The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-05-08
The Dairymen's Meeting---NO. 5.
MR.. BowKER's PAPER DIscU ssED.

At the conclusion of Mr.. Bowker's
paper, questions were asked:
Mr.. MACPHERsoN-Will you state the
comparative value of comeback and
bone-meal per pound applied to the
soil?
Mr.. BowKER-The value of bone
meal depends upon its phosphoric acid
and its ammonia.
MR.. MACPHERsON-Tha is ground
bone, is it not?
Mr.. BOwKER-Yes, it is the same.
When the bone-black has been burned
in retort, and its ammonia thrown off,
it is only valuable for phosphoric acid.
The retail market price to-day for bone
black is S25 per ton, and for ground
bone it is about 1856.
Mr.. MACPHERSON-Wh is the rela-
tive value of bone undissolved and
ne-black in it's direct application to
the soil?
Mr.. BOwKER-I do not think there
is any comparison. l should not apply
the comeback to the soil undissolved.
Mr.. MISUNDERSTANDING there any
experiments on record?
PROFESSOR COOKE-We made ex-
periments on thirty-five different farms,
and did not meet any success with it,
DIR. HOsKINs-Mr. Bowker has done
what / have long wanted manufacture
ers or fertilizers to do, and | think he
has earned the thanks of farmers here
by his statements in respect to the
making of fertilizers, etc. | have used
commercial fertilizers very freely on
my farm for over twenty years, as |
keep but little stock, and require a
good deal of manure in my nursery,
orchard and market garden. | have
bought great deal of ashes, and also
ground bone, as we'll as high-grade fer
tilizers, such as Bradley's, Cumberland
and others, and l do not wish to be
put before the public as antagonizing
the fertilzer-makers, though / have,
as an agricultural editor and writer,
criticised them somewhat freely at
times. Mr.. Bowker referred to this in
his remarks, but not quite correctly.
He once made public statement Cor
was so reported) to the effect that
South Carolina rock, however finely
pulverized, would be of no more value
when applied to crops than so much
sand. / undertook to put this to the
test of experiment in the field. 1t was
very dry season; and the first part of
it, up to the last of June, the piece
(planted to corn and potatoes) where
the phosphoric acid was applied in the
form of hour-fine South Carolina rock
known as floats was clearly be-
hind similar piece where the same
rock, " dissolved " by sulphuric acid,
was used. But after the rains came
on the crops on the undissolved
" floats caught up with the others,
and at the end of the season there was
no appreciable difference between the
two. This, and subsequent expert
ments of similar kind, satisfied me
that " floats " can be used as success
fully as ground bone to furnish phos-
phoric acid to growing crops. But
here comes in point which should be
stated plainly, as have endeavored to
do many times, but which it is difficult
to get farmers unacquainted with the
chemistry of fertilizers to clearly under
stand. 1t is this: That the South
Carolina phosphate " (hoats) is not a
complete fertilizer. Indeed, it is very
far from being so, as it gives to the
crop absolutely nothing but phosphoric
acid. Bone gives phosphoric acid and
nitrogen; wood ashes gives phosphoric
acid and potash. With bone we have
to add potash and with ashes we have
to add nitrogen to make complete
fertilizer; but with floats we must add
both potash and nitrogen. If this is
not done, and the soil itself will not
supply the deficiency, then it would in
deed appear to the experimenter that
floats " (" is of no more value than so
much sand" as Mr.. Bowker has de-
clared But used properly, with due
supply of nitrogen and potash from
other sources, find that I" floats do
as we'll for me, as source of phosphoric
acid, as ground bone, and at about half
the cost. But do not advise farmers