The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1902-03-11
SOME MIsTAKEs As TO ''FILLER" I'm
FERTILIZERS.

| Correspondence OF The Progressive Farmer.
have been Watching the discus
sions going on in The PROGRESSIVE
FARMER and Charlotte Observer by
Mr.. @. L. Evans and the State Chem
ist, DR.. Kilgore, on home-mixing of
fertilizers. The farmer wants infor-
nation along these lines If IL is true
that the filters of fertilizers are not
worth any more, or haven't any
more fertilizing properties than
barn yard manure, stable manure
with dirt or muck, then the farmer
can furnish IL cheaper than he can
buy Ii. Every farm has all of these
on 1t. If the filler has no more fer.
tilizing value than these manures, he
had better furnish it, for he will save
manufacturing, freight, and hauling
to his farm. The heaviest drain on
the farmer Is his filler. He is willing
and able to pay for the chemicals,
but cannot pay $50 per ton for guano
and come out even.
The State Chemist, in his letter,
says there is about .35 per cent. of
phosphorio acid in q ton of barn yard
manure, 40 per cent. Of potash and
80 per cent. of ammonia. What the
farmer desires TO know is what
chemicals and what per cent. will it
take TO make barn yard manure q
complete fertilizer? Or, with stable
manure, rioh dirt, muck? The farmer
has all of these, or part of them, on
his farm that he can furnish at little
COST This is the kind Of informa-
ton the farmer desires. The State
Chemist gives formulas for cotton
seed meal. Cottonseed meal is too
expensive for the farmer TO use as
fertilizer. He had as we'll buy guano
as cotton seed meal.
The farmer wants q cheap fertilizer
or a good fertilizer cheap, and by
furnishing the body he can make a
good fertilizer cheap. / take THE
PROGRESSIVE FARMER and have been
a subscriber ever since it was first
published. also take the Bulletin,
but the farmers would like TO have
all the information they can possibly
get at this time. j. Y. H.
Cleveland Co, N. G.
CAns1oer By DR.. B. W. KiLgOre, State
Chen1ist.)
Replying TO the above letter in re-
gard TO fertilizers and compost,
will say that these materials are
valuable as fertilizers mainly on ao-
count Of the nitrogen (ammonia),
phosphoric acid and potash they
contain, and the greater the amount
of these the greater will be the in
crease in crops TO which they are ap-
piled, provided the three are we'll
balanced or we'll suited TO the needs
of the crop and soil. While cotton
seed meal and similar materials cost
q great deal more than stable manure
and similar substances entering into
compost, they produce far greater
effect on crops than do the latter
q nd ohesrer materials.
The question of filler" in fertili-
zers is one that does not seem TO be
we'll understood, and offer the fol-
lowing explanation on this subject
Ordinary acid phosphate contains
IA per cent. of phosphoric
aoid, the other Sc per cent. beiI g |
wafer, sand, land plaster and other
of iron, magnesia snd
Inns. This Sc per cent is not 'filler"
in the sense in which that term is
used. The acid phosphate
has been made by treating a good |
grade of phosphate rock as dug from
the ground with an equal weight of
sulphuric aoid, which rendered it's
acid soluble and in condt-
ton TO feed plants. No value is at
tached 20 any thing except the phos-
phoric acid in the acid phosphate,
but it is impossible TO separate this
IA DER cent. from the other materials
without adding more TO it's cost than
would be gained by the separation.
In like manner, cotton seed meal
contains about per cent. ammonia,
ia per cent. available phoephoric
acid, and ~ per cent. available pot
ash; the other SO per cent. being
made up of the various compounds
produced by the cotton plant in its
growth, but they are not "hller." F"
As with the acid phosphate it would
- impossible TO separate the am
y g-,>I