The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1883-05-25
Phosphates - Appetizers.


cussing the other day the benefits of
pHOsphates. One said he sowed hun
dred pounds to the acre, and he had
''good wheat" Another had put phos-
phate in the hill with his corn, and he
had first-rate corn. 1t grew right
along" Another said: "a I like phos-
phate; it is such an easy way to manure
the land" The last man put in the
clincher: al do not know. that it is so
much of manure, but it is a good ap-
petizer." So is whisky. do not believe
in paving forty or fifty dollars per ton
for "appetizers" for land any more than
[ do in attempting to live on stimu-
lants. There is enough virtue in most
phosphates to stimulate q crop at first,
and cause it to start with a more rapid
growth. In the same way good drink
Of stimulant will give person a brave
start, but the trouble is the effect is not
sufficiently lasting-it does not hold
out In many cases this stimulated
growth is damage. for, when the cause
IS exhausted the plant is weakened and
checked in its growth, or else it has
formed an unnatural stem or stalk which
The soil is not able to supply while II
there had not been this excess of stalk
Dr. stem there would have been no check,
but an ability on the part of the soil to
have met all the requirements of the
plant.
Before commercial manures were
puffed up to the extent they are now,
had notion could make corn grow on
The same -stimulation-and /
prepared acompound, not wisely mixed,
perhaps, but about as sensible as many
Of the modern doses which farmers
swallow so easily, and put this mixture
INTO the hill. put earth over it and then
planted my. corn 1t came up so green
and rank as to attract the notice of
persons passing on the road, and the
stalks were grand. but never had so
lew ears in proportion, My compound
consisted of air-slaked lime, plaster
(sulphate of lime) and wood ashes.
Now, chemist can tell me just what
was lacking, suppose, and if / had put
hat in, there would have been pro-
portionate crop of ears. / should like
20 have him. Now will tell him some
hing. If had kept my compound out
Of the hill, and had a natural growth of
stalks such as the laSd would have pro-
iuced, the crop would not have had the
setback it did, and there would have
been a proportionate crop of ears. My
point is that stimulating crop is an
injury, unless it can be kept up until it
natures. As farmers usually use COM
nercial manures, they do little if any
hing more than push the crop at the
start, and often this extra growth is an
injury. Watched field of buckwheat
asst summer with great deal of inter-
est, where the seed had been drilled in
With some kind of phosphate, and
strip left across the lot without any of
t. The phosphated part came up first.
and at poisoning time was several
inches taller than the portion where no
phosphate was used. The straw-mark
;his-was a great deal coarser, and the
leaves broader, and the cluster of bios
SONS more scattered or wider apart.
The owner said he did not think there
was any better yield, and do not think
here was as good. The phosphated
part grew faster. blossomed first, and
was few days ripper, although it was
all cut at the same time.
On soil so poor in organic matter
(the basis of vegetable growth) that il
would not produce crop, chemical
fertilizers no doubt could be added to
cause crop to grow. They would
also help to extract plant food from the
soil; but would crop grown at such an
expense pay? 1 do not like such a
foundation to build upon. As a last
resort it might do. / know there is .
great deal of wisdom spread on here
oy professors and manufacturers of
chemical compounds. To most of US
t is dust in our eyes, so far as cOmpre-
bending their talk; but they do succeed
IN selling a world of stuff, which in my
humble opinion does very little good.
Not one of the farmers whose remarks
quoted at the beginning of this article
knows that he was benefited in the
east by his expenditure for phosphates.
The probabilities are that they threw
away their money, and thousands of
others are doing the same thing every
year. Does it never occur to our
farmers that possibly they may be hum
bugged little? Only few years ago
there were few makers of commercial
stimulants. or, as the farmers call
them, '.phosphates." Now their name
is legion, and every third farmer is an
agent. Have farmers and philosophers
always been fools, or have there been
new discoveries in the science of growth
which can only be developed in the
laboratory of some phOsphate-com-
pounding establishment?
1t would be more profitable for
farmers when they meet to discuss how
they can increase the bulk and quality
of barnyard manure, and turn theiI
grain, straw and hay to the best &C.
count to increase growth on the farm.
to exhort each other to better culture.
which will pay more in the end than by
buying fertilizers 1 do not like 10 see
this drifting away from the old COM
nonsense and substantial landmarks
and practices, which have broughi
prosperity to so many homes. to the
uncertain. shiftless, and costly way:
where so much is paid out and so little
returned. Would it not be a wiser
policy for farmers to expend the money
they pay for chemical fertilizers in the
purchase Of oil meal and bran to feed
to their COWS, and to make more beef.
mutton and manuel / consider oh
meal at S28 per ton and buckwheat
bran at Sl8 per ton to be better in
yestment than paying $40 or S45 per
tar, for a ,aII NOR cant Of uitrrrop