The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-11

els to the acre. some of his best acres making as much as l25 bushels.
 FMT. Williamson In an admirably prepared article gave his method. some two years ago, to the world. with the hope that the farmers of the South might be benehted as he had been. and since that time 1t has been extensively tried In South Carolina, and with mar vicious results. It has also been tried in our own State. Alabama. where also the results obtained have been excee1- ingly satisfactory.
 From the foregoing It would appear the method has merit, and that In view of the conditions that heretofore have obtained In this State, 1t would be gladly received. and especially by those whose duty it iH to promote and en- courage agriculture.
 Unfortunately this has not been the ease. Some scientific agriculturists oppose the method. and in some in- stances have carried their opposition so far as to discourage farmers from testing 1t It is to note the grounds upon which they base their opposition that this article is written.
 The following are the principal ob- jections urged against it:
 Tt is contrary to reason"
 Tt is contrary to the laws of na- ture"
 "It Is contrary to scientific princi- ples of agriculture" N
 No biologist. horticulturist agricul- turist botanist. chemist or any seien- tific man in any field whatsoever has ever made an experiment or ever dis covered fact to justify the feature of the Williamson method corn culture
 Scientists cannot tolerate it."
 Scientists will never endorse, not to say. approve it."
 wherever brought into; competition with other improved methods, 1t Is shown that less corn is grown"
 As the last Is the only serious ob- jectiop, it. only. will be referred to. And now for the evidence, upon which this objection is based. The opposition seemingly rely upon tests made at cer- tain experiment stations, notably those at Auburn. Ala. and Clemson, S. C.. for their evidence. A report of only one test, as having been made at -Au- burn, has been published-that in 1906. And presuming that the land was prop erly prepared. and that the formula of the mixed fertilizer used was adopt ed to the land, the test was incomplete in the following particulars: Corn was not planted as soon as frost danger was past. but April l9.
 Corn was not given two workings before stunting, but only enc.
 Corn was not tIinned before stunt ing, but after.
 Corn was not fertilized by dividing mixed fertilizers into two equal DOT tions, and applying one-half in the sweep furrow on both sides of every other middle and breaking out with turn blow, and then waiting about a week to treat other middles in same manner, but all was applied at the one and same time. and n1iddles broken out with turn blow. running deep"
 The resuA from the above test was 30.5 bushels per acre. against 2S.5 bushels on an adjoining plot. which was cultivated after the usual method and to which was applied the same amount of fertilizer. I am informed that test of the method was also made at the same station in 1907, and 1908, and thatSthe results obtained from the 1907 test was seven bushels per acre after the williamson method, and 19.7 bushels after the ordinary. The re- suits from the 1908 test have not been sscertained. but its is claimed by com peteut authorities that If one may fudge by the verdict of visitors, and inc preliminary indications afforded by tha sinEfe-row gathered by clerk in the Agricultural Department for exhi' bftion at the State Fair, one is safe in concluding that the yield from the williamson plot has fallen considerably behind the yield of the other plots These are the tests by Shei experiment station at Auburn.
 There Is no evidence to show that th' method was followed, or at least non' at hand, in 1907, or 1908; any mor' | than 1t was in 1906. but presuming tha it was followed in every detail. anC under the most favorabie conditions I submit that the returns or only ses @ en bushels per acre secured by the sta