The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1883-05-26
PhOsphates as Appetizers.

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. 1t grew right
along" Another said: g like phos-
phate; it is such an easy way to manure
the land" The last man put in the
clincher: 81 do not know, that it is so
much of 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
1 do in attempting to live on stimu-
lants. There is enough virtue in most
phosphates to stimulate a crop at first,
and cause it to start with a more rapid
growth. In the same way good drink
of stimulant will give person brave
start, but the trouble is the effect is not
sufficiently lasting-it does not hold
out In many cases this stimulated
growth is a 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 if
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.
Before commercial manures were
pulled up to the extent they are now, l
had notion could make corn grow on
the same principle -stimulation-and |
prepared acompound, not wisely mixed,
perhaps, but about as sensible as many
of the modern doses which farmers
swallow so easily, and l 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 l never had so
few ears in proportion, My compound
consisted of air-slaked lime, plaster
Now, a chemist can tell me just what
was lacking, | suppose, and if had put
that in, there would have been pro-
portionate crop of ears. l should like
to have him. Now l 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 have pro-
duced, the crop would not have had the
setback it did, and there would have
been proportionate crop of ears. My
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 field of buckwheat
last summer with a great deal of inter-
est, where the seed had been drilled in
with some kind of phosphate, and a
strip left across the lot without any of
it. The phosphated part came up first,
and at poisoning time was several
inches taller than the portion where no
phosphate was used The straw-mark
this-was great deal coarser, 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 do not think
there was as good. The phosphated
was a 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 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 a crop grown at such an
expense pay? l do not like such
foundation to build upon. AS 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 compre-
| hending their talk; but they do succeed
in selling world of stuff, which in my
humble opinion does very little good.
Not one of the farmers whose remarks
| quoted at the beginning of 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 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 hay to the best ac-
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. / do not like TO see
this drifting away from the old COM
nonsense and substantial landmarks
and practices, which have brought
prosperity to so many homes, to the
uncertain, shiftless, and costly ways
where so much is paid out and so little
returned. Would it not be a wiser
policy for farmers to expend the money
they pay for chemical fertilizers in the
purchase of oil meal and bran to feed
to their COWS, and to make more beef,
mutton and manurep l consider oil
meal at 1928 per ton and buckwheat
bran at $18 per ton to be better in
vestment than paying $40 or $45 per
| ton for a small Oer cent Of nitropan m.