Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1874-12-24
agricultural department.
(Orlginal.1
FERTILIZERS.

as an agricultural axiom. The question may
be asked, "What is manure?" The original
meaning of the word was hand work. To
manure land originally meant to work, or till
land with the hand. Etymologically, the
word manure is an abridged form of the
French word maneuvrer. This is derived
from the Latin words manus, hand, and
opus, work. Hence the proper meaning of
the word manure is hand work. This sense,
however, it has long ago lost. In its present
sense, the word manure means any substance,
either animal or vegetable, which, being ap-
piled to the soil increases its fertility. Manure
is fertilizer, but fertilizer is not necessarily
a manure. The word fertilizer is used in a
technical sense, to denote some chemical pre-
paration which stimulates the productive prop
critics of the soil to which it is applied. 1t is
not designed so much to add strength to the
soil, as to call into action the latent strength
which is in it.
Now the question may, with propriety, be
asked, "Do fertilizers pay?' To farmers,
generally, this is practical question. Re-
member, the question is not asked, "Does ma
nuring pay" Adding rich soil to poor soil is
the proper way to make poor land rich. Rich
soil may be added to poor soil in a variety of
ways, and will always be found profitable ;
but it is not so clear that the use of chemical
ly prepared fertilizers is profitable. In the
first place, the market priceat which they are
all held, is enormously high. 1t will, on an
average, cost about six dollars per acre to
manure a crop with any of the commercial
fertilizers. This may be regarded as so much
rent. Now, can any man, in this country,
make much clear money on land for which he
has to pay six dollars per acre, rent? The
distribution of the fertilizer will cost some
thing, and, in most instances, the transporta-
tion from the nearest depot to the farm will
cost something, so that when all the expenses
connected with its use are summed up, the
cost will foot up not much less than eight
dollars per acre. Let every practical farmer
think of this feature of the subject
Again, are these commercial fertilizers re-
Operative or exhaustive in their nature :?
Some think they add permanent strength to
the soil, and others think that the reverse is
true. Experiments can only satisfactorily
settle this point; but the dictates of common
sense declare against the recuperative proper
ties of commercial fertilizers. Every man
knows that if we are constantly taking out of
the soil and returning nothing to it, the soil
will ultimately become poor. We have not
the least hesitation in saying that we believe
that ton of thoroughly rotten pine leaves
will add more permanent strength to the soil
than the same quantity of the best commercial
fertilizers in the world. The fertilizer acts on
the soil as an Intoxicating beverage acts on
the mind. 1t will make neither flesh, blood
nor bone; it simply stimulates. The rotten
pine leaves, or any homemade vegetable COM
post, acts on the soil as hearty meal of nu-
tritious food acts on the animal. 1t furnishes
the material out of which is made flesh and
blood and bones. In one word, it furnishes
the material out of which the repairs Of the
system can keep up the body, and also fur.
nishes the strength to do their work properly
and promptly. Chemical fertilizers have their
use, but unless they are made to subserve the
purpose for which they are admirably adapted,
they will, in the end, do more harm than good.
They are stimulants and nothing more, and
should never be used only as such. After a
heavy crop of grass and weeds has been
turned under, chemical fertilizer may be
used with great advantage. The latent ener-
gies of this vegetable matter are called out by
such stimulant, but to apply a chemical
fertilizer year after year, to soil destitute of
vegetable matter would be of doubtful pro-
priety.
Perhaps it would be safe to say, that there
is now more cotton made to the acre by the
use of these fertilizers than was when they
were not used; but is there more clear money
made out of the cotton? The facts in the
case seem to warrant the conclusion that there
is not. On those plantations on which chem
ical fertilizers are extensively used, it will take
on an average about one third of the gross
sales of the cotton crop, at the present price of
cotton, to pay for the fertilizers. The cost of
labor to make the crop will be about two
ffths of the whole. This would leave the
land owner four-6fteenths of his crop to meet
all the expenses of living, and pay an enor-
nous tax besides. The present crop of cotton
will not average more than one hundred and
fifty pounds of lint cotton to the acre. This,
sold at present prices, would bring about tven-
ty dollars. One.third off for fertilizers and
two-6fths for labor would leave less than five
dollars and half per acre. 1t will not do to
make an estimate of the other expenses. 1t
would reveal the fact that many who had
some money in their hands when they sold
their cotton, now have none in their pockets.
Chemically prepared fertilizers should be
applied to the soil in accordance with the
same principle that physicians administer
whisky or brandy to their patients. Give a
we'll man whisky or brandy and nothing else,
and he must die. 1t will avail nothing to say
that whisky is made out of corn or rye, and
these are when mechanically prepared, good
for food. Whisky is chemical preparation,
a powerful stimulant, but when injudiciously
used it produces great prostration. Just so
with chemically prepared fertilizers. When
iudiciously used they exert good effect upon
the soil, but when used improperly they will
kill it and break the owner of the land besides.
The object which should be constantly kept
in viewin manuring land, is making the land