Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1891-10-31


even decreased it. Yes, "phosphates
did it," Here then was an average
increase ofnearly $40, 100000 per year
for six consecutive years, as cons
pared with the proceeding q years,
or with either 8 Of the q. What did
the phosphates cost for this great in
crease? Less than 81 900, 600, as
reported at the same time and in the
same way that the wheat and other
crop statistics were reported. But
the popular belief held that phos-
pilates Ozone meal and superphos-
phate) were 'stimulants," whisky
and not food" My studies and
duties as State inspector of fertilizers
showed me that they contain plant
food as truly as stable manure, but in
more condensed from; no more truly
whisky" with the disastrous col
lapse of soldering off" soon to come
to the land; no more whisky" than
condensed milk or Liebig's beef eX-
tract is whisky. And so I have tried
phosphates carefully for some s years
on my own farm, with wheat follows
ed by clover, l know
/. That on my land superphos-
pilates are on the whole better than
pure, untreated bone meal, raw or
steamed, fine or course; quicker in
action and apparently as permanent.
2. Superphosphates (high-grade and
ammoniated) have for eight years, on
the average, more than paid their cost
in the increased yield of wheat, to
say nothing of heavier straw, less
lodging, and better seeding of grass
and clover.
3. The effects upon the timothy
seeding have clearly lasted for six
years, holding it strong till the last,
until plowed up again for wheat.
4, Superphosphates show much the
best results on clayey land, tile drain
ed. On some SANDY and gravelly
loans they seem not to show paying
results, unless possibly with wheat.
On undrained clay, the winter-kill-
ing may be too much for the super
phosphates.
g. Sometimes. on poor soil with a
bad season superphosphates have
given a fair crop instead Of total fail
ure. t.
6. In 1890 $26 worth of superphos-
phate put upon five acres ($5.25 pei
acre) brought IL bushels of wheat pei
acre extra; SO bushels per acre against
% per acre (side by side, same con-
ditions otherwise) where none was
used. Not only that, this years hay
crop (l891) gave four tons extra from
the five acres phosphated, thus pay
ing the cost of phosphate the third
time.
7. / know that superphosphates
on our naturally rather infertile clay
ey soils of northern, eastern ant
southeastern Ohio pay well on the
average, if judiciously used on whea
followed by clover and timothy OF
land well drained, even by surface
drainage, better by tile drainage.
have studied the statistics so Ions
and 50 carefully, and visited farms
and farmers so widely in these re
gions that l do not think / can b.
mistaken.
Dol advise all to rush blindly in
to their use? No; but if you are try
ing to farm for the future, on clayey
soil, try experiments. Tile all YOU
can, save all the manure you can anC
put say 800 lbs. Of best grade am
moniated superphosphate per acr,
on just half of your wheat and non,
on the rest. Have all other condi
lions equal, and let the thresbing ma
chine and the next hay crop decide
Cut separately, thresh separately
NOW and rake separately, and know
whether it pays. Those who us
phosphates blindly are foolish. Thos
who waste any of the possible hom
product or manure are agriculture
sinners. Those who trust to Glove
and tillage with little livestock ant
no phosphates never increase tn
total fertility of their soils, ant
usually diminish it sadly. Constan
subtraction (by crops) must in tim
perceptibly diminish the larges
"minuend" Of fertility. / hav
watched it with care for forty years
and never saw a single exception
Those who refuse to ride any hobby
but follow the best experience Of tn
past and give due weight to liv