SOS 
THE RURAL JEW-YORKER. 
to the phosphoric acid and paid so little heed 
to the other materials, potatoes have been in¬ 
variably and largely benefited by the potash 
and the nitrogen as well as by the phosphoric 
acid. 
Coming back now to Middletown, we have, 
on the side of the city opposite Mr. Sage’s, 
the farm of Mr. Fairchild who has likewise 
been testing the effects of fertilizers. Like 
each of the other gentlemen, he has been 
working an old, worn out soil. His results, 
however, are different from those obtained 
by either of the others. Neither nitrogen, 
phosphoric acid nor potash alone, nor any 
two of them together, bring him very profit¬ 
able returns; but with a complete fertilizer 
containing all three, he has a large and well¬ 
paying increase of crop. By applying the 
results of his experiments to his practice, he 
says that his fanning is by far more profitable 
than it ever was before, and bis neighbors all 
about him are following his example. 
Here, then, are four different stories. Each 
is told in answer to questions put to the soil 
with fertilizers. Each answer is given by the 
crop produced. Each man’s experience ex¬ 
tends through several years, and each differs 
from all the others. Now these experiments 
belong to a series of several hundred, all con¬ 
ducted ou a common plan and with similar 
fertilizing materials, by farmers, agricultural 
colleges, aud experiment stations in all the 
States east, aud some west of the Mississippi, 
and in several Provinces of Canada. [A de¬ 
tailed report of these experiments up to the 
year 1888, bas been prepared by Prof. Atwater 
(in accordance with whose suggestion they 
were made) and published by the Department 
of Agriculture in Washington.—Eds.] Many of 
them are among the most extensive, thorough, 
and scientific field experiments 1 have ever 
known in this country or in Europe, excepting, 
of course, those of Messrs. La wes and Gilbert in 
Englaud, Those of Messrs. Fairchild and 
Bartholomew excel, in respect to extent, 
thoroughness, and scientific spirit and prac¬ 
tical usefulness, any others I have known on 
this side of the Atlantic. 
RECAPITULATION OF RESULTS, 
The united testimony of so many intelligent 
observers is worthy of the most carpful con¬ 
sideration of their fellow farmers In all of our 
older States. Averaging together the results 
of the several hundred experiments which 
have been reported, it appears that:— 
1. The largest yield came with the complete 
chemical fertilizer which applied 150 pounds of 
nitrate of soda, 800 pounds of superphosphate 
and from 1U(J to 150 pounds of muriate of pot¬ 
ash, per acre. Thismixture was generally the 
most profitable of all with potatoes, and was 
often so with corn or other crops. 1 would 
not, however, propose these proportions for 
general use. Less potash aud more nitrogen 
would ofteu be better, especially for grain, 
potatoes, aud garden vegetables. The object 
here was to test soils, and not to get the largest 
possible yields. The next largest average 
yielded was with the farm manures. Then 
follows the mixture of superphosphate and 
muriate of potash, which averaged most profit¬ 
ably of all the chemical fertilizers for corn. 
Next came the mixture of the nitrate of soda 
and superphosphate. The nitrate of soda 
alone was rarely, sulphate of lime frequently, 
muriate of potash ofteu, and superphosphate 
generally, useful 'fertilizers. 
2. Potatoes arid turnips responded well to 
each of the three ingredients to the complete 
fertilizer iu nearly every case. Corn, on the 
other hand, was largely helped by the super¬ 
phosphate and potash salt, but received but 
little benefit from the application of nitrogen 
in any form. 
3. The complete fertilizer not only brought 
larger yields than the farm manures, but 
proved more certain, as well in favorable sea¬ 
sons as in cold, wet, or drought. The quality 
of the crop was generally better with chem¬ 
icals, Potatoes especially were finer in qual¬ 
ity aud less disposed to rot with the artificial 
fertilizers than with the farm manures. 
4. For general farming, at a distauce from 
the large markets, the chief use of commer¬ 
cial fertilizers should be to supplement the 
manure of the farm. The right way r is to 
make the most and best manure that is prac¬ 
ticable upon the farm, and piece out with 
such commercial fertilizers as experiments 
and experience prove profitable. At the same 
time there are many cases, especially near 
cities, where everything depends upon getting 
the largest aud best yield, and where more 
exclusive use of chemical fertilizers is advis¬ 
able. 
I might detail a number of other conclu¬ 
sions which the experiments have emphasized 
more end more strongly year by year, but the 
following, in particular, I believe many farm¬ 
ers would do well to lay to heart: 
6. Boils vary widely in their capacities for 
supplying crops with food, and consequently 
in their demand for fertilizers. 
