sorry to see, two or three years ago, when one of the scientific societies of Massachusetts applied to the Legislature for a scientific survey, that they began with the statement that Massachusetts never could become an agricultural State. Now, mark that, farmers of Massachusetts, Massachusetts can never become an agricultural State. Why? The reasons have been given over and over again at this convention. The intelligent and well-informed secretary of the Board, in his lecture on grasses yesterday afternoon, stated over and over again clearly the reasons why, - because our pastures were impoverished and made sterile, and their good qualities carried off, and converted into vegetables and meats, and then carried to the city, and converted into human beings.

That is true: it struck the nail on the head. All these things go to make men; and then the refuse is what I call excrement. Now, does any man undertake to say that that material is of no value? Then barnyard-manure is of no value. The excrement of cattle is of no value, if the excrement of men is of no value. It is all idle to talk in this way. Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by these exceptional cases. I am sorry to say, that with the intelligence we ought to expect to find in Massachusetts, and in the city of Boston, no protest has been sent to the city against the new sewer which they propose to build at an enormous expense, not even from our Board of Agriculture, not even from the Agricultural College. That protest must come. You must make your appeal to the Legislature: you must take hold of the subject first.

Now, what ought the city of Boston to have done? Instead of making an appropriation of forty thousand dollars for a survey, they should have offered premiums to the chemists for the best method of chemical management of nightsoil and sewage, and also prizes for the best mechanical method of working and disposing of it. Dr. Loring, at the last meeting, hit the nail on the head in two or three words, and with the clearest ring of truth; but he condensed it in so few words, that I hardly think it was felt. "The farmers of New England," said he, " want a fertilizer of the right kind, and they want it cheap; and they have not got it." And then what did he say? "The chemists must give it to That is it. It is the work of the chemist. Chemistry

us."

is an indispensable science to the farmer. Instead of appropriating forty thousand dollars for a survey of five miles for a sewer which will be abandoned after five or six millions, perhaps, have been spent upon it, they should have offered that money in premiums to chemists. You all know how expensive chemical experiments are. Our scientific professors are poor men; the colleges are poor; they have no means for providing the material to carry on very expensive experiments: and, when forty thousand dollars are to be appropriated in a matter of this vast importance, here is a direction in which the money can be put to a good use. The science of chemistry is entitled to take charge of this question, because it belongs to that science. The city of Boston spends an immense amount of money to procure an amount of water sufficient to carry off these solids. What is the

true course? Save the solids separately. The simplest thing in the world. Almighty God has so organized every animal, that the solids can be separated from the fluids where it is necessary. It is not necessary in the barn-yard. Gentlemen, I feel assured, by the intelligent faces I see here, that the farmers of Massachusetts will be true to themselves and their interests, and to the agriculture of Massachusetts and New England.

Mr. HARLOW of Shrewsbury. I would not say a word at this time, had it not been that some remarks have been. made here which I feel are calculated to mislead some of this audience in regard to fertilizers. I regard this subject as one of immense importance to the farmers of Massachusetts. I have been looking around for years since I commenced farming, hoping to strike upon some fertilizer that would extend my stock of manure, so that I could accom-. plish more upon my farm. This, I believe, is the experience of all farmers in Massachusetts. I have felt, that, whenever a man invented any thing that could grow crops, that man was worthy of the gratitude and thanks of mankind. Now when I learned of the Stockbridge Fertilizers, having been cheated in trying fertilizers before, or, at least, having found they did not work to my satisfaction, did not give me an equivalent for my money,-I thought I would give the Stockbridge Fertilizers a fair trial. Two years since, I purchased a small quantity of one of the fertilizers, and tried it to my

satisfaction. One other gentleman in my town also tried it, and it was satisfactory to him. During the winter I procured the services of Professor Stockbridge to come to Shrewsbury, and address the people upon the subject; and as the result of his explanation of the fertilizers, and the efforts that were made, there was a large quantity sold in our town during the past year, more than five thousand dollars' worth certainly. I purchased myself what I paid a hundred and ten or a hundred and twelve dollars for. I applied it to corn and to Hungarian grass; and the result was more than satisfactory. I have heard a large number of the gentlemen who used the fertilizer in our town speak of it; and only two instances have I known where they have not been highly pleased with it. One of the two individuals to whom I refer applied it to a piece of ground that he raised a large quantity of turnips upon last year. He planted corn, and applied the fertilizer for corn, and it was a failure; but he said he did not attribute it to the fertilizer. Another gentleman condemned the fertilizer. He had used it on half an acre; and on the other half-acre beside it he used barnyard manure, and his corn was not worth harvesting. But he told me himself (which shows that the result was not owing to the fertilizer) that the best corn of the two was that raised on the half-acre where he applied the fertilizer. Three years ago I raised corn upon two acres and a quarter. I spread about twenty cart-loads of green manure to the acre, and I raised a good crop of corn. Last year I sowed that piece with barley, and seeded it down to grass. My grass was a failure. And this spring I ploughed the piece up again, and applied sixty-seven dollars' worth of the Stockbridge Fertilizer, and planted it with corn, and I think it was the best piece of corn ever raised in the town of Shrewsbury. It was a general topic of conversation with people who passed that way, knowing that the Stockbridge Fertilizer had been applied to it. I have been told by fifty individuals, I presume, that it was the best piece of corn they had seen this year. One old gentleman, who lives opposite me, who has been a farmer all his life (and he is now seventy years old), helped husk about three loads that I put into his barn, and he said it was the handsomest and best corn that he ever husked. I do not say that it was the largest and best yield of

