JULY 28 
501 
article, which in its spirit, is both unjust and 
untrue. I really regret that the discussion in 
reference to the Niaeara, should have assumed 
80 much of a personal character, for whatever 
its owners or others may think, T have no 
other object in what I may say of it, than 
simply to ascertain and give the truth about 
it, and I know that is what you also desire. I 
do not question the right of the owners of the 
Niagara to place any restrictions upon its sale 
which they may choose; I simply exercise my 
own right to say I do not want it on their 
terms. And I also claim the right to ascer¬ 
tain as far as possible the true character ot a 
grape put forward with such extraordinary 
pretensions, and to express fairly my knowl¬ 
edge and my opinion of it to the public. It 
would be against my interests in every way 
to express an untrue or unfair opinion; and 
I could not afford to do it, even were I so dis¬ 
posed, I have been through all this experience 
before, in reference to the Iona., the Walter, the 
Adirond»c, and other grapes, when I brought 
down upon my head the anathemas of their 
owners by giving the true character of these 
grapes to the public. Time has proven the 
correctness of my statements and opinions; 
and I think I may say I have not been plant¬ 
ing, cultivatiug, comparing and loving grape¬ 
vines for more than forty years, without being 
able to judge something of their character 
and comparative merits. 
Field Experiments with Concentrated 
Fertilizers. 
[From the Report of the Secretary of the Connecticut 
Board of Agriculture, by Prof. W. O. Atwater.] 
Mr. Fairchild’s Experience. —Sometime 
since Mr. Fairchild favored me with a visit at 
my study, and gave quite a number of details 
concerning the results of his experiments and 
experience. With his permission I made notes 
of some of the conversation, and on looking 
them over after his departure, took occasion 
to send him a few further questions in a letter, 
which he has kindly answered. The observa¬ 
tions seemed to me so correct, apposite and 
valuable that I asked the privilege of putting 
them in print. The argument, strongly urged 
that they would be very useful to his fellow 
farmers, finally overcame the objections which 
his modesty interposed. I quote, as nearly as 
practicable, bis own words in the statements 
which follow. 
“ . On the whole, phosphoric acid in 
superphosphate and bone, and potash in mu¬ 
riate, have thus tar proved most efficient. At 
the game time, in many cases at least, I like 
some nitrogen also, and think * a complete fer¬ 
tilizer’ is the most profitable for me.” 
“ .... As to the outcome of my experi¬ 
ments with nitrogen, that depends upon soil 
and crops. ... In my experience thus far, 
nitrogen in small quantities has generally 
proved profitable. Bone and potash give a 
moderate yield of corn and oats on very poor 
land, but I like a good, handsome crop, and 
twenty-four pounds of nitrogen added, have 
more than repaid the cost in increased yield 
of corn and oats. That is, mixtures contain¬ 
ing ‘one-third ration ’ of nitrogen have been 
uniformly more profitable than ‘ mixed min¬ 
erals’ alone, or than mixed minerals with a 
two-thirds or a full ration of nitrogen; and 
this is my experience on a larger scale. ...” 
“ Yet in a number of cases potash salts with 
bone, and also with superphosphate, bring 
excellent crops without nitrogen, and the 
additiou of nitrogen would be unprofitable." 
“My neighbor, Mr. Williams, had a very 
fine piece of corn this year, with only 200 
pounds per acre of bone dust, and 150 pounds 
of muriate of potash, the two costing Beven 
dollars per acre. I have noted quite a num¬ 
ber of similar cases in this district. But my 
land was very badly run out when I took hold 
of it, and seemed to demaud a little nitrogen. 
So far as I have observed, soils that have been 
well manured, seeded down, kept in grass 
awhile, and then plowed again, do well with 
potash and phosphoric acid, without artificial 
supply of nitrogen. My corn in last year’s 
nitrogen experiments, rose with the amount 
of nitrogen added, but the increase was not 
enough to pay the cost of the 72 pounds, or 
even of 48 pounds, though it did pay for the 
24 pounds. And with the oats on the same 
plots the past season the yield rose with in¬ 
crease of nitrogen, but the smallest quantity 
was the most profitable.” 
“ But the potatoes gave a better response to 
the nitrogen than the oats. With them, 48 
pounds per acre was the most profitable, and 
the value of the increase exceeds the cost of 
the fertilizer. With 48 pounds of nitrogen, 
the gain was $57 to $65, while with either 72 
pounds or 24 pounds it runs from $40 to $90. 
I notice also, as a result of my experiments, 
that the potatoes 6eem to respond to the pot¬ 
ash much more readily than either oats or 
corn.” 
