125 
It may be that there would be some difficulty in the older States in changing from 
these long-used, though misused, names to the names of the elements, but it would 
be no more difficult than to change from the older money systems to the decimal 
systems, as has been done by almost every civilized nation excepting England, or to 
change from the old cumbersome systems of weights and measures to the simpler 
metric system, as has been done by nearly all countries excepting the United States 
and Great Britain. 
Certainly we have no right to force these old, incorrect, and meaningless names 
upon the progressive farmers of the great central West. 
They desire to understand both the practice and science of agriculture. It is only 
in agriculture that these absurd names are used. In the steel and iron industry, when 
they have anything to say about phosphorus, they say phosphorus; in pharmacy and 
medicine, when they say phosphoric acid they mean phosphoric acid. 
In the latest publication from the U. S. 1 department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils 
(Bulletin No. 22, "The chemistry of the soil as related to crop production"), all 
analyses reported show the amount of the element potassium and not potash. 
Already several of the States have passed laws compelling the use of nitrogen in 
place of "ammonia" in fertilizer analyses, and the Illinois legislature, upon request 
of the Illinois State Farmers' Institute, has passed a law requiring that all fertilizers 
sold in the State shall bear a statement of the analysis which shall show the exact 
percentages of the three elements, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contained 
in the fertilizer sold. 
The Illinois fertilizer manufacturers supported the bill for this law, making the 
purchase and use of plant food more readily intelligible to the farmer; and it is not 
too much to hope that other States will join in reducing the purchase and sale of 
fertilizers and the use of plant food to the simplest possible basis. 
The matter was referred to the section for consideration at the next convention. 
The third meeting of the section was called to order at 2 o'clock p. m. Thursday, 
Xovember 19, by the chairman, C. G. Hopkins, of Illinois, in the banquet hall of 
the Shoreham Hotel. 
L. G. Carpenter, of Colorado, read the following paper: 
Artificial Irrigation in Humid and Semiarid Districts. 
In an arid country irrigation is a primal necessity, while in a humid country it is 
an adjunct to agriculture and may be dispensed with. The attitude of the two 
regions toward the practice is therefore fundamentally different. In the one case 
every other consideration for its practice must yield to the necessity. Water is 
applied because it is water, wet. In the other the consideration is to be judged by 
the same standard as any other practice, viz, Do the returns justify the expense'.' 
An answer to the general question goes farther afield than the time or the occasion 
permits. The practice, in fact, like so many others, may be profitable and desirable 
in one community, unprofitable and therefore undesirable in another, advantageous 
on one farm and disadvantageous on its neighbor. There are besides other differ- 
ences between the East and the West which need to be taken into account in a 
consideration of the question. 
An answer can best be given by indirect statement and recalling some of the 
primary considerations. For what purpose would irrigation be applied? We may 
broadly distinguish : 
(1) As a matter of insurance. As against disaster from droughts. There are few 
places where droughts are not disastrous at times. The expenditure justified for 
such a purpose would be governed by the same considerations as determine the 
amount to be paid for any other insurance. A prudent person is willing to pay more 
than his actual risk; only because of that can a company thrive. Usually the more 
prudent and farseeing the man, the more anxious is he to dispose of his risk. For 
the same reason a careful man can afford to invest more than the risk actually is 
worth to insure against crop failure. The justification is that a single failure may 
cripple a man beyond recovery. 
(2) Connected with the consideration is the assurance of production approaching 
the maximum. The two considerations merge into each other, but vary essentially 
in character. The one contemplates irrigation as an emergency and in occasional 
years; the other as an ordinary resource, available every year; no year when crops 
do not suffer from lack of water at the proper time. There is. of course, the case of 
excess of water in wet years, but even in these years other crops suffer at some other 
season of the year by reason of a deficit. There are, to be sure, failures, partial ov 
complete, from various causes — plant diseases, insects, poor preparation of soil, but 