6. Borne soils will give good returns for 
manuring; others, without previous amend¬ 
ment, by draining, irrigation, tillage, or nse 
of lime, marl, etc., will cot. 
7. Farmers cannot afford to use commercial 
fertilizers at random, and it is time they un¬ 
derstood the reason why. 
Tbe right materials in the right places 
bring large profits. Artificial fertilizers, 
rightly used, must prove among the most po- 
teut means for the restoration of our agricul¬ 
ture. 
9. The only way to find what a soil wants is 
to study it by careful observation and exper¬ 
iments.. 
APPLICATION. 
So much for the stories; now for the moral. 
Before Mr. Fairchild began his experiments, 
he had tried various special fertilizers, phos¬ 
phates, bone, fish-scrap, etc., but with very 
poor success. He could not get enough farm 
manure to meet the needs of his crops, aud 
was gradually giving up his farming. His 
experiments told him what he could do with 
complete fertilizers, and what materials and 
proportions were best for his use, and now be 
says, very emphatically, that the application 
to his practice of what he has learned, has 
made for him the difference between farming 
at a good profit and at a heavy loss. He needs 
a complete fertilizer for all the crops he has 
experimented on—corn, potatoes, wheat, 
oats aud grass. That is to say, for each of 
these plants, each of the three important in¬ 
gredients, phosphoric acid, potash, and nitro¬ 
gen brings a profitable return, and tbe omis¬ 
sion of any one materially reduces the crop. 
Mr. Bartholomew and Mr. Sage have the 
same experience with potatoes, but Mr. Sage’s 
corn, though slightly increased by phosphoric 
acid and nitrogen, does not yield enough in 
return to pay the cost. Mr. Bartholomew, in 
like manner, finds that though nitrogen and 
potash help corn somewhat, they do not in¬ 
crease it enough to warrant their use. But 
if Mr. Bartholomew and Mr. Sage had de¬ 
pended upon commercial fertilizers alone, and 
bad no experiments or experience to guide 
them, it might be wiser for them to use a 
complete fertilizer for their corn, and loso a 
little on some of the ingredients, than to de¬ 
pend upon phosphate or potash salt or any 
other incomplete fertilizer, and risk entire 
failure. 
Farm manure is a "complete fertilizer”; 
but no one would think of finding fault with 
it because some of its ingredients used alone 
would fail. For that matter, farm manures 
often fail, at best, but farmers know very 
well that climate, soil, or something else than 
the manure, is to blame. But if a commercial 
fertilizer does not bring a large return, they 
are very apt to call it a fraud and the seller a 
cheat. I believe that in the States where ex¬ 
periment stations or other agencies exercise a 
proper control over the fertilizer trade, and 
defend honest dealers as well as consumers, 
there are a hundred cases of failure from using 
the wrong materials, or using the right ones 
in wrong ways, where there is one from 
fraud. Complete fertilizers are, in a sense, 
irrational, but they mark the first step iu the 
progress toward the rational use of artificial 
fertilizers. 
If you ask what fertilizer to use, I can only 
say that there is no best fertilizer for any 
crop, and that formulas, to fit all cases, are 
out of tbe question. Instead of proposing 
formulas, I urge farmers to study their soils 
and circumstances, and learn what is best for 
them to use. The golden rule for the chemical 
fertilizers is to select those which furnish iu 
the best form and at the least cost those in¬ 
gredients of plant food which the crops need 
and the soil fails to furnish. 
MONEY VALUATION OF FERTILIZERS. 
Why do not chemical analyses tell the ac¬ 
tual value of a fertilizer to the farmer? 
Analysis shows how much of tbe valuable 
ingredients a fertilizer contains; but it does 
not tell what will be the effect iu auy given 
case. The four gentlemen whose experiments 
1 have cited, all used the same materials. 
Chemical analysis would have pronounced 
their phosphate, their potash salts or their 
nitrate of soda of the same commercial value, 
but the agricultural value as shown by the in¬ 
crease of produce which they brought, was 
different. A fertilizer which analyzes $40. 
per ton, may bring $40. worth of increase in 
one case, $100. worth in another, aud not $20. 
worth in a third. The trade value of a fertil¬ 
izer, as estimated by reckoning its valuable in¬ 
gredients at certain prices per pound, is a very 
different thing from its agricultural value as 
estimated by the gain which comes to the far¬ 
mer from its use. 
