WHAT THE AUTHORITIES SAY ABOUT COMMERCIAL 

 FERTILIZERS 



OR fifteen years, more or 

 less, the editors of this 

 paper have been free 

 users of commercial 

 fertilizers and chemi- 

 cals. In some cases 

 we were disappointed 

 in the results ; i n 

 others we noticed 

 striking, and often re- 



markable effects— effects that astonished not only 

 ourselves, but all to whom they were pointed out, 

 or who had a chance to observe them. On the 

 whole we are satisfied that in their proper places 

 fertilizers are a decidedly good thing. If we were 

 compelled to operate without them, our enjoyment 

 of outdoor operations, and our enthusiasm in horti- 

 cultural pursuits, would be materially impaired, 

 even if we concede that the abundance and cheap- 

 ness of fairly good yard manures in this vicinity 

 has been an inducement for us to rely very largely 

 on that kind of plant-food, and much less than 

 formerly on chemical fertilizers But we do not feel 

 even under these circumstances, that we can get 

 along without them entirely. We have been anxious 

 to know the experience of leading horticulturists 

 with such commercial manures. In the following 

 we present their replies to our inquiry: 



PARK SUPERINTENDENT PARSONS ON LAWN-MANURING. 



For use in the city of New York, I do not feel prepared 

 to say that I would use artificial fertilizers when I could 

 obtain well-rotted stable or barn-yard manure that had 

 been properly composted. I do not consider that such 

 manure is specially offensive to either the eye or nostrils 

 The use of fresh manure on lawns around or near houses 

 is objectionable. — Samuel Parsons, Superintendent of 

 Parks, New York City. 



CEMETERY SUPERINTENDENT NICHOLS FINDS 

 CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS OF BENEFIT. 



My experience has caused me to believe that whilst 

 chemical fertilizers are of great benefit, yet their lasting 

 qualities are not to be compared with well-rotted horse- 

 manure. At Fairmount Cemetery we have used phos- 

 phate with good results. We apply it early in the spring 

 so that the rains will give the grounds the needed ferti- 

 lizing to obtain a good, healthy growth of grass. Where 

 it has been applied, the growth of grass is notable, and 



has a fresh appearance. We generaly apply about one 

 ton to the acre. The cost of the phosphate is $32 per 

 ton, less 10 per cent. In case of using manure we 

 ■would probably use about 50 loads of manure to the 

 acre, and to get this delivered at our cemetery would 

 cost about $1.50 per load, which would be much more 

 expensive than the phosphate. Yet we must bear in 

 mind that the lasting effects of manure will be much 

 greater than the phosphate. — Chas. Nichols, Newark, 

 N. J. 



CEMETERY SUPERINTENDENT SIMONDS IN FAVOR OF 

 BONE-DUST. 



We used for a number of years a compost made by 

 mixing manure, leaves and muck with very good results 

 save the exception of the introduction of a good many 

 weeds in our lawns. On account of the weeds, we have 

 lately been using a commercial fertilizer consisting 

 principally of ground bones. Thisdoesnot seem to pro- 

 duce so marked a result as the compost, but is fairly 

 satisfactory. Some of our lawns have remained in good 

 condition over ten years, without the use of any offensive 

 manures, and I believe the use of any manures can be 

 wholly dispensed with around dwellings. We have used 

 300 to 500 pounds of bone-dust per acre. — O. C. Simonds, 

 Chicago, III. 



JOHN THORPE SPEAKS OF QUICK EFFECTS. 



We have used a certain brand to some extent, and 

 find, if used in small quantities, it is very good. It gives 

 the plants something to work on right away, while it 

 takes some time before stable manure shows its effects. 

 In starting our " Jack " rose houses we always give the 

 ground a slight sprinkling before putting stable manure 

 on. We also use this fertilizer in our carnation beds, 

 and also for pot-plants, when repotting them. For top- 

 dressing and repotting we use a five-inch potful to a 

 wheelbarrow of soil. — John Thorpe, Pearl River , N. Y. 



EBEN E. REXFORD USES food for FLOWERS. 



My experience has been confined chiefly to the ' ' Food 

 for Flowers," manufactured by an eastern fertilizer 

 company. In using this preparation, to the exclusion of 

 others of a similar nature, I have been governed by the 

 " stick-to-a-good- thing- when-you-get-it " principle. 

 There may be other preparations of equal merit, for all 

 I know, but this one has worked so well with me that I 

 have not cared to try them. It is clean, inodorous, and 

 easily applied, and produces prompt and satisfactory 

 results. It is not a mere stimulant, but a real "food." 

 I have used it on plants that required repotting, whose 

 foliage was pale in color and lacking in vigor because 

 of the little nutriment left in the soil, and very soon after 



