Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-05-18
Chemists Fertilizer Estimates.

CnpmlStS GeTtllILeT
Our correspondent, Mr.. A. II. Ward, of
Bridgewater Massachusetts, writes al no
tice in the issue of your paper Of April 18th
you are free to say that we do not accept |
the assumption of Mr.. Ward that our agri-
cultural chemists at the experiment and
agricultural stations modify their estimates
purposely in the interests of manufacturers
| do not mean to assume that they modify
their estimates in the interest Of the manu-
facturers of fertilizers, but | maintain that
they use fictitious valuations, and call them
commercial valuations, under the plea that
it answers Just as well for the purposes Of
comparison maintain that by this method
the farmers are deceived as to the true mar
ket value Of the constituent elements of the
fertilizers they use, and this can be obviated
by stating the true value of those elements.
Then the farmers can readily Judge of the
cost of mixing them.
The article sent to the North Carolina
Farmer was printed in the April number.
! The May number has just come to hand.
You will notice that the station chemist does
not allude to my criticism. | enclose copy
of my criticism on his last article. My object
in writing these articles is to enable the
farmers to get the fertilizers, or the ma
terials from which they are made, at their
market values. They can then use them at
at profit, and the cause Of agriculture will
be advanced, and they can make money on
their farms here, with no desire to go west
and south. With fertilizers at fancy prices
they do not get more than new dollar for
an old one, and they get disheartened and
wish for virgin soil, which they can have
only with the accompaniments Of life in a
new and sparsely settled country. write
you, as you have written so ably in regard
to fertilizers, and hope you will keep the
ball rolling till the farmers generally can
compound ther own fertilizers from the
crude articles"
We are in some doubt whether our articles
on this subject really do good. We met a
fertilizer agent, an old acquaintance, in the
cars lately, and he q" at u.s. about what we
had written. Said he: Your articles are
all right from the scientific point of view
but you do not know how ignorant farmers
\ are of the principles of fertilization. If they
try to follow your directions they will blum
. der and fail, and call you humbug." Re
y membering our recent experience with the
!, friend who wrote us about his failure with
IS burnt bone, we began to think he might bt
right Talking with manufacturer on thu
same subject, he asked, "What would yol
have us do? We will sell you all the raw
' material you want at the lowest price, ant
q you will do well with it because you know
how to mix it and use it. But we canno
sell them to farmers generally, and if the.
! did buy they would not use them success
fully" "Well," said we, ALLOWING sucl
to be the case, why will you not sell mixe'
fertilizers at price that farmers can liv
by?" ave could do it if it were not nee
essary to employ agents and pay commits
sions, and wait for our pay. But farmer
will not buy unless they are drummed, AM
the best drummer makes the biggest sales
If we could sell direct to the farmers, 70
cash, we could sell $50 fertilizers for $35.
Here our readers have all sides of the ques
ton, and it seems to us that there can be n
stronger argument in favor of practice
, science-teaching in our schools. Presiden
Buckham says we cannot have that becaus
we have no qualified teachers, and are nc
likely to have them very soon. Yet he is g
I the head of an industrial college that ough
. to turn out one hundred such teachers ever
year. We try to tell him the need of som
u changes in his college to enable him to g
t these students, and he replies only by a
tempts at ridicule, and the charge that "
, have brought "a railing accusation" again
Z him, 1t is pretty discouraging, all aroun'
| Mr. Wards last article to the North Ca
= olina Farmer is a brief one, and as it max
some telling points, we subjoin it;
y Editor North Carolina Farmer In the artc
on Potash Salts" in your May number the st
tion chemist gives the analysis Of four samples
\ Kant and the commercial value OF each, whi
! averages Sl7.43 per ton. lie previously stat
that it can be purchased in Wilmington for s
per ton II that is So and no doubt he is CORE
il not that It's commercial value? There IL also
~ analysis of crude Muriate of Potash given, whi
contains 1913 per cent OF Muriate,"- fair
good article of commercial muriate, ,-"w woi
about $50 per ton" As this article Is sold in t
New York and Boston markets for about $50
ton, it appears to command fancy price in MOI
Carolina The farmers in purchasing shot
make the distinction between fancy and comm
+. cial values. As he states that "The use Of 7
ash in the South Atlantic states has grown
enormous proportions" 1t seems proper Il
those who use them should know where they
he procured at commercial instead OF fancy pric
A. II. W.
We suspect that the trouble is about
same in North Carolina as elsewhere. I
m prices quoted by Mr.. Ward are cash pric,
the prices paid to the farmers have ager
~ commissions two or three deep, and a lal
per cent for credit added, which of
doubles the price of fertilizer. Yet
have editors who tell the farmers that a p
common school education is good enou
for their sons.
San Theories.