Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1883-07-13
Agricultural,


The Montpelier Waterman has an able ar
ticle nearly two columns in length in reply to
something said incidentally in this depart.
ment of TuE PHOENIX concerning special fer
tilizors, in reply to an editorial in the Watch
man on the license fec Of $50 for each brand.
The Waterman shows conclusvely by quota
lions from Prof S. w. johnson, that he, at
least, believes the fertilizers now manufactur-
cd and sold as specially adapted, one TO
corn, one to potatoes, and another to tobacco,
etc, are humbugs as far as the special adap-
tation to the particular crop is concerned
but we do not now understand him to main
tain that special fertilizers are necessarily q
humbug, but only that neither science nor
practice has yet reached such a stage of intel.
ligence as to be able TO compound them sue
cessfully The so-called special fertilizers, he
says, may or may not be adapted to the crop
whose name they bear, in general, or in any
particular case The language which we
used was, IF it is meant that special fertile.
ers are necessarily a humbug, we are sure he
Gag. Ed. Watchman) would find no support
for such a view in the teachings of Prof.
Johnson, whom he quotes" and we hardly
think that Prof johnson would say, with the
qualification that wo have italicised that they
were.
In reply to the main point of our COM
monts on the article from the Watchman-
which was that the special fertilizers objected
to were not kept out of the state by tho H.
cense fee as assumed by that paper-the ag.
ricultural editor says:
at was not we, but several state papers
(and we are much mistaken if The PHOENIX
was not one of them) who assumed that the
$50 tax on each brand of fertilizers acted in a
prohibitory manner upon tho formula fortil-
izers. We knew nothing of the facts and
our assumption was only that the complaining
papers did know. The PHOENIX says il is
mistake. So much the worse"
THE PHOENIX never assumed that the $50
tax on each brand acted in prohibitory
manner on the formula fertilizers"
The Waterman asks (Which company is
it that manufactures the brands which be (we)
objects to and assumes are kept out of the
state by the license fec? We referred to no
particular company The report of the Con
nocticut station refers to some half a dozen
firms making special fertilizers, and gives an
alyses of their products"
We referred TO the company that makes
specially of the special fertilizer business
probably selling more fertilizers, SO named,
in New England, than all others. But out of
the ten companies licensed in this state, this
is not the only one making special fertilizers.
There are at least two other companies H.
censed in Vermont that advertise fertilizers
for special crops. One of these is the BuiIa-
to potato fertilizer manufactured by L. L.
Croker 1t contains according to an analy-
sis lately reported from the Connecticut sta.
ton nitrogen of organic matter, 2. solu.
BILE phosphoric acid, 674 insoluble phos
phoric acid, 2.OS; reverted, II; potash, 4.74;
chlorine, 1872; cost, $40 per ton; value,
$3.50. We give the cost as reported from
the station, though we believe it has been
sold here this season by the hundred for less.