The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-12-18
should bs made to commercial fertilizers.

should be made TO commercial fertilizers.
Tie latter contain nothing Of value to
the soil that is not found "a she materials
VIZ have named. A GOOD, complete com
mGrciai fertilizer may be considered as
stable manure boiled down. containing,
IS it does, the very same fertilizing ele-
ncnts, without The excess Of sand, clay
aud water that is always present. more
or less, in ordinary stable manure. Many
persons are ii the opidion that the use Of
commercial fertilizers is an Improbable
ard unwise innovation. We DC 10, pro-
pose to discuss the general proposition.
"Do ccmmcrcia! fertilizers pay the
farmer Z" It is no doubt true that some
farmers fail to fird any substantial profit
in the use of them; and it is also true
that the most skilful are sometimes i'm
posed upon, and sometimes they them
selves are at fault. But the most con-
vincing proof Of the utility of CONNER
cial fertilizers is the continued and an
nually Increasing consumption Of them.
This continued reliance upon them must
be the result of profitable experience.
We will add that those farmers who
succeed without fertilizers owe their
success not to that fact. but to the exer.
else of skill, economy and industry in all
| the departments Of farm operations.
! They would probably be even more sue
ccssful if they would make a judicious
use of commercial or concentrated cheml-
Cal fertilizers. 1t will be time enough
tn elaborate these thoughts in this line in
the next number Of the Cultiyator.
CK-FEEDING.
The question Of stock. feeding is ore
that is but little understood by the aver
age farmer in its scientific and economic
aspects. The investigation Of the COM
position and digestibillty OF the various
food materials has received much atten-
tion of late years, and our stock Of knowl-
edge is being systematized and greatly
increased Every farmer knows that
good sound merchantable wheat IS an
excellent food for milch COW or any
working animal. 10 the sense that it will
produce milk and butter Of the best
quality, but be also knows that 1t Will
not pay to feed good wheat to cattle
and horses, because its peculiar adapta-
ton as human fooG forbids its use as a
stock food. The same principle holds
good in many other cases, some of them
recognized and understood by every
farmer, while others are only appreciated
by the scientific investigator.
This subjectis is we'll treated as an article
on page 536 of our November issue, by
Prof. W. E. Stone, and we ask our readers
to refer to that article and read it care
fully. The article very opportune'y dis
cusses the question of the TODD value OF
cotton seed hulls, which is attracting SO
much attention ali over the country.
While admitting that cotton seed bulls
mixed iu proper proportions with cotton
seed meal is theoretically and practically
proper and profitable food for the pro,
duction of milk and butter, he by nc
means endorses the extravagant claim:
that have been put forward in favor OF
the hulls. The bu.;er and milk, the
beef and the muscular power to labor
that result from the use Of the comblpa
ton of hulls and meal are mainly due tc
the meal and not the bulls, which are
about as valuable as clean, dry oat strow.
There is very close correspondence
if not identity, in the principles which
should guide us in feeding stock and II
feeding crops, There is the same danger
10 each of wasting one element by sup
plying it il excess, or of destroying the
crop or the animal product by withhold