... 1 ,<
VOL. XXIV.
INDIANAPOLIS, IND., JULY 27,1889.
NO. 30
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.
Qualities and Adaptation to the Various
Crops.
Value and Uses—Keeping Up Fertility
—■Method of Using.
Discussion of the Various Topics by the
Director and Professors of the Indiana Experiment Station.
Some Facts Concerning Commercial Fertilizers.
Kditors Indiana Farmer:
The use of the so-called commercial fertilizers results from absolute and positive
necessity. In Europe and the Eastern
States of America, the production of farm
crops is to day largely the result of the use
of these artificial plant foods. Their use
is constantly on the increase in Indiana;
their annual cost to the farmers of the
State is already hundreds of thousands of
dollars and there is no reason why this
yearly investment will ever be less, but
every reason to believe that the outlay for
these manufactured products is to constantly increase here as it has elsewhere
till it becomes, perhaps, next to labor, the
greatest item of expense in the production
of Indiana staple products.
TH3 -UB-heF-PEBTILIZERS.
Economy in the use of these artificial
fertilizers, therefore, becomes of paramount importance in the conduction of
food production and the endless chain of
agricultural operations and their dependent industries.
The acknowledged principles underlying the use of these materials are therefore of necessity matters of the greatest
practical significance, questions of direct
cash value, on the rational application of
which theimmediateprofit or loss of farm
enterpriss must depend.
Indeed much of the frequent complaint
made against these fertilizers results directly from the transgression on the part
of the farmer of some of the very fundamental principles governing their rational
action. And it la a positive fact that many
thousands of dollars are yearly wasted by
the farmers of Indiana through an irrational use of fertilizing materials.
THE PBIMARY CAUSE
for the use of an artificial fertilizer lies in
the necessity of supplying plant food in
excess of the available natural farm supply. O ther individnal local or exceptional
reasons sometimes exist but the supply of
available plant food remains the desideratum in the use of these substances. True
the physical action of manurial substances
on the soil may not infrequently be of
great importance; their action in every
case, however, is secondary or even slight
as compared with the question of availability of direct plant food.
Physical conditions being equal, therefore, that Is the most valuable fertilizer
■which, in a given bulk, famishes the crop
with the most actual nutriment, be the
form a green crop plowed under, stable
manure or an artificially prepared material. The question hence becomes pertinent:
WHAT IS PLANT FOOD?
and how can the relative values of diffar-
ent fertilizers be pre determined without
actual crop trial? Any material ia plant
food, which, when placed in oontaot with
the plant organs of assimilation, the roots
in thesoil, enters into the organization of
the plant for the formation of new mater
terial or growth. There are a dozen substances thus entering into the composition of all farm crops, but of them all
countless experiments with every possible variety of soil and every known farm
crop for half a century have conclusively
proved that under normal conditions and
on average soils only three of them all are
of any1 commercial value as plant nutriments, simply because all oommon soils
contain more than a sufficiency of the
other materials to supply all possible crop
requirements for ages of constant cropping yet to come. Exhaustion of these
ingredients being a practicable impossibility since they are the mineral substances of which the soil consists and
while soils endure these ingredients must
remain in sufficient quantities to furnish
endless supplies * by gradual disintegration. The supply by disintegration keeping pace with the demands of the successive crops for the small quantities of these
mineral substances required.
The three substances remaining to be
furnished by artificial means are
NITROGEN, POTASH AND PHOSPHORIC ACID.
The commercial value of any fertilizer is
necessarily proportional to the quantities
of these three ingredients offered in available form. These three materials have an
actual acknowledged market value, as
fixed as the value of any other commodity, corn, beef, pig iron or cotton goods.
Ko farmer can, as a rule, afford to pay for
any artificial manurial substance except
on the basis of the quantity of nitrogen,
potash and phosphoric acid contained.
