The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1883-06-21
Phosphates as AppetiEers.


A little knot Of farmers were dis.
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. It grew right
| along" Another said: g I like phos-
phate; it is such an easy way ~ manure
the land. The last man put in the
clincher: 81 do not know, that it is so
much of a manure, but it is good APP.
petizer" So is whisky. / do not believe
in paying forty or fifty dollars per ton
for "appetizers'' for land any more than
] do in attempting to live on istilnu-
lants. There is enough virtue in most
phosphates to stimulate crop at first,
and cause it to start with more rapid
growth. In the same way a good drink
of stimulant will give person a brave
start. but the trouble is the effect is not
sufficiently lasting 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 il
there had not been this excess of stalk
or 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. H8 ~ fa.s
Before commercial manures were
pulled up to the extent they are now, I
had q notion could make corn grow on
the same principle Stimulation and
prepared q compound, 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
few ears in proportion, My compound
consisted of air-slaked lime, plaster
(sulphate of lime) and wood ashes.
Now, a chemist can tell me just what
was lacking, suppose, and if Ihad put
that in, there would have been a pro-
portionate crop of ears I sshould like
to have him. Now will tell him some
thing. If had kept my compound out
of the hill, and had natural growth Of
stalks such as the. land would AaYe pro-
duced, the crop would not have had the
setback it die, = and there would have
been a pTup9rtionate POT ears NY
point is that stimulating "a crop is an
injury, unless it can be kept up until it
natures AS farmers usually use COM
mercial manures, they do little if any
thing more than push the crop at the
start, and often this extra growth is an
injury. watched a.field Of buckwheat
last summer with q great deal of inter-,
est, where the seed had been drilled IN
With some kind, of, phosphate, apa.qa
strip left across the lot without anyiof
t. The phosphated part came up first,
and 81 blossoming time was several
inches taller than the portion where no
phosphate was used. iThesstraw-,mark
this WAS q great deal coarserS 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 lido not think
there 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 it
would not produce a 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? | do not like g7t.h
foundation to build upon. AS a last
resort it might do / know there is a.
great deal of wisdom spread on here
by professors and manufacturers of
chemical compounds. To most OF us
it is dust in our eyes, so far, as cosnpre-
bending their talk; but they do succeed
in selling a world of stuff, which In nv
humble opinion does very little good.
Not one of the farmers whose remarks
| quoted at the beginningof this article
knows that he was benefited in the
least 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
plugged little? Only a 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 their
grain, straw and hayt to the best ae-
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. I do. not like 10 see
this drifting away from the old COM
nonsense and substantial landmarks
and practices, which have brought
to 50 many homes, to the
uncertain, shiftless, and costly wavs
where so much is paid out and SO little |
returned. Would it not be q wiser
policy for farmers to expend the money
they pay for chemical fertilizers in the
purchase of oil meal and bran to feed