The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1920-02-27
Something New Under the Sun May
Lead to Large Operations

cuiaJ0u 10 WOrK new and great Dene-s
ficial results in agriculture. we reprint
the following article from the pen of
Mr.. Mildly w. Lloyd in the Grower,
notwithstanding its length as we feel
that it is so important and means so
much:
In way we were very much sur
prised to read the article in the Flor.
ida Grower, issue of January IL. At
the same time, we are becoming So
accustomed to opposition from farm
papers, some chemical men, fertilizer
men, some county agents, and some
state officials, that we are no longer
very much surprised at anything that
happens. We mention "some" in con-
nection with the above because here
and there we do find chemical fertil-
izer men, state employees, ETC., who
have an open mind, who are not so
prejudiced, and who are not so free
in condemning something with which
they are in many cases thoroughly un.
familiar
i We do not know exactly how to
account for all the unreasonable OPP
position this company encounters but
i one thing is certain, and that is if we
had not been fairly well fixed financi
ally and willing to put thousands of
dollars of our money into the devel.
opment of Phosphogerm, we would
have been put off the market long
lago. Whether or not this is the de-
lsired effect of some organizations is
an open question, but if we are to |
judge by action. that seems to be |
the desired result.
| 1t is worthy of note to mentions in |
passing, that Phosphogerm is made |
under patents issued by the United /
| States Government, dated April 3 |
1906, Sept. 10, 1907 and June 2, 1914 |
We have never seen this fact mention |
ed in any of the articles against Phos-
phogerm. Perhaps if some others |
could use our patents there would not
| be so much strong and unreasonable |
opposition.
| But to get back to your article In
! the first place, Mr. "a r." of Punta
Gorda, who wrote to your paper,
| doubtlessly feels that he was thor
oughly justified in what he did, Yet
he has been an innocent party mi
causing you to print the article
against Phosphogerm. Just consider
the position of "A. r. He never used
Phosphogerm and does not know the
value of it. Our salesman was there
only to ask him to buy bag or two
and use it beside any other fertilizer
he was using this season. Your pre-.
yious article against Phosphogern
had caused this man to feel that our
representative was there to defraud
him. In other words, your article had
absolutely closed to us the possibility
of having this man try for himself
and see the value OF. Phosphogarin.
compared to other fertilizers. AS a
matter of fact, the man who reads
lwhat you have printed, and then does
get good results with Phosphogerm,
viii hesitate to believe that Phospho
Egerm had anything to do with his
crop
! The space you can allow us for this
communication is limited, and we
wish to use it as far as possible in
direct reply to the points brought out
in your article of January nth. In
the first place your entire article IS
based on chemical analysis and you
say Phosphogerm is a fake simply be
cause it does not have a chemical
II analysis. Here is a quotation from
our booklet "Phosphogerm shows no
4 chemical analysis because it contains
none Chemicals destroy bacteria and
i Phosphogerm teens with countless
billions Of them. Thereforea chemi.
cal analysis of Phosphogerm means
nothing. Phosphogerm is a food bed
land workshop for bacteria, which do
Il their work rapidly and effectively in
lyour soil They supply your crops in
natures way, and they don't
! introduce lot Of harmful acids and
chemicals in doing it. Competition
try to belittle Phosphogerm by stat
ing it has no ANALYSIS. Please remem
Der we claim none; it is this acid
chemical proposition we have been
trying to get away from What does
this mean? 1t means that the state
chemist and your paper and many
Others take the very point on which
T the success OF. Phosphogerm is based
land attempt to make it appear that
we are trying to defraud the public