250 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTUKE. 



By the use of fertilizers is not the size of the crop wo wish to jijjither withiu 

 our control? For exanijile, if we wiiiit twc'iity-live bushris of wlieat to the 

 acre, cannot we add to the soil the oletnents tliat so much wheat would require 

 and the crop be forthcoming? If fifty buf?hels, the elements required, and so 

 on wiihin certain limits? This is the view held by one eminent agricultural 

 writer in the east. His theory is, that what the soil would })roduce without 

 manure would be enough to pay interest on the value of tlie land, taxes, and 

 cost of cultivating the crop; that by the ap[)lication of fertilizeis containing 

 the elements for a cro]) of any size, within certain limit.«, the crop of that size 

 will be obtained. If this theory is correct, its application would eliminate all 

 uncertainty in farming. But there are too many conditions in agriculture 

 beyond our control to make this theory a success in practice. The soil may 

 jiot be in a proper condition for the application of a fertilizer. It may need 

 drainage, or be of so light quality that much of the value of a fertilizer would 

 be washed out of the soil before it could be appropriated by the crop. 



But if the farmer was certain of a crop of the size he desired, would it pay 

 him to aj)ply the necessary elements in the form of fertilizers? Suj^pose, for 

 example, a crop of tweuty-tive bushels of wheat is desired, it would require 

 manure as follows : 



41 pounds of nitrogen @ 20c. per lb S8 20 



24 " potash @ 5c. per'lb 120 



20 " phosphoric acid @ 12Ac. per lb 2 50 



Total - Ui 90 



Cost of straw _ 3 60 



Total cost of crop -- $15 50 



The manure for 25 bushels of oats would cost 17.10; for 100 bushels of 

 potatoes, $7.28; for one ton of red clover hay, $11.28. Perhaps the high 

 price of fertilizers in the east will repay the use of fertilizers to this extent, I 

 am sure it will not pay in Michigan. 



This method of estimating how much manure to apply loses sight of the fact 

 that the soiliurnishes the most of the food for the crop. The soil is not inert 

 matter, simply to support the plant and hold the food for the crop; it is the 

 principal factor in producing the crop. In the words of Prof. Kedzie, "The 

 soil is something more than the platter to hold the plant's dinner. Tiie soil, 

 so far from being the mere dish to hold the food is itself the roast beef, the 

 princi2)al dish of the meal, while ihe manures we use with profit are merely 

 the pepper and mustard which makes- the beef palatable and digestible." 



There are undoubtedly cases where commercial fertilizers could be used to 

 good advantage, e. g., on a soil that is so utterly barren that no crop can be 

 grown upon it with ])rofit and farm manuie cannot be obtained. Prof. John- 

 son gives an account of improvement of light soil in England by this means. 

 He says: "About the middle of the last century a light-house known as the 

 Dunstan Pillar was built in the Lincolnshire Heath, in Lincolnshire, England. 

 It was erected to guide travelers over a trackless barren waste, a very desert, 

 almost in the heart of England, and long it served its useful purpose. The 

 pillar, no longer a light house, now stands in the midst of a fertile and rich 

 farming region, where all the laud is in high cultivation. For twenty-five 

 years no barren heath has been visible, even from its top. Superphosphate of 

 lime, a chemical invention, first applied to the land by the British chemist 

 Murray, and brought to notice of reading farmers by Baron Liebig, has been 



