Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1909-04-14
OPPOSE TARIFF
ON PLANT FOODS
GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR FREE
ENTRY OF sULPHATE
OF AMMONIA.
NEED Or MAINTAINING NoURIsH.
MENT or SOIL IN
AMERICA.


/ cles on the free list OF the new tariff
bill is sulphate Of ammonia. Much
apprehension is felt that this will be
struck off by the influence OF manu-
faeturers of gas. steel, and coke, who
make sulphate of ammonia as by
product.
William H. Bowker, one OF the
leading manufacturers Of the country,
makes the point for free sulphate of
ammonia that it is OF the first inn
portance for the prosperity Of the
country that the fertility of the soil
be maintained. This chemical is the
richest in nitrogen of any which is
available for fertilizers, and the guam
tity of nitrogen in the farm lands is
being rapidly used up. BY taking
the amount OF the cereals produced in
the country last year and computing
on the basis of the known proportion
of ammonia, it is calculated that O.
100000 tons of nitrogen, worth at
least sS00,000,000 were taken from the
land py the cereal crops of 1908.
The value of plant food expected
from this country last year in cereals
and meat products was approximately
$75,000,00O, for which the country got
cash or the equivalent, but little OF
this was returned to the soil. With
such exhaustion every year, ii is evil
dent that the land must be kept up by
artificial fertilization, and sulphate Of
ammonia is the most advantageous
form in which TO apply the fertilizer
But, besides the steel, gas, and coke
manufacturers, there are the i'm
porters of nitrate of soda, who are
interested in keeping up the duty on
sulphate of ammonia, also the pro
ducers of nitrogen in by-products such
as slaughter house tankages, seed
meals. and so on.
Cause of Opposition.
If the duty were removed. amount
ing to l IL cents a pound. it would
tend. to that extent to bring in com
petition and lower the value of nit
rate of soda and other nitrogen-b bear
ing compounds. Hence, it is expect
ed that there will be a strong effort
to take sulphate of ammonia from the
free list
1t is urged, however. that its high
value for keeping up the agricultural
prosperity of the country is sufficient
reason for insisting that it be kept on
the free list. The fact that the fertil-
izer industry in the United States has
been built up on a free trade basis is
urged as reason for continuing the
policy
Mr.. Bowker recently wrote an ar
ticle on The Nitrogen Problem, which
appeared in the American Fertilizer
He said In part:
In your January issue, you publish
an article concerning ammonium sui
phate and the tariff which, in part, is
evidently based upon the brief which
submitted to the ways and means
committee on December -, just past
Perhaps. in justice to me, you should
publish that brief, copy of which
enclose"
st is my belief that it was the in.
tention Of the present tariff law to
admit all plant food duty free, but at
the time this law was passed, sulphate
of ammonia was probably more used
in the arts than in agriculture. and,
therefore, ii was not included in the
free list. Since sulphate of am
monia is now more largely used in
agriculture than in the arts. it should
be included, along with the new
cyanamid compound.
In 1907 there were imported into
the United States 32,63s tons of sui
phate of ammonia, which paid duty
of $4,000. or an equivalent of IL
cent per pound for the nitrogen which
1t contained. According to review
of the sulphate of ammonia market
for 1908, the United Kingdom Eng
land. Scotland and Ireland), from
which we draw our largest foreign
supply. produced $4,000 tons of
which she consumed $4,000 tons and
exported 2S5,000 tons, OF the quail
ity exported. the United States took
% 600 tons in 1908. as against about
$500 tons in 1905
This country's Opportunity.
1T will be interesting to note that
little Japan took from Great Britain
$4,000 tons in 1905 and $4,000 in 1905
From these figures it will be seen
that Great Britain does not export Gas
claimedl sulphate of ammonia 10 keep
ND the price at home, but because
she produces nearly four times as
much as she consumes, and. there
fore. must sell in the markets OF the
world Great Britain is not as tav-
orablv situated 20 produce sulphate
of ammonia as is the United States
for II / am correctly informed we
have the best and most accessible
cooking coal in the world II Great
Britain can manufacture not only for
home consumption. but can export =
/ ssr cent of her production without
! the benefit of protection we ought &c
/ be able to manufacture foC the world s
market on the SEINE basis, unless
+ skilled labor enters into the problem
which I understand is not the case
( 10 any appreciable extent,
4 Il feeJ convinced that il the Outs
Oh sulphate Of ammonia IS removed