The Dawson journal., 1883-01-25
RE atIve Value of Whole Cot
ton Seed and Cos, On-Seed Meal.

/ SOAA OCONA uACuls
As large quantities of cotton seed
are shipped to tho oil mills and the oil
extracted therefrom, and as there II
be large quantities of cotton seed meal
left, which is said to be superior fer
tilizer, it is important that farmers
should understand the relation of val
ues between the seed and the meal as
fertilizers.
This is very vital question to I've
decided in the near future, and any in-
formation you or readers may give will
be of benefit to many thrnghout the
Cotton States.
l see it stated in an agricultural pa
per that the commercial value of the
meal is $4,000 per ten, and that of the
seed is $3.50 per ton. At til Sc pr-
ces we see one ton of the former is
worth Dearly three of the latter.
Now the mills pay us $I1.00 for
seed and charge $28 % for meal de-
livered, being about Il tons of the one
for one of tie other Can we afford to
do this 2 1t is claimed that the meal
is more valuable than the whole seed
and can be used by the planter more
quickl. Is this true,
Give US your experience in this
matter, that ne may proceed safely
f. II. Nc g., Norwood, Ga, Deem
Der 1st, 1882.
Answer The valuations you quote
are not relatively correct. Taking the
figures by when values are calculated
in the official analyses of fertilizers by
the Department of Agriculture of
Georgia, whole green cotton seed are
worth about what you quote, say $l8-
90 a ton. But on the same basis of
calculation cotton seed meal is worth
only about $3400 a ton. In other
words ton of meal is not qnite equal
in value to two tons of seed. These
amounts are reached by multiplying
the number of pounds of ammonia,
phospnoric acid and potash found by
analysis in a ton of each, by the cost
per pound of the same articles in the
general market say ammonia 20 cents;
potash S cents, and phosphoric acid
II cents. 1t makes little differenc
whether figures are exactly the worth
of these substances Ct not; the relative
values is the thing sought, and the
same figures being used in calculating
both, the ratio between them is not
affected If meal and seed are worth
relatively $40 and $28. SO ton, a
farmer who sells seed at 81. 90 should
bug meal at $1,000 a ton; or if be
buys meal at $500 ton should gel
! $1,000 ton for his seed. These are
he proper figures locking at the mat
ter simply in the light of analysis But
there are modifying circumstances thai
come in and effect the relative value Of
the two The meal is easier to handle
an / more readily mixed with the soil
1t acts more promptly, also, on a grow.
ing crop. and in some aspects of the
case, quick returns from manure are tc
the farmer what quick sales are to the
merchant; they enable him to turn
over his money oftener. On the 9th
er hand the seed from its hard, woody
coat yields up portion of It's plant
food rather slowly its ammonia being
gaseous, escapes from the hills rather
promptly, but part of its phosphoric
acid and potash may remain encased in
the sull for long time. A part Of
its ammonia, potash and phOsphoric
acid is also in the substance of the hull
itself, and is not liberated till the hull
itself is fully rotted an event which
is not entirely completed for a year or
more. The liability of loss Of ammo
MIA, if the seed are killed by rotting
before they are used, and the trouble
of green seed spronting and losing in
part their manurial value, are objec-
tions to the whole seed az manure,
we'll known to farmers. True, the last
objection, and much of the first, may
be overeo ne by crushing the seed, but
every one has not the requisite machin
cry and be sides the cost OF crushing
must be deducted from value of seed
when contrasting the relative values of
whole seed and meal. As said before,
is difficult to make due allowances or
money Offsets for these advantages and
disadvantages. But the advantage is
certainly on the side of the meal, and
farmers could afford to take some less
tian the figure mentioned above when
| cnntrl sting unlnns ON tho hns;. oE nm .