The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1877-12-28
Agricultural Department.
CONDUCTED BY ALBERT CHAPMAN.
Experiments with Fertilizers.

Inc following criticisms by our old
friend, G. Horace Hubbard, on the
Westminster experiments, are well
worthy of careful consideration. We
shall publish next week another com
munication from the same writer. I'm
which he gives the results of some ex-
perimcnts with the Stockbridgs fertil-
lizers tried by himself. We will re-
serve our comments till our readers
have seen the second article.
Editor Of Tie Record and Farmer: |
have read with interest the report in the
Record Of 22d ult., of experiments with
fertilizers by members of Maple Grove
Grange, of Westminster West, and vour
comments thereon, in issue of goth.
The subject has special interest for
every farnor who desires to increase
the produce of his fields beyond the
capacity of the soil and the yearly ac-
cumnlation of barn-yard manure, and
TINS list embraces, or should, nearly all
OF us; Tor 1t is too true that our farms
do not give us the returns they ought.
The report is exceedingly well writ
ten, ana the returns from individual far
iners appear to be very fair Indeed. |
am certain from personal acquaintance
with most of them, that they would
make no other than true and fair re-
port. And yet, il appears to Inc that
the results, rs stated, do not warrant so
sweeping and conclusive an adverse
Judgment as seems TO have been arriv-
ed at. Ii is well known that | am no
partisan or advocate of the ''Stockbridge
feriilizers,' as prepared by the Bow
kers, or OF any other brand of CONNER
clal fertilizers, but am like these farmers
OF the West parish, seeking for truth.
In testing fertilizers, as in other farm
experiments, great care is necessary
that every condition or influence affect
ing the experiment be taken into ac-
count. Ii is important also to com
pare the results with the various fertil-
lzers used, with the crop produced by
the natural fertility of the soil without
fertilizers. II should be sufficiently OBJ
vious that fertilizers so highly concen-
tratcd and active as chemicals ought to
be applied according to directions" In
The pamphlet which the Bowkers sent
to me, and on the cards on the bags of
Stockbridgc manure for corn, it was
stated Ill print, in the plaincst manner,
that the chemicals must be sowcd broad
cast and narrowed in, and under no cir
cumstances applied in the hill. Yet it
VIII be noticed that several of the far
mers state that they applied the chemi-
Gals Tin the hill" Now it may be claim
ed That 1t really makes little difference,
ana That the parties took pains to kick
u little dirt over it, ETC., but don't I'M
derstand 1t so. The late Dea. Israel M.
Lewis of this town was known to plow
ms field and plant corn without spread
ing the manure heaps. "Why," said
he,, "its time twas planted. Ii don't
make much odds. The dung is all on
the landT' That was as fair test of
barn-yard manure as it is to put fiery
chemical manure in the hill to burn up
inc roots. Let us now, if you please,
take a moment to review these several
reports.
MI Campbell reports an increase of
81 bushels of potatoes on an acre for Sl2
worth of "Stockbridge' --not bad re-
suit for this season. The extra 80 bush
els cost l5cts. per BUSH, and are worth
3octs., or 1923 profit. His corn was
failure. No barn-yard manure was APP
Piled there; and it can only be coniec-
tured what result that would have given.
lie does not say how his application
was made, but in fact, it was broadcast.
Mr.. Wllder's ten bushels shelled corn
on an eighth of an acre was fair re-
suit for bag of Stockbridge. We
have no means of knowing what the
land would 10 of itself. He could see
no special benefit on potatoes" That
would be called rather ''scattering'
statement of an experiment.
Mr. Miller put his Stocl;bridgc in the
hill. and ii did harm.
Mr.. Ranney, ditto.
Mr.. Cuttings crop of beets and
turnips was small, to be sure. Still they
ought to be worth II l-2 cts per bushel
above the cost of labor and land.
Mr.. Gorhams report is model one,
except that he omits TO give the length
of rows in plot No. / and does not state
The cost of his fertilizers. throw Out
the "Stockbridgc" Oh account of his
manner ofapplcation, for, unlike the
deacon above referred to, think it very
material. Assuming that Goes super
phosphate cost $40 per acre, its increase
of the product(3 - bushels, worth g.
W with the heavier fodder and ten
days gain in time, would hardly pay.
except in short season, when with
late variety of corn it might be of great
value. But the hen manure and plas-
Ter, costing scarcely anything but a
little labor, appears to be worth the
most.
In Mr.. Dinsmorc's case we must
throw out the Stockbridge, because it is
not stated whether he disregarded the
directions, AS appears to be the fashion
among the farmers of Maple Grove
Grange. His $3.50 worth of "phos-
phate" on the second plot gave SS.i4
worth of corn Cat % cts per bush. above
the natural yield. His fourth plot is
somewhat indefinitely stated.
Now, in the experiments of these
seven men am unable to discover
single definite result that will bear to
be quoted against the Stockbridge man
ures, except the field of Mr.. Campbell.
Ana would not be willing to condemn
it on that enc trial, in the face of so
many elsewhere who report satisfactory
results. Mr.. Dinsmore made phos-
phate, brand not stated, pay well.
IL requires a slight effort to the i'm
agination to discover where Mr.. Cor
ham got his money back, unless it was
The cost of plaster
concur with your correspondent that
The use of bran as food for stock is n
very cfiectual way to buy phosphoric
acid. Linseed meal will give nitrogen,
and ,md ward wood ashes supply potash.
These are always reliable.
This yarn is spun so long thatI give
VIII You in another article an account of
some experiments of mine with Stock
bridge manures.
Yours truly,
T.. HORACE IIUBRARD.
&nrinnHal1 W. noo