The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-07-04
Special Fertilizers.

Special Fertilizers.
The Brattleboro PLGair copies our re-
marks regarding the fertilizer law, and its
agricultural editor says:
eve have never known the fertilizer law
objected to for the reason given by the Watch
man In fact it does not keep out of the state
the fancy brands-if they may be 80 called-to
which the agricultural editor of the Waterman
refers The company. manufacturing the
brands which he objects to as having fancy,
catchpenny names, and which he assumes are
kept out of the state by the license fee, is one
of the few concerns that now, under the opera
ton of the law, have the exclusive sale of fer
tlizers in this state.
1t was not we, but several state papers
land we are much mistaken if the Phe-
mir was not one of them) who assumed
that the $50 tax on each brand of fertil-
izsrs acted in prohibitory manner upon
the formula fertilizers. We knew moth
ing of the facts, and our assumption was
only that the complaining papers did
know. The Phnnir says it is mistake.
So much the worse.
Which company is it that " manufac-
lures the brands which he (we) objects to
and assumes are kept out of the state by
the license fee ?" We referred to no par
ticular company. The report of the Con-
necticut experiment station refers to some
half dozen firms making special fertil-
izsrs, and gives analyses of their products.
We quoted Professor johnson, our lead
ing agricultural chemist, and the director
of the station, as Directing to fertilizers
of this class; and on this point the Pho.
MIA says:
"Just what is meant by the whole thing
being humbug which IL is good thing to
keep out of the state when it can be done so
easily, is not very clear. Is the whole business
of manufacturing and selling commercial fer
tilizers humbug? II so, it is a very useful
humbug, increasing the value of the products
of agriculture millions of dollars. II it is meant
that special fertilizers, or fertilizers for special
crops, are necessarily humbug, we are sure
he would find no support for such q view in the
teachings of Professor Johnson, whom he
quotes. Professor Johnson's remark which is
quoted, must have been made in reference to
the fertilizers which he found to be essentially
alike, though one was called corn manure
one tobacco manure, and another a potato
manure"
Our critic is evidently not as we'll in
formed as he ought to be regarding Pro-
lessor Johnson's views upon the subject of
special fertilizers. In his first report, for
1878, he says, speaking of these fertilizers
Up. 45,) g. it might be confidently antici-
pated that in hundred trials the potato
manure might be applied to timothy, and
the timothy manure to potatoes, with no
detriment to the crops and no difference
to the producer" An examination of
Professor Johnsons reports from 1878 to
the absurdity of the theory and exposing
the inconsistency of the methods of the
special fertilizer manufacturers. Regard
ing the latter he says, in the report for
1869: ave have three distinct onion fer.
tilizers, all of which make the same claim
Chat the proportions in which they are
mixed are those which the onion crop
specially requires), and which differ
widely from each other in the forms in
which their fertilizing ingredients art
present, as we'll as in the proportion Of
those ingredients. We have reason tc
believe that neither science nor practices
has reached such stage of intelligence
as to be able to compound fertilizer
which deserves to be called an 'onion fer
tilizer,' because it is particularly adapted
for onions rather than any other crop
Such indeed is the fact, and the so-callet
Especial fertilizers may or may not b.
adapted to the crop whose name they bear
in general, or in any particular case.
(p. 81.
Professor johnson gives his reason TO
this view of the matter in his report TO
1878, thus: "The 'worn-out soils O
New England are very various in thei
crop-producing qualities. Many of ther
are able to supply potash in excess of a
ordinary demands. Many of them requir
lime and sulphuric acid in order to fee
crops, and most of them fail to yiel
rather on account of mech anical or phys
cal deficiencies, or defect of water suppl,
than because they are exhausted of tn
nutritive elements of crops. With thi
diversity of soil it is vain to expect ths
we can nationally or successfully adaI
special manures to our various crops
(p. 45). On the same page he says 81
is very significant fact, pertinent to tn
subject, that when we appeal to practices
experience to decide what fertilizing ell
ments are best to apply to different croI
on the same soil, the answer should som
times be just the reverse of what we mu
expect, if the Stockbridge manures al
based on correct principles"
With the view, apparently of convic
ing us of inconsistency on this questio
the Phenir quotes as follows:
In an article on the Science and Practi
of Manurinp IT n HOalxina m tha ranort