 | 42.6 | 13.8 | 20.6 | 29.7 |
Rye | 73.2 | 14.3 | 31.2 | 43.3 | 11.8 | 24.4 |
Swedish Clover | 136.1 | 17.6 | 25.9 | 5.7 | 13.2 | 24.2 |
Rape | 163.9 | 12.9 | 34.7 | 20.9 | 30.8 | 31.9 |
Oats | 85.5 | 11.2 | 24.8 | 18. | 8.8 | 29. |
Lupine | 80.5 | 11.2 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 7. | 13.8 |
Wheat | 76.7 | 10.1 | 28.4 | 11. | 7.4 | 11.8 |
Peas | 71.7 | 11. | 11.2 | 7. | 9.4 | 14.3 |
Serradella | 79.8 | 13.4 | 8.8 | 4.8 | 9. | 18.4 |
Buckwheat | 80. | 7.2 | 8.8 | 4.2 | 6.6 | 11. |
Barley | 42.2 | 5.5 | 9.5 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 11.2 |
It may be presumed, that, while these figures are not absolutely, they are relatively, correct. In other words, we may conclude, that red-clover leaves more nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in the roots and stubble per acre, than any other of the crops named.
167 The gross amount of dry substance in the roots, and the gross amount of ash per acre, are considerably exaggerated, owing to the evidently large quantity of dirt attached to the roots and stubble. For instance, the gross amount of ash in Lucern is given as 1,201.6 lbs. per acre; while the total amount of lime, magnesia, potash, soda, sulphuric and phosphoric acids, is only 342.2 lbs. per acre, leaving 859.4 lbs. as sand, clay, iron, etc. Of the 1,919.9 lbs. of ash in the acre of clover-roots and stubble, there are 1,429.4 lbs. of sand, clay, etc. But even after deducting this amount of impurities from a gross total of dry matter per acre, we still have 7,492.2 lbs. of dry roots and stubble per acre, or nearly 3¼ tons of dry roots per acre. This is a very large quantity. It is as much dry matter as is contained in 13 tons of ordinary farm-yard, or stable-manure. And these 3¼ tons of dry clover-roots contain 191½ lbs. of nitrogen, which is as much as is contained in 19 tons of ordinary stable-manure. The clover-roots also contain 74¾ lbs. of phosphoric acid per acre, or as much as is contained in from 500 to 600 lbs. of No. 1 rectified Peruvian guano.
“But the phosphoric acid,” said the Doctor, “is not soluble in the roots.” True, but it was soluble when the roots gathered it up out of the soil.
“These figures,” said the Deacon, “have a very pleasant look. Those of us who have nearly one-quarter of our land in clover every year, ought to be making our farms very rich.”
“It would seem, at any rate,” said I, “that those of us who have good, clean, well-drained, and well-worked land, that is now producing a good growth of clover, may reasonably expect a fair crop of wheat, barley, oats, corn, or potatoes, when we break it up and plow under all the roots, which are equal to 13 or 19 tons of stable-manure per acre. Whether we can or can not depend on these figures, one thing is clearly proven, both by the chemist and the farmer, that a good clover-sod, on well-worked soil, is a good preparation for corn and potatoes.”
MANURES FOR WHEAT.
Probably nine-tenths of all the wheat grown in Western New York, or the “Genesee country,” from the time the land was first cleared until 1870, was raised without any manure being directly applied to the land for this crop. Tillage and clover were what the farmers depended on. There certainly has been no systematic manuring. The manure made during the winter, was drawn out in the spring, and plowed under for corn. Any manure made during the summer, in the yards, was, by the best farmers, scraped up and 168 spread on portions of the land sown, or to be sown, with wheat. Even so good a farmer and wheat-grower as John Johnston, rarely used manure, (except lime, and latterly, a little guano), directly for wheat. Clover and summer-fallowing were for many years the dependence of the Western New York wheat-growers.
“One of the oldest and most experienced millers of Western New York,” remarked the Doctor, “once told me that ‘ever since our farmers began to manure their land, the wheat-crop had deteriorated, not only in the yield per acre, but in the quality and quantity of the flour obtained from it.’ It seemed a strange remark to make; but when he explained that the farmers had given up summer-fallowing and plowing in clover, and now sow spring crops, to be followed by winter wheat with an occasional dressing of poor manure, it is easy to see how it may be true.”
