Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1917-03-16

700 Lbs. Of Ground
RhnHr,h nnal-

l Fourth 81 iNf
Eittb OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. "oo
Totals ............. las S.
Observe that in 1915 the use of 400
hounds OF rock phosphate increased the
| WELD Of cotton very slightly. whereas.
the use of 400 pounds or acid phosphate
increased the yield by 2l9 pounds Of
seed cotton. In 1916 the yields from
the ground rock plats were not so good
as where no fertilizer was used, where
as. there was an increased yield of l56
pounds of seed cotton where 400 pounds
of acid phosphate were applied. The
acid phosphate cost approximately 81
per hundred pounds. The increased
yield of lint cotton from its use in 1919
was IS pounds, and in 1916, % pounds.
Even at 10 cents pound for lint cot
ton. its application was profitable. ana
as the price of the lint increases ii be
comes more ane more valuable, so that
on the basis OF 30 cent cotton in 1910,
an application Of 81 worth of acid phos-
phate represented an increase of lint
worth 5000. or a net return of $40.
But this result is not so important to
the farmer as the fact that in both
years the application of acid phosphate
FASTENED the maturity of the cotton crop
very appreciably as shown by the
weights obtained from the first two
pickings. I'm 1916. for instance, where
no fertilizer was applied. the first two
pickings totaled 24O pounds: where 400
pounds of acid phosphate was used. the
first two pickings totaled 400. and where
400 pounds of rock phosphate were APP
piled. 334 pounds. In other words,
nearly twice as much cotton was oh
tanned from the first and second pickings
where acid phosphate was applied as
compared with rock phosphate. In 9TH
er words. the farmer using the acid
phosphate had a good chance TO make
2 fair yield even in territory badly in
Tested by the weevil
These facts are in accord with the
data already presented which indicate
that the cotton plant needs A liberal
amount OF acid phosphate and takes
most of Il VI, in the early stages of its
growth and development. They are als1
i'm accord with tests made i'm various
parts of the state which have shown
IN to this time but little benefit TO be
derived from the use of rock phospha -
on Georgia soils In their present conCl-
ton. Line has also given but little
return under cotton, and according to
our observation, its appliation TO this
crop could not he consistently RECON-
meuded at present. 1t is possible that
when our soils have been built up
through the use OF very large amounts
Of yard manure and green leguminouS
crops turned under that floats or ground
phosphate rock. under whatever name
il passes. may be Of some value as
source of phos-horic acid. but at the
present time its application can not be
consistently recommended where immc-
date returns are sought and farmers
whose lands are infested with the boil
weevil and use it with the expectation
of securing a maximum crop of cotto"
matured in the shortest period of time
are doomed to appointment.
RELATION OF NITROGEN AND COM.
PLETE FERTILIZERS TO THE
YIELD OF COTTON.
The Importance of nitrogen as a fac
tor in cotton production has already
been emphasized. In tests conducted in
the demonstration field of the Colleg"
OF Agriculture at Athens during tn
past two years. il appears that the chcc',
plsts made an average yield of sol
pounds OF seed cotton. The plats fer
tilted with 400 pounds of acid phos-
phate made a yield of 1.13j pounds
which represents an increase of =
pounds OF seed cotton per acre. Tn
plats fortified with phosphoric acid al
nitrogen. the amount OF nitrogen appljc1
representing approximately The use Of
a formula containing 400 pounds of COT
per cent of nitrogen. made a yield
Of 1921 pounds. or an increase of Is
pounds Of seed cotton per acre due 20
nitrogen. When "A complete fertilizer
was used containing nitrogen and phos-
phoric acid in the proportions mention.
ed. together with 100 pounds of muriat,
OF potash. the WELD became Lac pounds.
or an increase of 121 pounds of see:
cotton per acre due % potash. Potas'
il. Of course. now so expensive unless
Il can be secured. as previously SUE
gested. through cotton seed meal ur
wood ashes that the farmer could hard
IL afford 10 invest in it. even though
FL might increase the yield to a cous.G-
cradle degree.
SUGGESTIONS on FERTILIZIN'
LEGI-MES GROWN. AS SUBSTl-
TUTES FOR COTTON.
I'm the tests made 10 date lime do,
not seem to have exerted very az
probable effect on the yield of cotton
but il has shown highly beneficial vc
suits when used under legunes. I'
some sections OF southwesrY Gcor=t.,
where weeyiI damage has been great
est. there is a tendency 10 replace coi =,
ION with peanuts. velvet beans and OH
81 legumes The peanut is grown g.,
two purposes; first. 10 sell 10 oil M
for the purpose Of manufacturing
and meal: and second. to use as sra
ing crop for hogs. The velvet beans .i
grown primarily for their feeding yaiu
as a concentrate. CowpeaS. Of Cour~
are grown largely for hay. NumerOU
experiments indicate that all leguminou
crops are highly benefited by appl.ca-
tFons of lime. When peanuts are grown