The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-07-30
FERTILIZERS FOR WHEAT.

we nave just finished 6hreshlng
our wheat, and while the yield was
not as large as we had hoped for,
still it was the best in our locality,
and we feel fairly well satisfied We
tried several different fertilizers on
our wheat, and the results show that
just any kind of fertilizer will not
do for wheat. will give the re-
suits briefly at first, and then ex-
plain the conditions.
First, one acre fertilized with 400
pounds IA per cent. acid phosphate
pield, % bushels. Second, one acre
fertilized with 400 pounds fine
ground bone-yield 81 bushels.
Third, one acre fertilized with 400
pounds of fertilizer analyzing 10
per cent. phosphoric acid, and per
cent. potash-yield 80 bushels.
The reader will notice that the re-
suits are in favor of the fertilizer
containing potash, and that while
this fertilizer only had IA pounds of
available plant food to the hundred,
it made three bushels more wheat
per acre than the acid phosphate,
which contained IA pounds of phos-
phoric acid alone to the 100 pounds.
With wheat at 70 cents per bushel,
it's present price at the mills here,
this gives US a gain of $2.10 without
any increase in the cost of fertilizer
used. The bone meal, which con-
tanned about II per cent. of phOs-
phoric acid besides per cent. of am
monia, 20 pounds of plant food to
the hundred, is also somewhat be-
hind the potash goods in yield, it
giving US only 81 bushels per acre.
We presume, however, that as the
bone was less soluble than the phOs-
phate it's effect will be observed
somewhat longer on future crops.
Another point in favor of the potash
fertilizer was the fact that the wheat
stood up remarkably we'll, the straw
was sitter and the heads felt heavier.
Indeed the increase in yield was due
to the weight of the heads, for there
was little if any observable differ
ence in the growth of straw.
The straw, as I said before, was
much sitter, the wheat standing up
until perfectly ripe without lodging
at all. On the other hand where
tho bone meal was used, and also
where the acid phosphate was ap-
piled there were several spots where
the wheat fell down badly, causing
some loss. The wheat lodged in the
rankest spots, and the heads were
comparatively light in these places,
showing that the plant food in the
soil was not we'll balanced. It was
very troublesome to cut and we de-
cided that the potash was worth all
it cost if it did nothing else besides
making the wheat stand up.
The above goes to show that the
wheat crop on our land needed pot
ash also that there was evidently
an abundance of nitrogen already
present in the soil for the needs of
the crop, and in some places too
much, unless more potash we're
added.
| From some experiments I have
made, and also from analyses made
of our red clay soil in upper Georgia,
I had thought that this land needed
only a small addition of potash for
most ordinary crops. But it seems
this will not apply when it comes to
growing wheat. Just how much the
| potash supply may be increased with
profit I shall endeavor to ascertain
the coming season.
In order that the readers may more
clearly understand the action of the
above fertilizers, I will describe
briefly what condition the land was
in and how it was prepared.
The land was of that character so
so common throughout the Pied
mont section before the top soil has
been washed away. The surface is
somewhat gray in appearance, under
LAID by a strong red clay subsoil. The
land was comparatively fresh, it be-
ing only six years since it was cleared.
Last spring it was broken deeply and
planted in corn, the corn being light
ly manured in the drill with stable
manure. When the corn was laid by
in June, COW peas were sown thickly
between the rows. The corn was
sold green and the stalks immedi-
ately cut to give the peas better