Soil Investment Pays lilf lleti4A4iA. 



ON THE average, the use of lime 

 and fertilizers is not an expensive 

 proposition on most Illinois soils. 

 It is true that some of our soils are 

 very unproductive because they need 

 good amounts of lime, phosphate and 

 potash and the cost seems out of pro- 

 portion to the value of the crops now 

 t>eing produced as well as the value of 

 the land. But even these soils are well 

 worth treating if one can manage to 

 finance the original treatment costs to 

 get the balanced fertility program un- 

 derway. 



On such soils the original cost of 

 treatment per acre may average over 

 the first couple of rotations as much as 

 $4 to $5 per year. But the increase in 

 yields obtained may be worth 3 to 4 

 times as much as this. 



On the more fertile soils the cost of 

 fertilization is not problem. These 

 soils are already giving high enough 

 yields so that one cannot afford not 

 to use fertilizers. 



After all, a 20 per cent decrease 

 in yields, because either phos- 

 phorus or potash or both are not 

 quite good enough, means a de- 

 crease of as much as 16 bushels 

 ■ of corn per acre if you have one 

 of those good soils capable of pro- 

 ducing 80 bushels of com. It 

 costs only $2 to $3 per acre per 

 year to increase your average 

 yields 20 per cent. Is 20 per cent 

 of the yield you are getting now 

 worth $2 or $3? Of course it is, 

 and a lot more. 



My point is that when you base your 

 lime and fertilizer use on a good soil 

 testing program, you insure your re- 

 turns by using them where they are 

 needed and in the amounts needed. 

 Under the soil testing program, such as 

 your farm adviser has for you, lime 

 and fertilizer use is not a gamble. 



Just how sure is this soil testing pro- 

 gram? Can it be applied to all the 

 soils of the state or the Corn Belt.' 

 Can it discover deficiencies for lime, 

 phosphate and potash and give each 

 farmer a special lime and fertilizer 

 program which fits his own field? The 

 answer is yes to all questions. 



By DR. R. H. BRAY 



Professor of Soil Fertility 

 U. of 1. College of Agriculture 



For proof, let us take the experiment 

 fields in Illinois where the response to 

 lime, phosphate and potash have been 



culations are based on prices like 30 

 cent oats and 50 cent corn, but the lime 

 and fertilizer prices are almost the 



V 



':.'We'-» .■" 



^^' 



H\ 



k»- 



1 ;ifc: 



The practice of spreading limestone on growing com is expanding lapidly. 



Studied for years. Year after year 

 yields on the treated and untreated 

 plots have been carefully measured on 

 these fields. Can the soils of these 

 fields be tested and the most profitable 

 treatment system be picked out by the 

 soil tests? Again the answer is yes. 

 For example the soil tests for 

 the Aledo field said the use of just 

 limestone in addition to residues 

 and clovers would be sufficient. 

 The reports of Doctor Bauer and 

 his associates show that, over a 

 period of 30 years or more, the 

 Aledo field has returned $16.50 

 each year for the use of lime and 

 the residues system costing $1.33 

 a year. Or take the Bloomington 

 field. Here the test said to use 

 both lime and phosphate along 

 with the use of clovers in the resi- 

 due system. This field, for over 

 30 years, has been paying off at 

 the rate of $10.69 per acre each 

 year at a cost of $2.79 per acre 

 per year. 



Or take the Toledo field where the 

 tests said lime, phosphate and potash 

 were needed at a cost per year of $5.78. 

 This field has been paying back $17.- 

 15 each year for this practice for the 

 past 30 years or so. Who says lime 

 fertilizers don't pay! Now these cal- 



same now as before the war. At pres- 

 ent crop prices the returns for ferti- 

 lizers will be greater than this. 



However, let us stick to our average 

 crop prices and survey the rest of the 

 experiment fields. As I look up and 

 down the whole list of 23 experiment 

 fields located all over the state, I can- 

 not find a single field where the con- 

 sistent use of the material recom- 

 mended by the test values did not 

 double or treble the money invested. 

 In fact the average cost of treat- 

 ment for all 23 fields is $3.60 per 

 acre while the average return each 

 year has been $9.53 or almost a 3 

 to 1 return. This is about $6.00 

 per acre net, a profit to be taken 

 seriously. Do any of you own any 

 $100 bonds which are returning 

 you $200 to $300 each year or 

 200 to 300 per cent? Furthermore, 

 these returns on the fields are the 

 average returns for 30 or more 

 years. The larger yields now 

 being obtained with hybrid com 

 and other improved varieties of 

 crops would increase the returns 

 still more. 



However, you cannot guess about 

 fertilizer use. You cannot get these 

 profitable returns unless you use it 

 where it is needed and in the amounts 



L A. A. RECOBD 



