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

The editor then asks
elias the agricultural editor Of the Watch
man less faith in fertilizers for special crops
than he had when he wrote that article?'
Our critic might have quoted the whole
of that paper without producing word
that would have afforded any support to
the formula fertilizer business. The diff
ference between the idea of adapting the
use of our fertilizng materials to the par.
ticuar demands of the soil and the crop that
is to be grown upon it, as put forth in that
paper, and the formula trade, which fur
nishes one mixture for all soils, is the diff
ference between employing a skillful
physician, who will adapt his treatment to
the case, and using quack remedy in ig
norance both of the nature of the disease
and of the composition of the medicine.
We wish it to be understood that we
do not object to these formula fertilizers,
when made of good materials, on the
ground that they are of no value to crops.
They are good, just as stable manure is
good. But no one pretends that one mans
stable manure is specially adapted to one
crop, and another mans to another crop.
There is where the humbug comes in.
Varying slightly the proportions of phos-
phoric acid, potash and combined nitro.
gen in fertilizer and calling one kind a
corn fertilizer, another an onion fertilizer,
and another potato fertilizer, is arrant
humbug, and as such we heartily join the
Connecticut experiment station in ex-
posing it.
But this does not mean that we should
not endeavor to adjust our application of
fertilizers to the known requirements of
our land and the crop we grow upon it.
All experience shows that the fertilizer
required in special case often has
scarcely any relation to the chemical COM
position of the plant to be grown. Clover
is rich in nitrogen, yet it calls for lime,
sulphuric acid and potash as fertilizers, is
able to get its own nitrogen, and is not at
all benefited by it as a manure. Turnips
do not contain much phosphoric acid, yet
nothing makes turnips grow equal to
phosphate of lime. Wheat contains far
less nitrogen than clover, yet while nitrog-
enous fertilizers are worthless for clover,
they are essential to wheat. We might go
on with long list showing both how I'M
| scientific and how impractical the theory
of basing the composition of the fertilizer
upon the composition of the plant is. But
besides this, these formula fertilizers ut.
terly ignore the plant-food contained in the
soil, and are made upon the principle that
the plant gets nothing from the ground.
Though our field may be rich in potash
or phosphoric acid, yet still we must buy
these articles in the fertilizer. There
never was greater quackery or more stupid
farming than this. We may know that
our field has plenty of potash, yet if we
buy formula fertilizer for potatoes OF
tobacco we get (or ought to get according
to the theory strong potash fertilizer
AS matter of fact, we simply get fer
tilizer with some potash in it. For the
theory has been practically abandoned by
the makers, and now they merely make a
complete fertilizer, tolerably we'll adapted
to crops alike, but still marked "potato,
"wheat," q" tobacco "or "corn." This il
what we call "humbug." In a certain
sense it is also fraud, because, although
the preparation may be a good genera
fertilizer, it is not what it is stated to be
and the makers do not really state wha
they SELL" though they may state its con
stituents truly.
Our readers know that we do not favo
ready-made or ready-compounded fertil
izers, except as the best that can be don,
for those farmers who do not understand
the principles of plant feeding. Fo
these we believe in compound as nearl,
like good stable manure as can be made
because that is likely to suit the mos
} cases. Yet stable manure, we'll saved, i
J very rich in potash, and there are man,
soils on which potash does no perceptibl
good. Good stable manure is also rich il
combined nitrogen, yet for many crops
nitrogen is not needed in manure. No,
it is easy to see that when we come t
, buying fertilizers those who can discrin
mate in these points ought to do 80, an
not buy potash or nitrogen for crops tina
do not need them, for it is clearly throw
r ing away money to do 80. For the larg
r number of farmers who have never il
f formed themselves upon the matter, an
r who are not likely to do 80, we say an a
a tifcial fertilizer patterned upon the con
i position of stable manure, or what
Q called complete fertilizer" is most d
sirable. 1t is true they thus have ofte
d to pay for much that is of no benefit
i the crop, but that cannot be helped e.
:, cept by more knowledge. The reaso
Q why we have so strongly recommends
s the bone and ashes compost is because
t is complete fertilizer. But while doin
It it, we know there are soils upon which I'll
- ashes are uspful mainly hecausa thf