Mr. Fairchild’s Formulas. —To my ques¬ 
tion, “Have you arrived at any formulas as 
most suitable for your crops ?” Mr. Fairchild 
answered as follows: 
“ Yes and no. That is, I have made up my 
mind what will probably do well on my land 
and under my conditions for some of my 
crops. But I cannot say what would be most 
advantageous elsewhere, nor do I yet know 
exactly what will prove best for me years 
hence, or with crops I have not tested. For 
my com I expect to use, next Spring, 250 
pounds of fine ground bone, 150 pounds muri¬ 
ate of potash (containing 50 per cent actual 
potash), and 24 pounds of nitrogen in the 
cheapest form I can get it. So far as my ex¬ 
periments go, they indicate that sulphate of 
ammonia and nitrate of soda do rather better 
than dried blood. Nitrate of soda is cheap 
now, and I rather expect to use that.” 
“With potatoes and oats I have not exper¬ 
imented so much. Judging from the past sea¬ 
son's experience, it seems probable that the 
quantities of bone and potash salt I just men¬ 
tioned, and about double the nitrogen, will 
make a good mixture. For oats I am inclined 
to make use of the 3atne proportions as for 
corn, but I think smaller total quantities 
would do upon these crops. According to 
analysis, an oat crop takes less from the soil 
than one of com, and my experience indicates 
that oats will do well with less manure. I 
expected the large quantities on some of the 
plots of the nitrogen experiment would make 
them lodge badly, but the weather or some¬ 
thing else kept them up all right.” 
Bone vs. Superphosphate.—M r. Fairchild 
concludes that for his purposes fine ground 
bone, which he gets at a bone-mill near home, 
is more economical than superphosphate. He 
reasons thus: 
“The bone we are using is of a high grade, 
and contains, by analysis at the experiment 
station, about 25 per cent of phosphoric acid, 
and three par cent or more of nitrogen. The 
bone sawings [from hard bones used in making 
knife-handles, buttons, etc.] run up to 26 per 
cent phosphoric acid or over, while the softer 
bones, ground, average perhaps 23 or 24 per 
cent. I pay $37 per ton for the bone, and can 
get a plain superphosphate, dissolved bone 
black, for a little less, say $33. That is to say, 
the superphosphate, with 16 per cent of phos¬ 
phoric acid, mostly soluble, costs me nearly 
as much as the very fine bone-dust with 25 per 
cent phosphoric acid and 3 per cent nitrogen. 
I suppose the superphosphate acts more quick¬ 
ly, but I have tried the two side by side sev¬ 
eral years and do not see a great deal of dif¬ 
ference in the effects on com, oats, potatoes 
or grass. If I use 300 pounds of each per acre 
I have from the superphosphate 48 pounds of 
phosphoric acid, and from the bone 75 pounds 
of phosphoric acid and nine pounds of 
nitrogen. I have got as much com, oats and 
potatoes the first season from 200 pounds of 
bone-dust as from ,300 pounds of superphos¬ 
phate, each being used with other materials, 
as potash salt, or nitrate of soda, or both, and 
feel reasonably sure that in most any case I 
should get as good a yield from 300 pounds of 
bone as from 300 pounds of superphosphate. 
If I use the superphosphate I have only the 48 
pounds of phosphoric acid, about what a corn 
crop of 50 or 60 bushels would take from the 
soil. But if I use the 300 pounds of bone, 
which costs very little more, I get just as 
good a yield, and have the extra phosphoric 
acid and nitrogen left over. Now I under¬ 
stand chemists to say that the extra phospho¬ 
ric acid will stay r in my soil until future crops 
take it away, and that although the nitrogen 
is slippery stuff and gets away pretty easily, 
still in bone it is pretty stable. So I calculate 
that bone is cheaper on the long ran for me 
than superphosphate.” 
“But ‘circumstances alter cases.’ I was 
talking with a man from Long Island the 
other day w ho told me he had to pay $45 per ton 
for fine bone-dust, while we get the finest 
sawings for $37. Still even at $45, taking into 
account the nitrogen, I think I should use the 
bone-dust, though others might find the super¬ 
phosphate preferable.” 
Mr. Fairchild has some experience with 
commercial fertilizers and stable manures 
together, and like many other experimenters 
whose conclusions have come to my knowl¬ 
edge, he thinks the proper use of commercial 
fertilizers is to supplement the manure of the 
farm. 
He says that if he is going to depend on sta¬ 
ble manure alone for corn, he “ would not 
think of using less than 36 loads (on a wagon 
that carries about 30 bushels) per acre. But 
12 loads or one-third of what I should call a 
fair dressing, with the addition of 200 pounds 
of bone-dust, and 150 pounds of muriate of 
potash, which cost me $7, have brought, during 
the past three seasons on three different fields, 
each of very poor laud, an average of 65 bush¬ 
els of shelled corn per acre, and an excellent 
growth of stalks, and so far as I can see, corn, 
manured m this way, leaves the land in very 
good condition. In one case, for instance, a 
succeeding crop of oats with no manure, gave 
40 bushels per acre. For this region these are 
good yields.” 
