80 , The Bulletin. 



THE RELATION OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS TO SOIL 



IMPROVEMENT. 



Br E. L. WORTHEN. 



The fertilizer bill for Nor!h Carolina in 1910 was approximately $12,500,000. 

 This does not include cotton seed, cotton-seed meal, except where used in 

 mixed fertilizers, nor farm manures. This year the cost of all fertilizers 

 used in the State will probably reach $14,000,000. The total fertilizer expendi- 

 ture for the five-year period from 1901 to 1905, inclusive, was $38,000,000, 

 and for the following five-year period, which includes last year, nearly 

 $52,000,000. 



This increasing expenditure for fertilizers has generally been accompanied 

 by increased crop yields. In the case of cotton and tobacco, however, the 

 two field crops which receive the heaviest fertilization, this is not true. Sta- 

 tistics show that the average cotton yields for these two five-year periods are 

 virtually the same, while the average yield of tobacco has decreased some- 

 what. 



When we consider that these crops have supposedly received better atten- 

 tion during the last period, we are hardly justified in drawing the cojiclusiou 

 that fertilizers are increasing our crop yields, and certainly not that they are 

 upbuilding our soils. This does not mean that fertilizers have been used 

 without profit nor that the yields have been less than without them. They 

 have generally given handsome returns on both of these crops, and in the case 

 of most of the soils have done more than any other one factor in maintaining 

 the yields. 



Nevertheless, such a great expenditure by the farmers of a single State 

 should give some permaneut returns. It should not be a constant drain on 

 the farmers' profit. They can well afford to meet heavy fertilizer bills in 

 times of high prices, but when the price of farm produce is down the margin 

 of profit cannot cover a large fertilizer bill. The results obtained from the 

 use of these rajiidly increasing amounts of fertilizer certainly do not indicate 

 that the expenditure has been made most wisely. 



It is to the more economical use of fertilizers, and especially to the selection 

 for permanency, that every landowner of the State should turn his attention. 

 In the past, and even yet, the crop is commonly taken as the basis of fertiliza- 

 tion. The commercial fertilizer industry has been built up almost entirely 

 on this ground. Various materials have been mixed in varying amounts to 

 furnish the requirements of the different crops. Hundreds of brands are on 

 the market to-day, some reconunended for cotton, some for corn, and others 

 for tobacco, wheat, potatoes, etc. Some mixtures are claimed to be ada])ted 

 to "an individual crop, while others are recommended for several different 

 ones. The soil has not been taken into consideration ; the character, composi- 

 tion, and quality of the crop being the determining factors. In consequence 

 of this, the farmer has naturally been led to overestimate the crop in pur- 

 chasing his fertilizer. He generally selects one of the various brands recom- 

 mended for the crop he is to plant, and unfortunately the price rather than 

 the conipositioB is too frequently the determining factor. The deficiencies of 

 his individual soil, and the effect of fertilizer except on the immediate crop 

 to which it is applied, are not considered. 



At the same time the farmer is l)elng advised to adopt other methods for 

 imi)roving his soil. He is urged to cultivate more thoroughly; to prevent 

 erosion; to tile poorly drained lands; to turn under catch crops, especially 

 h'gumes ; and to produce and to return to the land as much farm manure as 

 possible. These are all essential, but can bring about the greatest results 

 oidy when employed in conjunction with a system of cultivation which is 

 jilaimed to supply the deficiencies of the soil. In other words, with the adop- 

 tion of these other methods of better farming, conducive to the permanent 

 uplmilding of the farm, selection of fertilizer for its permanent effect nmst be 

 considered. 