There is another point that bears upon the 
agricultural, as distinguished from the com¬ 
mercial value. In different fertilizing mater, 
iais, the same element occurs iu widely 
different forms of combination. These forms 
are not always shown by chemical analysis, 
though they have a great deal to do with the 
agricultural effect. Thus, two fertilizers may 
have the same percentage of nitrogen, but in 
the one it may be in the form of dried blood, in 
which it is very efficient; while in the other it 
may be in leather scraps, which will produce 
little effect. 
It was in view of such facts as these that I 
stated in the first Annual Report of 
the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment 
Station iu 18715, that it is impracti¬ 
cable to estimate the agricultural value of a 
fertilizer from its chemical composition, and 
added that the commercial values, though ad¬ 
mitting of more accurate calculation, are yet 
subject to wide variatious and uncertainties, 
so that, while they are a most forcible means 
of illustrating frauds, and effective as the first 
step of the process of tbe education of farmers 
and manufacturers, their usefulness is, on the 
whole, rather questionable. Wbat I have 
seen since that time leaves me with the 
decided impression that in States where the 
fertilizer coutrol by chemical analysis bas 
been in vogue for some time, it would be a 
great deal better to cease publishing estimated 
values in dollars and cents. 
The important thing is to give buyers and 
sellers a means of knowing exactly what the 
materials contain and to encourage both, but 
especially the farmer, to judge of the articles 
by their composition. But the tendency of 
these money valuations is rather to call tbe 
attention away from the composition, and 
direct it to a standard which, though present¬ 
ed to the public as official and scientific, is at 
best of doubtful accuracy, aud ofteu wrong. 
As a result, not only does the farmer get 
wrong impressions iu the place of right ones; 
but honest dealers are harassed by incorrect 
valuation of their wares. The publication of 
money valuation of fertilizers by inspectors 
and experiment stations, without doubt adds 
materially to the popularity and effectiveness 
of their reports; but I am unable to believe 
that this advantage can make up for the dis¬ 
advantage which accrues when the authority 
whose highest function is teaching, not only 
sacrifices part of its purpose by lowering its 
standard, but teaches what is wrong. In Eng¬ 
land, France and Germany, official publication 
of money valuations long since gave way to 
the more rational aud, in the long run, more 
effective practice of announcing simply the 
composition of the fertilizers as guaranteed 
by the dealer and found by analysis. This 
ought to be the practice with us. It is indeed 
done iu numerous cases iu which the comparison 
between tbe guaranteed and actual composi tiou 
Is placed side by side with the money valua¬ 
tions. But happily, there are indications that 
our official chemists will soon be able in so far 
to resist the outside pressure which has called 
for the publication ot money valuations, as to 
omit them and give only the comparison be¬ 
tween tbe actual and guaranteed composition 
in their reports. 
SEVERAL FERTILIZER TOPICS CON¬ 
SIDERED. 
PROFESSOR J. W. SANBORN. 
The sixth of the questions proposed by the 
Rural is: Will it pay the farmer to purchase 
fertilizer ingredients at wholesale and mix 
his own fertilizers? Fes, in strong italics, 
always when n farmer of intelligence pur¬ 
chases. My reasons, founded upon experience, 
are as follows: First, it enables the farmer to 
feed his farm according to its own peculiar 
needs. Years of “plat” trials ou a private 
farm have invariably shown the superior 
value of phosphoric acid for that farm. With¬ 
out its use, the employment of nitrogen and 
potash would be nearly valueless; while phos¬ 
phoric acid aloue very much increased the 
crop, undissolved Charleston mineral phos- 
phatic rock proving very valuable. On a 
second farm six years of tests showed the 
great superiority of potash. So pronounced 
was the need of this material that its use was 
very freely indulged in, to the great advan¬ 
tage of the farm, as it rose rapidly in fer¬ 
tility under its employment, averaging three 
tons of hay and from 00 to 80 bushels of oats 
pef acre. Upon the farm now in my charge, 
nitrogen is the measuie of our winter crops. 
I will not deluge the reader with the figures, 
but point to the facts as an unanswerable 
argument in favor of purchasing the fertili¬ 
zers the individual farm may need. We wish 
to treat each farm for the disease it has, and 
not for the disease some other farm may have. 
Second.—We can purchase cheaper in this 
way than when we buy complete fertilizers, 
the difference often amounting to 25 per cent., 
and it will average a very handsome sum. As 
this assertion is based upon facts, twill leave 
it without spreading the data. 
Third.—They are more concentrated and 
can thus be more cheaply transported per unit 
of nutrition. I buy my phosphoric acid in a 
fertilizer with 35 to 40 per cent, of pure acid, 
while the ordinary superphosphates have from 
10 to 12 per cent, of this acid. Thus I trans¬ 
port, in one ton, what others pay freight on 
three tons to obtain. Where the freight is $3 
to $5 per ton, this saving becomes important. 