corn I ever saw; but I raised over four hundred bushelbaskets of corn on the two acres and a quarter, and that I call a fair yield. On another piece of sward-land that was run out to grass, I applied thirty-three dollars' worth. There was about an acre and a quarter of it. The corn-stubble was not as large as it was on the other piece; but I had about fifty bushels to the acre. I also applied it for Hungarian grass with good results. It has been applied in our town to all kinds of crops, and, I believe, with satisfactory results.

I felt that these remarks were due to this audience after what has been said by the gentlemen who have not obtained satisfactory results. I desire, Mr. Chairman, that we may hear from Mr. Bowker, the manufacturer of that article. I feel, that, in justice to him, he should be allowed to explain the matter to this audience.

Mr. PAUL of Dighton. In the meetings that I have attended I have often heard the question asked which was asked by Mr. Hersey, as to the experience of those who have used commercial fertilizers; and so far I have never heard it answered. I farm it only in a one-horse fashion, in a very small way; but I have used more commercial fertilizers than most of our smaller farmers. I have used them for some twelve or thirteen years. I live forty miles from Boston, and most all my produce goes into the Boston market. For the last eight years I have used more than seven hundred dollars' worth of manure annually on sixteen acres of land; and if I got my money back, and paid my bills, that will certainly be evidence that it pays. I do get my money back, and I pay my bills; and my land is better for it. The smaller portion of my purchases has been stable-manure. I will go over the list which I have used, accessible to the farmers of the State generally. In addition to stable-manure I have used leached and unleached ashes, which are not obtainable in all portions of the State. I have used fish-scrap, which can be obtained by any person. I have used bone after the glue-manufacturers and the soap-manufacturers have extracted the glue and the grease. That was put in crushed, in the form of bone-meal, in its raw state, except that the glue and the grease had been extracted. I have used dissolved bone, — not superphosphate, but what strictly goes under the name of dissolved bone. I have also used nitrogenous superphosphate

-

and Peruvian guano. I would say, that, if I had used the Peruvian guano to the exclusion of the superphosphates and the dissolved raw bone and fish-scrap, in my opinion I should have had a great many hundred dollars more in my pocket. I have used these articles on the various crops that are cultivated by our small farmers. I have raised garden vegetables to some extent, early and late cabbages, potatoes, and some hay. I have sold some years more than five hundred dollars' worth of hay from this small amount of land, a very few grapes, some strawberries, and a little asparagus. believe that I have covered the whole ground, that I have gone over, in short, and I will not take any more of your time.

I

Capt. MOORE of Concord. The subject as it reads on the programme is, "The management of night-soil. Discussion on manures and fertilizers to follow." Therefore, if I keep my finger out of the night-soil, and attend to the manures and fertilizers, I shall be in order, I think; and let me say, that I think I can speak advisedly on this subject, because I feel-as Mr. Philbrick does, and Mr. Rawson, and all the farmers I see about here the want of manure. That is the question that is staring farmers in the face to-day: that is the question you have got to meet. Well, very likely my notions about this matter may not commend themselves to all present in this meeting. Some of them think, "We will use nothing but manures, strictly speaking, animal excrements:" others think, "We will use nothing but fertilizers." I do not believe either one of you is right. My idea is simply this; and this is what I have practised, and what I honestly believe: if it is not right, it is fair to state it. I believe that every farmer in Massachusetts, in the first place, should save all the waste of the farm for manure he can, and buy all the manure he can get afterwards; I mean as far as his pocket and crops will warrant. After doing that, there is something more to be done. There is no doubt in my mind about one thing; and that is, that, when you apply all of these manures, you do not make the thing perfect for the crop. Again: when you apply simply stable-manure in some instances, there can be no doubt that certain crops require a large amount of some particular element of fertility, nitrogen, or potash, or phosphoric acid, over and above another crop. Now, it seems to me, it is only