The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1894-04-26

7. green, and the difference is strikinplv
against the plan of turning under the
green vines, amounting to 81. 65 in favor
OF picking the ripe peas, and 81. Al in
favor of moving the vines and leaving
them on the surface.
But the most striking comparison
and 1T is the salient poiut of the whole
eXper1ment-is that of each of the first
three series with series 4. in which the
vines were mown and made into hay at
the same time that those on series 2
were mown and left on the surface.
The yield of cotton from series 4 wines
made into hay) was somewhat less
than from either of the other series:
but we have instead of the three to four
dollars worth of cotton 1913 pounds of
well-cured hay, worth $14.35. The total
yields of the series for the year mot
counting the oat crop was SIS. 90 greater
than that of series /, S11. SO greater than
that of series 2, and $12. 93 greater than
that of series 3. But there is still an
other point of advantage in converting
the vines into hay: If the manure
solids and Misunderstanding from feed
ing one ton of hay to fattening or work
animals, be returned to the soil it will
be as effective on the succeeding crop
as an application of s. of commercial
fertilizer. In other words the elements
of plant food that result from one ton
of COW pea hay fed to such animals, in
the form of manure, would cost, if
bought in market, not less than 81.
This is shown by the analysis of COW
pea hay, which is as follows:
One ton of cow pea hay contains
Nitrogen 80 lbs at Ice sc "a
Phosphoric acid 10 lbs at SC so
Potash 90 lbs at SC l az
Total manure value IS 10
Farmers generally are well aware of
the fertilizing value of a crop of pea
vines. 1t has been a well known fact
Tor more then generation. Because
of the similarity of uses the COW pea
has been aptly called the clover of the
south. No argument is needed to con-
vince the southern farmer of a fact al
ready so well known. But the value of
the pea vine hay and the proper aud
most economic disposition of the pea
crop is not so we'll understood. The
idea of green manuring came into the
south from the practice of northern
farmers, who, in turn, received it from
England. But an erroneous notion
prevails that the crop should be turned
duu lOCd Is QOuUJl6SS DdScC
on the assumption that in old clover
growing countries the full growth of
clover is turned under for manure
This, however, is not the general prac-
tlce. On the contrary the intelligent
northern farmer converts the first, and
often the second, cutting of each of
two years into hay, and finally turns
under the aftermath or the clover sod,
as preparation for crop of grass,
wheat or other grain.
1t is little less than folly to produce
a crop of pea vine vines ready to NOW
and to be cured into most nutritious
hay and then turn it over and recon
verting it into soil 1t is not denied
that such course will build up the
soil more rapidly than if the vines be
removed and not restt red to that par
ticular soil. So also would a crop of
wheat or cotton, or any other crop, i'm
prove and enrich the soil when turned
under at an advanced or mature stage
of growth. Wheat bran makes an ex-
cellent manure, buf no one would think
Of using it directly for such purpose
SO long as he can find an animal to con-
sumo it.
The true policy is to use nothing for
manure that can be fed to live stock.
This rule would forbid the use cotton
seed meal directly as manure. So be
it. 1t is unwise to use this valuable
foodstuff as a fertilizer excepting the
surplus over and above what may be
judiciously fed to live stock.
1t is the purpose of this bulletin to
urge Georgia farmers to give more at
tention to the COW pea as a source of
food and soil fertility. 1t draws largely
on the atmosphere for its supply of nj
&la
much of the phosphoric acid, potash.
lime, etc, required for it's development.
The stubble, including the roots and
fallen leaves, is rich in plant food and
is necessarily left in the soil. The hay
crop removed and fed to stock yields
beef, milk and butter. emery and
strength to labor, and finally, in the
form of manure, from so to 90 per cent
of the plant food that the hay con-
tanned may be returned to the soil
1t would be easy to compile the re-
suits of experiments with COW peas at
other experiment stations, north as
well as south. They all agree:
1. That cow pea hay is a most valua-
BILE food.
.. That the COW pea is avery effect
i've soil improver.
3. That the most judicious plan is to
COlINCl VIC NluC0 lhlO Lay anu luTu
under the stubble only.
HOW TO FERTILIZE THE COW PEA.
Many farmers may be surprised at
the suggestion to fertilize at all, or the
idea that it will grow on the poorest
land. But it pays as well, and many
think better, to fertilize the cow pea
than any other crop. Itresponds read
lily to fertilizers. And, best of all, it
does not require an expensive fertilizer.
AS a rule no nitrogen is required, eX-
cept on the poorest WORKOUT soils.
Acid phosphate and potash, principally
the first named, are all that is required.
Two hundred pounds of acid phosphate
and 100 pounds of KANT Tor 25 pounds
of muriate) per acre will generally be
sufficient to produce good crop when
sown after small grain. On piney
woods, sandy soils, more potash might
be added.
Broadcasting after small grain is the
usual way, sowing one to one and
quarter bushels per acre and blowing
the seed in with turn shovels or first
breaking the stubble with large two
horse turnplow, and then harrow in
the seed with cutaway harrow. But
some incomplete experiments indicate