INTENSIVE AND EXTENSIVE FARMING 163 



crop on the latter plot pays this and leaves $5.65 to pay for 

 the other extra costs. This must pay interest on $18.50, 

 crop insurance, pay for hauling and applying the extra 

 fertilizer, and for harvesting, storing, and marketing the 

 increased crops of 10 bushels of corn, 15 bushels of oats, 9 

 bushels of wheat, and 1785 pounds of hay. The farmer is 

 not likely to find any one who is willing to undertake this 

 contract for $5.65. 



Comparing plots 2 and 6, we find an increased cost of $12 

 and an increased return above cost of $5.30. This has to 

 pay interest on $12, crop insurance, pay for hauling the 

 extra fertilizer, and for harvesting and marketing. 



Certainly plot 6 pays better than plot 11, for there is 

 only 35 cents to pay all the extra costs of the larger 

 crop. 



Without a further analysis of the results, we would 

 conclude that on this soil and under these conditions, one 

 should use nitrogen and phosphorus. But the farmer 

 who is short of money will spend all he has for phosphorus, 

 because it gives a phenomenal return. Most farmers who 

 have this type of soil are short of money and most of 

 them use fertilizers that contain little but phosphorus. 



It is probable that a fertilizer that is mostly phosphorus, 

 but that contains a little nitrogen and, perhaps, a little 

 potassium, will pay best on this soil. This is the experi- 

 ence of farmers on this soil in New York, Pennsylvania, 

 and Ohio. It is also fairly certain that a little heavier 

 applications than the farmer commonly uses would pay, 

 if the farmer has the necessary money. 



109. An example of cost accounts in the use of fer- 

 tilizers. Table 27 gives the results from a set of cost ac- 

 counts in growing 60 acres of timothy hay on a New York 

 farm. The increased crop, due to fertilizing, was about 



