oatmeal, and during the third Norwegian fish guano was added to the ration of the second period. At first the animals did not like the fish, but on mixing it well with the oatmeal they accepted it more readily. At the close of the experiment they had got to liking the guano so much as to eat it greedily with no admixture of other foods. They digested on average of two experiments 90 per cent. of the albuminoids and 76 per cent. of the fat of the guano. Concerning the nitrogenous matter of the bone, Kellner made the same observation as has been previously noted, namely, that it was quite rapidly digestible. It is particularly worthy of remark that the Norwegian fish guano which was used in this experi ment had 9.44 per cent. nitrogen and no less than 15.77 per cent. phosphoric acid, and only 2.11 per cent. fat. That is, it had more bone than our fish guano. This is because it is made not of the whole fish, but of the refuse heads, entrails, and bones. The most of the fat had been removed by the steaming process used in preparation of the guano. General conclusions concerning fish as food for domestic animals. 325. On the whole, then, these experiments bear unanimous and convincing testimony in favor of the easy digestibility and high nutritive value of animal foods in general and of fish guano in particular when fed to sheep and swine. How far they could be made profitable for other herbivorous animals than sheep has not yet been tested. In the nature of the case there is no reason why they should not be as nutritious for neat cattle as for sheep. As Voit has justly observed, all mammals are at one period of their lives, when living upon milk, carnivorous. Late investigations have shown very clearly that even plants are positively nourished by animal foods. The very interesting experiments of Mr. Francis Darwin with the round-leaved sundew demonstrate conclusively that plants may thrive on a meat diet. In short, we have every reason, from practical experience, from actual experiment, and from what we know of the nature of the case, to believe that the immense amount of animal waste produced in this country from our slaughter-houses, and especially from our fisheries, can be utilized with the greatest ease and profit to supply the most pressing need of a most important part of our agriculture, nitrogenous food for stock. We have seen that farmers in New England and in Europe have found fish good for their stock, that occasionally one like Mr. Wilder has hit upon a rational way of using it to piece out and improve the poorer products of their farms, and that patient research has explained why it is useful and how it may be made more so. This is one of the countless cases where practical men have worked their way in the dark by the tortuous path of experience to the same results to which scientific investigation leads. But here as ever the results when found need the light of science to explain the facts and make it possible to apply them most profitably. 53. SUMMARY. Fish as manure. 326. The following is a brief recapitulation of the main points urged in this article: 1. The value of fish as manure is due mainly to its nitrogen and phosphoric acid. 2. Taking into account composition, quality, and price, fish manures furnish these ingredients more cheaply than any other class of fertilizers in the market except Peruvian guanos. 3. The crops most benefited by fish manures are those which need considerable nitrogen and phosphoric acid, but are not especially helped by mineral manures alone. Such are grass, grain, and corn. The same is generally true of potatoes and garden vegetables, and sometimes of roots. Leguminous crops, like clover, beans, and pease, are more bene. fited by mineral manures, and get little good from the nitrogen of the fish. 4. Fish manures are quick and stimulating in their action. Their force is soon spent and they often leave the soil in worse condition than before they were applied. This is, however, no argument against their value. The remedy for such cases is to apply other materials, as ashes, lime, potash salts, dung, muck, etc., with them. 5. The proper soils for fish manures are those which are deficient in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, and in which the stimulating effect of the decomposition of fish may render other materials available for plant food. Soils that have been treated repeatedly with fish, guano, phosphates, and bone are often overstocked with these ingredients and deficient in potash. Many soils are originally poor in potash. To apply fish on such soils and omit the lacking elements is to lose both fertilizer and crop. The deficiencies of a given soil are best told by actual trial, with different manures and crops. 6. The general usefulness of fish manures will be increased by adding to them phosphoric acid, in the form of bone or superphosphates, and potash in German potash salts. Fine steamed bone, that can be bought for $32 to $45 per ton, or "plain" superphosphates, made from South Carolina or Canada phosphates, and sold at $30 to $32 per ton, are economical sources of phosphoric acid. The "50 per cent. muriate," sold at about $40 per ton, is one of the cheapest grades of potash salts. Of the "ammoniated" superphosphates, a very few of the best brands are sold at cheaper rates than it would cost the farmer to make them. But instead of buying medium and inferior articles, farmers will do better to buy the materials and mix them at home. 7. The best form of fish manures is the dry-ground fish guano freed from oil. The water and oil add weight and bulk without increasing value. The coarse fish-scrap cannot be thoroughly spread, is not easily diffused by the water in the soil, is reached by few roots, and becomes slowly available to the roots that find it. But the fine dry fish is easily spread, is diffused by rain, is thus made accessible to a large number of roots, and can be absorbed by them when they reach it. 8. The ingredients of fish may be made more available for plant-food and their value for manure increased by a. Fermentation with urine. b. Composting with muck, earth, ashes, lime, bone, potash salts, and farm refuse of all sorts. c. Feeding to stock, thus putting it through a process similar to that by which Peruvian guano has been formed. In this way it can be used to enrich the manure made on the farm, and thus made one of the best aids to successful farming. Fish as food for stock. 