416 State Horticultural Society. 



tliat where their cniployiiient proves profitable under these circumstances, 

 it is merely the result of accident and not good judgment. 



On our small farm of but 220 acres we have five or more distinct 

 classes of soil, each demanding- different combinations of fertilizing agent?, 

 v/idely different forms, too, for best results, as well as widelv varying 

 quantities, and this regardless of crops to be grown thereon. Xo scientist 

 much less a fertilizer manufacturer, 1,000 or even 50 or 250 or 10 miles 

 from here, could possibly devise a formula that would suit our farm. Xo 

 two, 'or three, or even four fornuilas would answer. What \n\\\ then 

 'twould be to limit oneself to one : and how much better it would be. how- 

 much more sensible and business like, to get the ingredients at first hand, 

 at first cost and mix at home a fertilizer, adapted to the soil to which it 

 :s to be applied and also to the needs of the special *rop to be grown there- 

 on. We are far from opposing the ferilizer manufacturer or ''mixer." 

 Their facilities for mixing are undoubtedly better than can be found on the 

 ordinary farm : but it does look like to us that, unless they exact from their 

 customers exh'orbitant charges for this self same mixing, it would be just- 

 as profitable for them to sell the unmixed goods. The extra profit is 

 bound to be in the mixing, or in the substitution of poorer forms of plant 

 food: if the former, the farmer can do as well if not better (for reasons 

 given above) himself; while, if the latter, as "the best is none too good." 

 v.e would favor boycotting the manufacturer. Frauds of that description 

 are of altogether too common occurrence as evidenced by the fertilizer- 

 inspection bulletins of the various states. Take the state of X"^orth Caro- 

 lina for instance. In 1898 of 823 brands registered in the state, 53 of 

 which were analyzed, one out of every four and one-fifth of the whole 

 number analyzed fell below its guarantee in some ingredient. Of the 

 superphosphates with potash, one brand in every seven and one-half fell 

 below guarantee in available phosphoric acid ; one in every four and 

 one-half in potash, and one in nearl}- every three in availabk phosphoric 

 acid and potash. Of the so-called "complete" fertilizers, one in every nine 

 and a fraction fell below guarantee in available phosphoric acid ; one in 

 nearly every twelve in ammonia ; one in every ten and one-third in potash ; 

 and one in about three and one-half in either available phosphoric acid, 

 ammonia or potash." 



It would be a very unskillful workman who could not have done 

 this well, or better, and with no better implements than shovel and hoe 

 on a tight barn-floor. But by far the major portion of these brands 

 fell off in valuation, yet the farmers of the State footed the bill, cheerfully, 

 we suppose, because ignorantly. In this instance, at least "Ignorance 

 w^as bliss." We may be 25, or 50, or 100 years ahead of the progressive 

 age in which we live, but sooner or later the time is bound to come when 

 the American farmer will assert himself, and purchase his phosphoric 