The market value of these articles is
known, the knowledge ls at his disposal,
as other market values are. All fertilizers
Bold within the State are analyzed by the
State chemist and their content in these
elements of plant food made known. Or
if any farmer desires, the Indiana Experiment Station will, at any time, make an
alyBes for any farmer of the State, and at
his request notify him of the commercial
value of any fertilizer offered him for
sale. If with these safe-guards the farmer
is Imposed upon by the purchase of worthless fertilizers, he alone is to blame.
EBB0B8 HADE IN THEIR TJSE.
The most frequent error made by farmers in the nse of artificial fertilizers
arises through their common belief in the
manurial value of everything advertised
with a long chemical analysis. Nothing
could be more erroneous. Whatever a
fertilizer may contain its sole and only
reliable and positive claim to value lies
its content of the three mentioned essentials. Such constituents as oxide of iron,
silicate of lime, allnmina and sulphur,
frequently found in fertilizers and often
claimed by mannfaoturars as possessing
great value, are worse than useless; they
furnish the plant with nothing not obtainable in exhaustless quantities from
every soil in the S.ate, but the farmer
who buys their substances pays freight
on utterly valueless material.'
ACTUAL VALUE.
In determining for himself the actual
value to him of suoh fertilizers he must
bear this fact in mind and make allowance therefor in estimating the net value
of the actual plant food perhaps necessarily present with the useless stuff. How
important an item this is may be illustrated by a fertilizer now on s_Ue within
our State at from $10 to $12 per ton containing, however, but from f 1 to $3 value
in aotual plant food.
Another error not infrequent is the
supposition that the value of a fertilizer is
proportioned to the odor emitted. In reality that fertilizer Is best devoid of smell.
Odor shows loss of volatile matter passing
into the air, ammonia containing nitrogen
being the chief material thus lost. A perfectly compounded artificial fertilizer is so
proportioned as to avoid this loss and attendant smell.
In conclusion, a word on "lasting manure" concerning which practice is very
commonly at fault.
RAW  MATERIALS.
Fertilizers should be primarily regarded
simply as raw material to be converted
into marketable products or crops. A
cotton manufacturer who buys a ton of
raw cotton does not desire the same to
last well. He aims to convert it'into the
largest number of yards of goods in the
shortest possible time, sell the product
and receive the return from his investment at the earliest possible moment.
The farmer should thus regard his ton
of fertilizer. Convert it into crops as fast
as possible and thus make his cash and
labor investment return a dividend as
soon as possible.
If a ton of fertilizer contains the material
for SO bushels of wheat why ask that the
fertilizer be "lasting" and the ultimate
return be distributed on five years time
when one might be found to yield the
same ultimate return in one year,a saving
of four years' Interest, labor and chances
of weather.
ECONOMY IN THE   USE
of fertilizers does not therefore demand
that the results of their use extend over a
series of years, but that the plant food furnished be converted into crops as rapidly
as possible and the cash investment returned to the pocket ag Un at the earliest
practicable day.
In this connection the former supposition that available plant food must be
soluble has become discarded since it Is
now recognized that plants possess to a
considerable degree the power of dissolving apparently insoluble-material coming
in contact with their roots. This property being especially active as exerted
against phosphates, one of which, phosphate of lime, is the most valuable constituent of bones; a fact explaining the
well recognized action of raw bone on
wheat and grass.
The facts thus enumerated are facts,
not theories. They are demonstrable
and j .in safe rules for practice. Exceptions do and must exist, as for instance
the occasional utility of land plaster and
lime. Exceptions, however, refer to the
abnormal, not to the normal. Kales to
be adopted as guides in practice must be
founded on average natural condi. on.
Aa snch these facts must apply to the
vast majority of the farms of Indiana.
H. E. Stockbridge.
Purdue "University, Lafayette.
Eecuperative Agriculture,
Editors IndlanaFarmer:
What is it? Such a system of farming
as will secure good crops year after year
(barring unfavorable seasons) and not
wear out the soil. Is suoh a system practicable? Yes, certainly; hundreds ot Indiana farmers are demonstrating that it is
both practicable and profitable to increase
the yield of crops, and at the same time,
improve the productive power of the soil.