How this plan would work on other crops 
Mr. Fairchild is not yet prepared to say. He is 
inclined to think b's best, plan is to use his sta¬ 
ble manure for corn, and piece out with bone 
and potash salt, and to follow with other crops, 
using commercial fertilizers alone. But he 
adds “that others may find it best to use the 
manure on other crops, and depend upon com¬ 
mercial fertilizers aloue for corn.” This he 
regards “ as much cheaper so far as the corn 
is concerned, than to haul manure from city 
stables." 
In this way Mr. Fairchild gave me re¬ 
sults of his experimenting enough to make a 
long article, fortifying every point by facts; 
oftener saying, “ I do not feel sure,” or “ one 
cannot judge such a thing from a few experi¬ 
ments,” than giving a catogorical answer to 
my questions, showing everywhere the spirit 
of the true investigator, and refraining from 
positive conclusions as long as there was room 
for doubt. 
One of the questions to which I solicited a 
brief answer was this, “ Can you state some of 
the ways in which your experiments have 
been of direct practical utility to you 
The answer was this; “ I think they have 
helped me, and will help me in many ways: 
1. They show what fertilizing materials my 
crops must have. 
2. They show me in what quantities, in 
what forms, and in what ways I should 
apply different fertilizers. 
3. They save me money by enabling me to 
buy what I want without using a large quan¬ 
tity of materials I do not want. 
4. I think I shall thus be enabled to raise all 
kinds of crops on very poor land with profit.” 
Why Boys Leave the Farm.— One of Mr. 
Fairchild’s remarks impressed me greatly. It 
was this: 
“ Under the old system of farming, it is no 
wonder the boys leave the farms. You can’t 
blame them. I did so myself, came back, tried 
again, and should have given up once more if 
it had not been for these experiments, and 
what I have learned in connection with them. 
As it is, I find myself giving up outside work, 
devoting myself more and more exclusively to 
my farm, supplementing the labor of my 
hands with the labor of my brains, and I feel 
the benefit in my purse, in my home, and in 
my mind.” 
These details in Mr. Fairchild’s experiments, 
and these words as he spoke and wrote them, 
I have given for a purpose. 
Like thousands of boys brought up on an 
Eastern farm, Mr. Fairchild took Horace 
Greeley’s advice and went West. But circum¬ 
stances called him home again, and he conclu¬ 
ded to try to bring up the old farm. It was 
up-hill work, and he eked out his income by 
teaming and other outside labor, Some years 
ago I became acquainted with him as one of 
the attentive and intelligent participators in 
farmers’ meetings. One day he took me out 
to his farm and showed me what he was trying 
to do. I very well remember a meadow on 
which he told me he had applied, a year or two 
before, nearly a ton of fish-scrap per acre 
which he had to buy with the proceeds of his 
outside labor, and haul several miles. So fai as 
appearance showed, it had done no good at all. 
I naturally inquired if he had tried potash 
salts. This suggested the experimenting 
which he began at once. 
After one or two seasons’ experience, in re¬ 
sponse to an inquiry as to how he was getting 
on, he told me he thought he wa3 learning 
something that would be of great use to him, 
and added that he found himself devoting 
more attention to his farm. The next season 
he told me that he was having better success 
with his farming, and was giviog less time to 
other enterprises. A year later, calling at 
our laboratory to make some inquiries, he re¬ 
marked that he was taking scarcely any con¬ 
tracts for teaming, but was devoting himself 
almost exclusively to his farm. Last Spring 
he called again, and remarked, “ My wife tells 
me I must set up a prescription-shop, so many 
of my neighbors are coming to find out what 
fertilizers I use for my corj.” A few weeks 
ago he was in again to bring reports of his 
experiment 1 -, and at that time occurred the 
conversation reported above. 
Mr. Newton’s Experiments.— In 1880, 
Mr. Newton made a nitrogen experiment with 
corn, on the same plan of those of Messrs. Bar 
tholomew and Fairchild, but with very differ¬ 
ent results, in that the corn paid scarcely any 
heed to either superphosphate or potash salt, 
but responded to the nitrogen in every case, 
the yield rising and falling with the amount 
of nitrogen applied. 
Generally, corn has responded to the mineral 
fertilizers, and got little or no help from the 
nitrogen. Indeed, Mr. Newton’s case is the 
only one I have met in which corn has re¬ 
sponded profitably to the largest ration of 
nitrogen. So rare and interesting a case de 
manded further study. Accordingly, Mr. 
Newton laid out a new experiment in a more 
favorable place—the former was on the slope, 
and the latter on the top of a hill, both being 
in the same field—and on a larger scale, using 
two acres instead of one. 
