The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1878-06-20
x The Fertilizer Controversy.
CONTINUED.

CONTINUED.
The first is made from Bone. Sui
phate of Potash. Dried Blood. The
second from Charleston Rock, Muriate
of Potash. Horn-Shavings.
Though analyzing exactly alike, Col.
OFT is perfectly correct in saying that
the former is much more valuable,
agriculturally, than the latter, and yet
our 'tarbitrary tables of valuation
give them both the same commercial
value. But. if Phosphoric acid, Pot
ash, and Ammonia can be bought at
retail in the shape of bone, Sulphate
of Potash, and Dried Blood for respec-
lively ~, s and IS cents per pound,
while the same ingredients in the
second fertilizer cost less, we give to
No. / full commercial value-doing it
no injustice-while we give to No. , a
value somewhat above its real worth.
This | admit candidly is unfortunate,
but it is the only weak point in the
present system of valuation. And L
admit further that to determine that
all the ingredients in one fertilizer, are
not obtained from the very best mate
rial would IN many cases take more
time than a chemist could command,
but. if the Anchor Brand is made
of the very best material that exists,
we give its full commercial value, and
detract nothing from it if we do ONE
times over-value another brand.
| will not take the time t. notice
every one of the points which Col. OFT
makes against the system of valuations:
to enlarge upon them would require
that | should write a volume and re-
produce arguments again which have
been repeatedly and successfully elab-
Grated, by chemists in Europe and in
III own country.
Col. OFT says in the first place,
There is one way, and only one way
in which the value of a fertilizer
is to be ascertained and that is by its
behavior in the field yea after year
If it be true that the commercial alu
of a can only be known def
nitely and its agricultural value only
determined accurately COR even APP
proXimated to- by al actual trial of
six months or six years, the farmer is
indeed to be pitied; SO also is the en-
terprising manufacturer who offers a
new brand to his customers. The
Southern FertilizerCompany manufac-
ture two brands, | believe, one for to-
bacco and one for cotton. Suppose
they wish to offer still another to the
public, say a fertilizer for grasses for
instance. Now according to the text
quoted above, how could they ask the
farmers to pay anything for this new
fertilizer, or, an honorable company
as they are, how would they dare to
recommend this brand until its value
as a fertilizer had been ~ascertained ''by
its behaviour in the field year after
YEAR," They certainly could not con
Sictnntlv COW onrfbin about II n11al-
ty or quantity of its ingredients, for they
say in one of their calculations that
they employ a chemist "tO secure
simply uniformity of product, we do
not request his opinion on the merits
of n article we produce, the field
determining that question very fully
for u.s."
/ wonder how Col. OFT would have
advised in the following case: A
prominent gentleman of BERTHE county
writes to me that there was a lot of
fertilizer slowed upon a pier; that the
water rose and covered the bags, it
then subsidized leaving the fertilizer of
course more or less damaged. | re-
piled to him, "Send a sample to a
chemist, let him ascertain its compo-
sition and report to you its commercial
value" Suppose he had applied the
Southern Fertilizer Company. What
do they say? "There is one way, and
only one way, in which the value of a
fertilizer is to be assertained and that
is by its behavior in the field" The
conscientious wner then would either
be obliged to make a guess at the price
for which he would sell it. or else let
the farmer go to work and put it on
his land n compute the value from
the crops produced by it. Would
there be more "vagaries in the
chemical analysis of this lot OF fertili-
ger than there might be in result of
the field test. influenced by the all
important. ever varying factors of
cultivation, wind rain, cold and heat
Will grant this much, that if a fer
tiliZer gives steadily year after year
beneficial results and full returns in
the field, a farmer had better buy ii
although a chemical analysis declares
it is worthless. But | maintain. and |
am upheld by the "most eminent au-
thorities," that there will not be a
discrepancy: that careful analysis and
careful experiment in the field will
both establish or overthrow the char
acter of the fertilizer. provided the field
experiment is carried out for more
than n year.
Col OFT instances a fertilizer (which
was driven out of the market because
it failed to produce good crops. An
other fortified by an array of them
analyses seldom seen" which at the
end of the season had a dozen law
suits entered against it because it fail
ed during q particular eason in the