“Yes,” said I, “it is not the manure that hurts the wheat, but the growth of spring crops and weeds that rob the soil of far more plant-food than the poor, strawy manure can supply. We do not now, really, furnish the wheat-crop as much manure or plant-food as we formerly did when little or no manure was used, and when we depended on summer-fallowing and plowing in clover.”
We must either give up the practice of sowing a spring crop, before wheat, or we must make more and richer manure, or we must plow in more clover. The rotation, which many of us now adopt—corn, barley, wheat—is profitable, provided we can make our land rich enough to produce 75 bushels of shelled corn, 50 bushels of barley, and 35 bushels of wheat, per acre, in three years.
This can be done, but we shall either require a number of acres of rich low land, or irrigated meadow, the produce of which will make manure for the upland, or we shall have to purchase oil-cake, bran, malt-combs, or refuse beans, to feed out with our straw and clover-hay, or we must purchase artificial manures. Unless this is done, we must summer-fallow more, on the heavier clay soils, sow less oats and barley; or we must, on the lighter soils, raise and plow under more clover, or feed it out on the farm, being careful to save and apply the manure.
“Better do both,” said the Doctor.
“How?” asked the Deacon.
“You had better make all the manure you can,” continued the Doctor, “and buy artificial manures besides.”
“The Doctor is right,” said I, “and in point of fact, our best farmers are doing this very thing. They are making more manure and buying more manure than ever before; or, to state the matter correctly, they are buying artificial manures; and these increase the 169 crops, and the extra quantity of straw, corn, and clover, so obtained, enables them to make more manure. They get cheated sometimes in their purchases; but, on the whole, the movement is a good one, and will result in a higher and better system of farming.”
I am amused at the interest and enthusiasm manifested by some of our farmers who have used artificial manures for a year or two. They seem to regard me as a sad old fogy, because I am now depending almost entirely on the manures made on the farm. Years ago, I was laughed at because I used guano and superphosphate. It was only yesterday, that a young farmer, who is the local agent of this neighborhood, for a manure manufacturer, remarked to me, “You have never used superphosphate. We sowed it on our wheat last year, and could see to the very drill mark how far it went. I would like to take your order for a ton. I am sure it would pay.”
“We are making manure cheaper than you can sell it to me,” I replied, “and besides, I do not think superphosphate is a good manure for wheat.” —“Oh,” he exclaimed, “you would not say so if you had ever used it.” —“Why, my dear sir,” said I, “I made tons of superphosphate, and used large quantities of guano before you were born; and if you will come into the house, I will show you a silver goblet I got for a prize essay on the use of superphosphate of lime, that I wrote more than a quarter of a century ago. I sent to New York for two tons of guano, and published the result of its use on this farm, before you were out of your cradle. And I had a ton or more of superphosphate made for me in 1856, and some before that. I have also used on this farm, many tons of superphosphate and other artificial manures from different manufacturers, and one year I used 15 tons of bone-dust.”
With ready tact, he turned the tables on me by saying: “Now I can understand why your land is improving. It is because you have used superphosphate and bone-dust. Order a few tons.”
By employing agents of this kind, the manufacturers have succeeded in selling the farmers of Western New York thousands of tons of superphosphate. Some farmers think it pays, and some that it does not. We are more likely to hear of the successes than of failures. Still there can be no doubt that superphosphate has, in many instances, proved a valuable and profitable manure for wheat in Western New York.
From 200 to 300 lbs. are used per acre, and the evidence seems to show that it is far better to drill in the manure with the seed than to sow it broadcast.
My own opinion is, that these superphosphates are not the most 170 economical artificial manures that could be used for wheat. They contain too little nitrogen. Peruvian guano containing nitrogen equal to 10 per cent of ammonia, would be, I think, a much more effective and profitable manure. But before we discuss this question, it will be necessary to study the results of actual experiments in the use of various fertilizers for wheat.
Chapters XXVII - XXXIII Chapters XXXIV - XL, Appendix Index |