Table III. 
effects of nitrogenous fertilizers on 
CORN. 
EXPERIMENT OF MR W. C. NEWTON, DURHAM, CONN., 1881. 
SOIL.—Hill, hind; Dark loam ; subsoil moist; 
weather, unfavorable. 
Fertilizers Pr. Acre. Shelled Corn Pr. Acre. 
Bushels. 
No Manure.... 12.5 
Nitrate of Sola, 150 pounds. 22.5 
Superphosphate, SU0 pound*. 13.8 
Muriate of Potash, 150 pounds. 15.0 
Nitrate of Soda, 150 pounds & Superphosphate, 
3 0 pounds, 23.8 
Nitrate of Soda, 150 pounds & Muriate of Potash 
150 pound*, 23.8 
Superphosphate, 300 pounds, A Muriate of Potash, 
150 pounds (mixed minerals,) 13.8 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Nitrate of 8oda, 
150 pounds, 23.3 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Nitrate of Soda, 
300 pounds, 41.7 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Nitrate of Soda, 
450pounds, 56.7 
Mired minerals, 450 pounds.. 16.s 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Sulphate of Am¬ 
monia 112.5 pounds, 23.5 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Sulphate of Am¬ 
monia, 225 0pounds, 42.5 
Mixed minerals, 450 pounds A Sulpha'o of Am¬ 
monia, 387.5 pounds, 43.3 
Nitrate of Soda, 450 pounds.53.8 
Mixed minerals, 450 lhs. & Dried Blood, 225 lbs_28.8 
Mixed minerals, 150 lhs., A Dried Blood. 4501bs.... 33.8 
Mixed minerals, 450 lbs., A Dried Blood, K75 lbs... 40.6 
Mixed minerals, 450 lbs. 20.6 
No manure..... 13 .* 
Nothing could be more striking than the 
effect of the nitrogen and the almost entire 
failure of the other materials to increase the 
yield. As in the experiment of 1S80, the com 
ignores the superphosphate and potash salt 
almost entirely, but responds to nitrogen in 
every form and rises and falls with the 
amount applied. Even nitrate of soda alone, 
at the rate of 450 pounds per acre, despite the 
unfavorable season, raises the yield from 13 
bushels, with no manure, to 54 bushels per 
acre. 
I was surprised at the outcome of the exper¬ 
iment of 1880, and wrote Mr. Newton as 
much, and expressed the wish that he would 
try again. In his report of the second exper¬ 
iment he say3 facetiously but forcibly: “So 
you Bee nitrogen is king in my hill.” 
The very fact that Mr. Newton’s experiment 
is such an exception, renders it all the more 
interesting and valuable. 
The General Outcome of the Experi¬ 
ments of 1881.—Taking into account the ex¬ 
periments as a whole, of which those detailed 
above are samples, I do not see that I can 
alter in any material way the conclusions 
given in previous reports, and which I do not 
repeat here, for the simple reason that they 
have been stated in this volume, as it seems to 
me, times enough. 
That season, seed and tillage are extremely 
important factors of plant growth, are facts 
that everybody knows, no one fully under¬ 
stands, and too few recognize in their practice. 
That soils vary widely in their power of 
supplying food to plants, and that oftentimes 
a soil needs draining or other amendment as 
much or more them manure, are other facts 
which every body knows and but few act upon, 
and which consequently need continual urging 
by example and by precept. 
That the best way for a farmer to find what 
ingredients of plant-food his soil and crops 
want,and with what fertilizers they can best be 
supplied,is by direct experiment; aud that such 
experiments as have been detailed in these 
reports, when properly conducted to bring 
reliable answers and are within the power of 
ordinary farmers, are facts that seem to me 
to have been so thoroughly illustrated as to 
make further discussion of their practicability 
and utility unnecessary here. 
As to the feeding capacity of different 
plants, the results of the last year’s special 
nitrogen experiments, which have been much 
more numerous than those of previous years, 
simply confirm and amplify what has been 
said before. Com, with rare exceptions, gets 
on fairly well with little or no nitrogen in 
manures, but generally responds to phospho¬ 
ric acid, and often to potash. 
Potatoes have seldom failed in a favorable 
season to respond profitably to nitrogen, phos¬ 
phoric acid and potash, each and ail. The data 
for other crops is still too meager to permit 
reliable generalizations. 
In Conclusion.— The truth I wish espe¬ 
cially to enforce in this writing, and which I 
repeat once more because it is so important, 
is this: 
We want more light. We want more rea 
son in farming. We want more men to study 
to read, to think, to experiment, to get facts 
for themselves, for their neighbors, and for 
the community at large, and to give still 
greater strength to the movement that so 
happily characterizes our time, the agricul¬ 
tural revival that is so rationally and rapidly 
pervading the land. 
Tha strongest objection I have known to be 
