Smyrna times., 1885-08-19
For The Smvrnd Times.
Analysis of the Analyses of the
State Chemist

0CdL6 Ou6UlSC'
From what has been said on the sub
ject of ammonia, in another place, it is
not to be understood that we would
undervalue this fertilizing element.
When used in proper proportion with
phOsphOric acid and potash, it makes
a complete manure. What is objected
to is too high per cent. of ammonia
in the phosphate and price fixed too
high.
OF the fOrty-three fertilizers repre-
sented in the statement, seven have the
per cent. of ammonia too high-2 to
2.25 being in our judgmentfull enough.
But these run 2.42, 2.80, 2.62, 1856, $40,
PA, 2.92. And in every one of these
seven potash is stinted and runs too
low, as 1.63-1OO, LAT, 1.1O, 2.1O, 2.18
and Ill. In our judgement 2.50 to
per cent. of potash is necessary to a
good phosphate. But all of these seven
having an excess of ammonia, stand
highest in commercial value, as $30.54,
$3O.29, $27.25, 1924, $3O.68, $2713,
$31.15.
Now if in the composition of these
fertilizers there were per cent of am
mOnia in its most available form and
3 per cent of potash from muriate and
sulphate mixed, the commercial value
would be lowered on paper, but the in
trinsic value would be raised in the
field. 1t is notorious that in every sec
tiOn of country the experience of the
best farmers has year after year con-
demned the use of these highly ammo
mated fertilizers. The yield of their
wheat crop has not been in proportion
to the price paid for the fertilizer, and
the general result has been too much
straw and too little wheat This has
produced dissatisfaction with the high
grade phOsphates and has driven some
to the use of the pure bone meal, un-
dissolved with acid and others to the
use of acidulnted rock, and yet others
to the simple kainit, until you find in "A
days ride such a diversity of use as to
astOnlsh one, and to forcibly suggest
the thought that the farmers are at sea
now III the choice of suitable fertilizers
more than ever before. Who is re-
sponsible for this? Who is to guide
them?
On the most cursory examination of
the forty three analyses the reader is
struck with the evident want of rule
OF proportion of the three fertilizing
elements. Each analysis is different in
each OF its three elements. Is there no
rule of proportion? If all of these
forty-three phOsphates grow good and
satisfactory wheat crops, then there is
no rule of proportion, except there be
found a phosphate which in the field
Shall count more bushels than all the
rest. 1t should be the constant aim of
the manufacturer to produce such
phosphate, regardless of the idea of a
liked commercial value and to expert
menC and study out a rule of prODOr-
ton, that shall be safe guide, and on
winch farmers can securely rest. 1t is
necessary to do this to stop their fugi-
tive experiments and bring them to a
profitable crop. The ctarting point in
this direction is the we'll ascertained
fact that agricultural chemists have so
widely disseminated, viz: A complete
manure requires the essential elements,
ammonia, phosphOric acid and potash.
Then how can farmers get the best
results, by using one or the other of
these elements alone. But the first
point to reach here is, what is the
proper proportion of each of these ele-
ments. The solution of this question
should bring the answer. Since potash
and phosphate of lime are found in the
ashes of wheat grains, it follows that
substances of this character should
enter largely into the composition of
and since ammonia pro-
notes the growth of straw and as we
can't have grain without straw, it fol-
lows that some ammonia is required in
the composition. But now for the rule
OF proportion. Is it as 2 to 10 to 3: or
Is 1t as 3 to 9-60 to l? or what else?
LUCUs A NON LUCENDO.