Is it to be regretted however, that thousands of farmeis have not so learned this
lesson as to practically apply it in their
farming operations. In the hope of helping this latter class, I wish to state a few
truths, trite enough indeed, but often unheeded.
SOIL FEBTILITY NOT INEXHAUSTIBLE.
The constant cropping of even the richest soils, without renewal of fertility, will
result in decreased and unprofitable
yields. The reason of this is the loss of
soil fertility due (1) to the removal of the
crops and (2) to drainage (chiefly surface)
when no crop is on the soil. Such a system of farming has been followed in a
small way, for experimental purposes, on
the Station farm since 1880. The yields
have already been greatly rednced—in
some cases not one-fourth of a fall crop
under improved methods of agriculture.
CLOVER   AND   CBOP ROTATION BUT A PAB-
TIAL REMEDY.
Many have the erroneous idea that
olover will permanently renew the soil
and secure good   crops.   Othen believe
that a judicious rotation of crops will secure the desired-renewal ot the soil.
Both are beneficial, but not alone sufficient. Both conserve soil fertility and secure desirable conditions for the succeeding crops, but they can not make good
any losses of mineral plant food—losses
which are inevitable and considerable
even under improved methods of farming. Three different rotations—all good,
and involving the use of clover with timothy—two sevenths to two fifths of the
time—have been nnder experiment at the
Station for nearly 10 years. No manure
has been nsed in this experiment and the
grass crops have been cut and removed.
The yields have been 25 to 50 per cent
better than on a similar soil subject to
constant grain growing, thus showing the
desirability of grass in a system of cropping. Notwithstanding this, the yields
have been very considerably less than
where a moderate dressing of manure
was applied. The reason for the di fference
is manifest. The mannre, in addition to
other good offices, restored the plant food
which had been removed by the crops.
The lesson is plain. Extend the area in
grass ond clover; adopt a succession of
crops that will keep the land constantly
covered with active, growing vegetation
during the growing season, and "pay
back" to the soil in the form of manure
or fertilizer, the plant focd removed in
the harvested crop. W. C. Latta.
Purdue University, Ltfayette.
Potash in Fertilizers,
BY DB. V. M. METCALFE.
Many years ago when I commenced experimenting with soils and Crops, I discovered that common wood ashes almost
invariably gave good results—yet some
exceptions were found. To find cut why
this was so has led to many
VALUABLE INVESTIGATIONS.
For many years the scientific world
took the position that on all clay soils
potash was not needed, as feldspar rock
was the base of this soil, and the analysis
of the rocks showed that it must be abundant in the Boil, therefore it did not need
It. But repeated tests by the agricultural
stations, and by the farmers, showed that
the theory was wrong. Some ten years
ago I was invited to make an address before a farmers' club in Indiana. I then
advised farmers to save* all their ashes
and to bay fertilizers that were rich in
patash. The fertillzar manufacturers
and many scientific gentlemen opposed
me. I quote from the recent builetia of
Prof. H. A. Huston, Dlreotor Experiment
Station of Idniana, to show how the manufacturers have changed:
"It is estimated that there were 10,000
tons of fertilizers sold in Indiana in 1888.
Nearly half of this amount was ground
bone. It is interesting to note that more
potash Is contained in the goods than
formerly, la 1884 to 1886, 32 per cent of
the Bamples contained potash; in 1888, 65
per cent contained potash. S ill the total
amount of potash furnished in commercial fertilizers during 1888 was only 72
tons, or only about one five hundredth
of that removed in crops."
GROUND BONE
has always been conceded to be good for
any crop, but usually it Is too Blow of
action, and having no potash in it, it often
fails to give good results. I remember a
very interesting experiment in northern
Kentucky several years ago whioh fully
illustrates the
VALUE OF POTASH.
An Intelligent farmer bought several tons
of pure bone and sowed it on his wheat
ground in the faU at the rate of 200 pounds
to the acre. The result was an increase of
three bnshels to the acre—not enough to
pay him for his trouble, much less for the
fertilizars.   He was greatly disappointed