9. The chief defect of our fodder materials as a whole is their lack of nitrogen. From poor manuring our crops are not only small in quantity, but poor in quality. They lack nitrogen. This is true of our forage crops in general, and of poor hay, straw, and corn-stalks in particular. What our farming most wants, to make stock-feeding profitable, manure plenty and rich, and crops large and nutritious, is nitrogen. 10. One of the cheapest, most useful, and best rms in which this can be furnished is in fish products. These have been found very profitable for feeding in Europe. Our fish guanos are better than the European for this purpose, because they have more flesh and less bone. The loss to our agriculture from waste of fish.—The evil. 11. Millions of pounds of fish not fit for human food are allowed every year to escape from nets into the sea, which, if saved and rightly uti lized, would be worth untold sums for fertilizers and feeding materials. 12. Of the fish saved and used for fertilizers, a large portion is illprepared. 13. A large part of that which is well made is exported to Europe, where its value is better understood, and its use is more rational and profitable. 14. A great deal of the fish manure that gets into farmers' hands, be it well or ill prepared, is wasted by wrong application, and by use where it does not fit the needs of crop and soil. 15. A still greater loss comes from the neglect to use fish as food for domestic animals. 16. The total loss to our agriculture from all these sources is not capable of accurate computation, but amounts certainly to hundreds of thousands, and doubtless millions of dollars annually. The remedy. 17. As the main source of the evil is ignorance, the chief reliance for cure must be in better understanding of the facts and the ways to im prove. The re 18. The needed knowledge can be gained from two sources. sults of European experience and experimenting will be one; experiments and investigations of our own products in our own laboratories, fields, and stables, another. The knowledge once obtained and set forth in detailed reports will, in the natural course of things, be condensed and diffused through the agricultural press, and applied by manufacturers and farmers, to the great benefit of all. 19. The compilation of results of foreign work can be made by refer ence to the numerous German, French, and English scientific and agricultural journals through which the original memoirs are scattered. 20. The investigations would be properly divided into those on fish. as manure and those on fish as food for animals. 21. The experiments on fish as manures would probably be made1. In the laboratory, and consist of: a, analyses of fish products; b, investigations on their changes in composition and action in the soil. 2. In the field, and consist of rationally planned and carefully conducted trials with different fertilizing materials, including fish manures, on different soils and with different crops, in order to obtain specific answers to specific questions whose solution is important. 22. The experiments on fish as food for stock should be made 1. On farms, by feeding out fish with ordinary foods in simple ways, as was done by Professor Farrington at the Maine State College. 2. In stables fitted up for trials with simultaneous laboratory work, on the plan of the European experiments, above described. The object of these trials would be to determine the digestibility and nutritive effect of the materials employed. The urgent need of popular instruction. 327. Here is a case where men with the best intentions in the world, fishermen, manufacturers, and farmers, are suffering the waste of thousands, and even millions of dollars' worth of material, bitterly needed to supply the wants of worn-out soils and make bread and meat for hungry men. The first step toward stopping this must be the getting of information. In Europe, governments, agricultural schools, societies, and experiment stations would, in fact do, grapple the questions, and with the best talent, aided by the best appliances that ingenuity, enthusiasm, and money can procure, work at them until they are solved. But here, we shall not get the needed knowledge until some educational institution, experiment station, or other agency, takes hold of the work with a will and put it through. APPENDIX A. CIRCULAR RELATING TO "STATISTICS OF THE MENHADEN FISHERY." OFFICE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES, Washington, D. C. Among the most important of the marine fishes of the coast of the United States is the species known as the Mossbunker about Long Island and New Jersey; bony-fish and menhaden on the south coast of New England; and pogy (not porgy) on the eastern coast; elsewhere as the bug fish, yellow-tail, &c., and by naturalists as Brevoortia menhaden. Generally considered unfit for food, it is principally captured for bait or for its oil, and for the scrap or refuse left after the oil is squeezed out by means of the hydraulic press. It is considered very desirable to obtain as full an account as possi ble of the habits, migrations, &c., of this fish, as well as complete statistics of its capture and uses. I therefore beg leave to call attention to the following queries, and to request answers to as many as practicable. It is not necessary to repeat the queries, a reference to the num ber affixed to the question being sufficient. Replies should be made on foolscap paper, if equally convenient, and written on one side only of the page. The information thus obtained will be embodied in a report to Congress, in which full credit will be given to all contributors. SPENCER F. BAIRD, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, December 20, 1873. A.-NAME. Commissioner. 1. By what name is this species known in your vicinity? B.-ABUNDANCE. 2. How does this fish compare in abundance with others found in your vicinity? 3. Has it diminished or increased in numbers within the last ten years? 4. What was the number of barrels taken in 1873 by any or all estab lishments in your vicinity-naming them, if possible? Give the same facts for any other year. 5. Does the extensive capture affect their abundance? C.-MIGRATION AND MOVEMENTS. 6. When are the fish first seen or known to come near the coast, and when does the main body arrive; are the first the largest; are there more schools or runs than one coming in, and at what intervals? |