Miscellaneous. 



420 



[Nov. 1906. 



owners of those farms thought that their soils were so rich that cotton seed would 

 not make them richer. We now know that the reason why cotton seed is not 

 effective on rich virgin and alluvial soils is because the chief plant food constituent 

 of seed is nitrogen, and that these soils are already abundantly supplied with that 

 element. 



But the farmers of the " old red hills " of Georgia and of the adjoining States 

 were accustomed to use cotton seed as a manure for wheat, oats, corn, sugar cane, 

 garden vegetables, etc. My personal recollections and experience of farm practices 

 extend back to 1849, when I first guided the plow. But at corn planting time I 

 dropped the plow-lines and was put to " dropping corn," or " dropping cotton seed." 

 The seed was well rotted and applied at the rate of one "handful to two hills " (about 

 ten bushels per acre), 



1 pass over the fact that cotton seed was also appreciated by the old-time 

 farmer as food for the cow and death to the hog. I will only add that as late as 

 1870 1 witnessed cotton seed selling at an executor's sale (for manurial purposes) at 

 27 cents per bushel of 30 pounds— a price that you seed crushers are rarely willing 

 to give. But it is true that the farmers of that day knew nothing about cottonseed 

 meal and cottonseed oil, for they had never seen the seed separated into its 

 constituents. That Avas the dark age of cottonseed knowledge. 



Cottonseed has undoubted merit as a manure, or rather as an ingredient of 

 a fertilizer. Its conspicuous defect is the fact that its content of nitrogen is out of 

 all just proportion to its content of phosphoric acid and potash. It is "complete" 

 in that it contains all three of the so-called elements, but is almost as badly balanced 

 as is stable manure. As we can now readily understand, it was most effective when 

 a] > plied to a crop — such as wheat, oats, corn, garden vegetables — that requires a large 

 percentage of nitrogen. This unbalanced natural composition, while a serious 

 de fect, may be readily remedied by compositing the seed — in the soil or other- 

 wise—with the proper quantities of acid phosphate and some form of potash. 



Another defect is the necessity for partially rotting the seed in order to 

 prevent germination. It is a fact, however, that well-rotted cottonseed is really 

 more effective than the unrotted, crushed seed, because in that form it is much 

 more quickly available. 



Let us now examine into the merits of cottonseed meal as a fertilizer, or 

 fertilizer ingredient. 



1. Its mechanical condition is practically perfect, permitting it to be dis- 

 tributed with ease or readily mixed with other ingredients. 



2. It is quicker in action than the raw or unrotted seed. 



3. It is less bulky and less offensive to handle. 



Its defects are, as in the case of the seed, that it is badly balanced, being 

 even worse in this respect than cottonseed, containing as it does nearly three times 

 as much nitrogen as of phosphoric acid, and nearly five times as much potash. It is 

 too rich in nitrogen, when used alone, for any crop that is planted. But cotton 

 meal is a remarkably convenient nitrogenous ingredient in preparing a complete 

 and well-balanced fertilizer for any crop that requires such a fertilizer. 



Up to this point it perhaps has not been manifest what direction this dis- 

 cussion will take and what proposition may be affirmed. I will now affirm, and hope 

 to be able to maintain, the following propositions : — 



1. That cotton meal is a cheaper and more effective fertilizer than cotton- 

 seed. 



2. That a farmer should never use cottonseed directly as a fertilizer when 

 he may exchange it for a fair equivalent of meal. 



