The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-09-30
The True Use of Fertilizers.

Mr.. Stockwell of Indiana, has told well
how he learned the use of commercial
fertilizers in the Improvement of his soil.
Recently at Farmers Institute we
heard a speaker tell the farmers that the
Sole purpose of fertilizers was to make
d crop, and that 1t would never pay to
use them as a means for the improve
ment of the land. In many parts OF the
country farmers have been proceeding on
this idea for a generation. This has been
particularly the case IN the South, and
the result Is seen IN wasted soils, CALLED
and quilted hillsdes, poverty in the land
and with the farmer, while the fertilizer
manufacturers have waXed rich. The
stations tell the farmers OF the manurial
needs of various crops, and what every
crop needs to have added to the soil IN
order to make crop until the farmers
have come to the conclusion that all they
need is a formula for fertilizer for
every crop planted. 1t Is time now to
say more about the use of fertilizers In
the building up of the soil and its per-
manent increase in productiveress while
using less and less of the commercial
fertilizers. 1t Is true that the various
crops need about the percentages OF
Plant food that the stations have determ-
med, but it is not true that the farm
CT need buy the complete mixture for
every crop planted. The soil will never
be improved by merely adding annually
what each crop needs in the shape of
a complete fertilizer. We need to put
greater stress, as Mr.. Terry does in a late
number, on the thorough preparation OF
the soil. Our soils have watsed more
through bad tillage than a lack of plant
food in them. Most of the clay sons
especially, need good tlllage more than
they need commercial fertilizers, and
thousands of farmers are annually spend
ing money for fertilizers which they need
rot buy if they farmed right. The put
ting on annually of what fertilizer we
think that particular crop may take up,
and depending on the fertilizer to make
a sale crop, will inevitably read to the
exhaustion of the soil and need tor more
and more fertilizer to produce the same
results. We do not mean that the farm
er should endeavor to improve his soil
by applying more than any particular
crop needs, so as to have residue left
in the soil for another crop. 1t may pay
at times to even do this, as, tor example,
leaving something from the wheat crop
to aid the clover. But the keynote OF
real farming is to make crops at the
least cost while building UP the produc
tiveness of the soil at the same time. The
application of fertilizers to. every crop
grown may show an apparent profit, but
in the long run the condition of the
soil will tell of the extravaganza, and
the profit will not be such as could be
had through proper rotation and the
use of only such fertilizing materials as
our soil may need, and which We can
not get without an artificial application.
A crop may be shown to need a certain
proportion of phosphoric acid nitrogen
and potash But if we can get the nitro
gen by a good rotation with legumes,
why buy it, when we are at the same
time getting the most valuable of stock
food in the getting of the nitrogen, and
are thus adding to the humus making
material on the farm In the manure. Why
should we, then, buy complete ftili-
ger merely to get sale crop, when we
can get the; nitrogen and make a profit
in getting it? Then when we find that
we can in such a rotation get the use of
the potash that is plentiful in most of
our clay soils, throug-. the use of an oc-
casional dressing of lime, why should we
buy potash? OF course, there are sandy
| soils and black muck soils all over the
country which are deficient in potash
and for these we must buy it. But on a
| large part of our upland clay soils we