1882.] COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS. 121 



origin. Ashes, bones, and fish, have long been bought and used 

 for this purpose, but their use was limited, and the trade in them 

 local. They were not in form adapted to transportation, storage, 

 and easy application to the soil. The market was not supplied 

 with them. They were not quoted in its reports. Their influence 

 upon production was bat slight, and no great change in the busi- 

 ness or work of the farm was consequent upon their use. The 

 general introduction and use of commercial fertilizers must be 

 distinguished from this local and occasional use of some articles 

 belonging to the list This general movement has already pro- 

 duced great changes in farm practice, and far greater changes are 

 likely to follow. I would like to look both ways in this matter; 

 looking backward, to mark and measure the direction and force 

 of this new impulse, and then forward to see wldther it will lead, 

 and where it will land us. 



In my own mental chronology this general introduction of com- 

 mercial fertilizers dates from the earlier importations of Peruvian 

 guano into this country. This article was in convenient form to 

 handle and transport, ready for immediate application, and woiidcr- 

 fully prompt and effective in its action. I well remember the first 

 instance of its use upon my father's farm. An old pasture, moss 

 grown and bush-infested, was broken up for the usual summer fal- 

 low in preparation for a crop of rye. It gave a good opportunity 

 for a trial of the new fertilizer and an application of about 150 

 lbs. per acre was made. For a test, one corner of the field was 

 left without any application. The result showed that the guano 

 had more than doubled the crop of rye, and the grass for several 

 years afterwards testified that its benefits extended beyond the 

 first crop. This was the common experience, and guano was re- 

 ceived into favor at once. Row other articles have been brought 

 forward as competitors for the public favor, and how some have 

 succeeded and some have failed, I cannot now stop to recite. 

 Most of you have been interested spectators of the movement and 

 are familiar with all its details. But perhaps I ought not to pass 

 to the consideration of results without a few words upon the broad 

 question of profit in the use of these articles. There are not want- 

 ing those wlio do not believe in them ; who think they are not 

 worth their cost, and that the agricultural community would be 

 better off without them. I do not propose to argue this question 

 at length. Most farmers do use them, and their action testifies 