If the illustration included nitrogen and pot¬ 
ash, the comparison would be more favorable. 
Fourth.—We are less liable to fraud in thus 
purchasing. Most farmers buy blindly ou the 
word superphosphate. Why not buy cloth by 
a simple order for cloth, and take whatever 
is measured us ? 
Fifth.—We can buy one or all of the three 
elementary materials, and mix them, when 
more than one is needed, to suit our soils or 
the crops grown. Thus, I would not think of 
feeding potatoes, corn aud wheat on the same 
proportion of nitrogen; neither would I treat 
corn, wheat and clover on the same principle 
in potash application. 
Finally, bo assured; have no doubt; but in 
strong, steady faith and courage go forward 
in the intelligent joint use of chemicals with 
yard manure, and a fertile, profitable farm 
will reward, iu 90 per cout. of the cases, a 
really studied use of chemical fertilizers. It 
is your Eastern farmer readers, who concern 
themselves with ibis fertilizer question to 
build up their farms; while we Western farm¬ 
ers are foolishly tearing ours down. 
THE LIMITS OF THE USEFULNESS OF 
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE 
VALUATION OF A FERTILIZER. 
THE REAL MEANING OF THE TERM "ESTI¬ 
MATED VALUE.” 
PROF. G. C. CALDWELL. 
It is of the first importance in buying com¬ 
mercial fertilizers, that the farmer should 
know definitely what plant nutrients they 
contain, and how much of each one, and'what 
proportion of each is readily soluble and 
therefore Immediately available. All this 
information is furnished in the results of 
a chemical analysis, aud can be obtained only 
by that meana Having this information 
about the several brands offered to him,the 
would-be buyer, knowing the price of each 
brand, is in a condition to decide which one 
will provide him with the desired plant food 
most cheaply. If of two superphosphates 
offered to him at the same price, one contains 
a third more soluble acid while the other in¬ 
gredients are about the same in both, and if 
both are equally dry and fine, and both were 
made from tbe same raw material, such as 
ground bone, or bone-black, or South Carolina 
phosphate, he need not be told that he should 
buy tbe one richest in soluble phosphate. 
But the real money value of a fertilizer to a 
farmer depends upon other considerations be¬ 
sides its chemical composition. In the first 
place, all superphosphates contain more or 
less insoluble phosphate, consisting of that 
part of the raw material left unattacked by 
tbe oil of vitriol in the process of manufac¬ 
ture. This phosphate is still regarded as use¬ 
ful for plant food, at least when the raw 
material is bone. Wliether it is useful or not 
when the raw material is S. C. rock phosphate 
is yet an open question, with a good deal of 
evidence in its favor; but, so far as we know, 
it is by no means so available and so valuable 
as genuine bone phosphate. Chemical analy¬ 
sis, however, fails us here, for it never can 
show what this original ruw material was, 
nor what is the kind of insoluble phosphate 
left in the fertilizer. 
It may be noted also that while the analyses, 
made at the Massachusetts, Conunecticut and 
New Jersey Experiment Stations, give the 
proportions of nitrogen in the form of ammo¬ 
nia and nitrate, as distinguished from the or¬ 
ganic nitrogen, and, therefore, show what 
soluble compounds of ultrogen each fertilizer 
analyzed coutains, the analyses, made else¬ 
where, usually fail to make this important 
distinction, and therefore fail in an important 
respect to give a correct idea of the real com¬ 
parative values of different brands. Further, 
as it is in respect to the phosphoric acid, so it 
is with the so called organic nitrogen—chem¬ 
ical analysis never shows what kind of raw 
material it was derived from, whether from 
roasted and ground leather clippings, or from 
wool waste or from dried blood. If from the 
first, the nitrogen is comparatively worthless, 
although the buyer may pay for it at the rate 
of 20 cents a pound; if from the second, it is 
better; if from the third, its cost may be 
reasonable. 
In the reports of the analyses of commer¬ 
cial fertilizers sent out from the Experiment 
Stations, the so-called '‘estimated value" is 
usually giveu for each fertilizer analyzed. 
This is based exclusively oa the results of its 
analysis and the market cost of the materials 
from which it is manufactured. But it would 
be very unsafe for a farmer to take this esti¬ 
mated value as a measure of the value of a 
ton of the fertilizer to him. This value, or 
the return that he may got from its use ou his 
crops, depeuds upon many conditions—the 
needs of the soil and the crop to which it is 
