The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-06-16
PAINT NOT POISONOUS.
Oxide of Iron Will Not Harm the Soil
or The Plant.
STATE CHEMIST h. h. HARRINGTON
Says in Some Instances II May Prove
Positive Benefit-Practioal Expert
ments by Prof. Mally.
10 the Editor Of The Post.

| 10 the Editor Of The Post
| College station, Texas, June III notice
In your issue Of even date an article from
the Galveston News on mineral paint. In
some respects this article is misleading
and beg to call attention to the following
points. The article says: 1T Is true that
after the first rain the mineral paint will he
washed off but this is so much the worse,
for II will go into the soil and make a solid
sheet of the oxide of iron about an Inch
under the surface Of the ground which will
prevent the root from getting any further
water or nourishmcnti 1t is not stated
that the "sold sheet" will he one inch
thick, but leaving that indefinite states
that 1t will form one inch under the sur.
face. Let us assume that the farmer ap-
plies 500 pounds TO the acre; maximum
estimate, since this would cost him not
less than FIVE dollars an acre, without con
sdering the labor involved in the applica-
tion Of the material 1t is generally est
mated that an acre Of ordinary soil taken
TO a depth of one foot weighs 100000
pounds To form layer then one inch
thick would require nearly 100000 pounds
to the lcre. 1t will be seen how little the
mechanical influence that 900 pounds to the
acre 1t would require 600 applications to
form crust an Inch thick
But IL we should assume that II would
form as much AS one-twolfth Of the soil
70 depth OF ono foot, II i9 more tnan
likely that It would in many instances in
creose its fertility. Iron is a necessary
constituent Ia plant growth. II is the col
oring material Of red Clays and red soils.
lecaying vegetable matter with the aid OF
water VIII gradually leach IL nom sol s,
Cultivation would intermngle II with Inc
2 is
ulation into solid crust Farmers need
have NO fear that It will work injury to
cases at least. it will prove positive hen.
Cit
At another place the communication re-
ferred to seems to magnify the danger from
arSenical poieonS lie says They do not
reach the vulnerable points Mt nil, at the
same time arsenic never loses Its original
~; hut is ABSORBED by, ths plant aud IN
means by this that the arsenic Is absorbed
by the sap of the living plant ana rcappcars
ia the lint cotton, | believe the statement
is extremely erroneous. Most farmers are
accustomed to handle arsenical poisons in
eSterminating the cotton leaf worm aud a'e
familiar with the dangers attending their
use and the necessary care required 10 nro-
tect the laborcr who handles the poison.
There can be no doubt as 10 the correct.
ness of the correspondents statement that
The paint Will stain the cotton after 1t be-
gins 10 open. If an application Is made after
that time
As 70 the insectcdal value Of mineral
paint that is a question for further trial
and investigation. Professor Mnlly. tho
state cntomologist, is now paklng some OK.
pcrments along this line. hclicvc. The
paint Is not poisonous to anything SO far
as known; certainly not to man or Aeast
And so far as | know, those who advocate
Us use do not claim that II is poisonous to
insects If it kills by contact hv .top1fnr
the breathing pores n tho insect. IL Gems
reasonable to conclude ms the article states.
that it would stop the breathing pores Din
the loaVcSl OF the plaut. However there is
nothing that will decide this qu ,,inn 80
definitely as an actual trial. the results of
which must. Of conrsc he rorrohorHtau ,uf-
hccntly often to prove fact tn tho puhlIc
II. II. Harrington state Chemist.