SUPPLEMENT TO THE BUBAL WEW-YOBKEB. 
Growing Potatoes with Chemicals, Incomplete and Complete Fertilisers, on a Worn-out Sandy Loam Compared. 
REMARKS. 
The largest yield of 1886 was given by trench 
No. 24, which received the Special Complete 
Fertilizer and a mulch of old straw which had 
been exposed to the weather during the entire 
winter. This was spread two inches deep in 
the trench directly upon the potato pieces 
after they had been covered with an inch of 
soil and the fertilizer used for that trench. 
The yield was at the rate of 32S bushels to the 
acre, or 50 bushels more than where the 
same quantity of the same fertilizer 
was used without mulch iu trench 
No. IS. Wheu, however, we compare 
the trenches No. 38 aud No. 30 we see that 
the mulch did not iucrea.se the yield. While 
in trench No. 27 an excessive dressing of 
nitrogen alone (iu three forms) seems to have 
raised the yield 100 bushels per acre over the 
uatural-soil yield, it seems to have lessened 
the yield, wheu added to the special complete 
fertilizer 44 bushels as compared with treueh 
No. 10. While, therefore, an excessive appli¬ 
cation of nitrogenous fertilizers alone may be 
supposed to increase the yield by acting upon 
the latent potash aud phosphate of the soil, an 
over dose in addition to au ample supply of 
complete fertilizer seems to be injurious. 
While it is plain that this series of experi¬ 
ments, as those of 1884. show that a complete 
fertilizer alone will produce a maximum crop 
on this soil, the action of partial fertilizers is in 
some cases contradictory and generally unsat¬ 
isfactory. 
In row No. 1, nitrate of soda gives 141 
bushels to the acre, aud yet iu No. S the same 
quantity (300 pounds per acre) of nitrate of 
soda, together with 400 pounds of dissolved 
bone-black, gives only 110 bushels; 81 bushels 
less than pure nitrate of soda alone. Again, 
iu No. 10 nitrate of soda and sulphate of pot¬ 
ash give only 90 bushels, while in plot No, 5 
sulphate of potash alone gives at. the rate of 
95 bushels. Similar contradictory results 
seem to rule in the majority'of experim mis 
reported of this class of fertilizers. Their ac¬ 
tion is so largely an indirect one ou the other 
ingredients already in the soil, aud in so many 
ways they act aud react on the soil and them¬ 
selves that it seems to be impossible to trace 
their plant-feeding powers. The results from 
tlicir use iu an experiment iu 1884 were worse 
than during the past year. Nitrated' soda 
gave promise in lie vine growth of the pota¬ 
toes of a good crop equal to that of the best 
complete manure, instead of which it failed 
to hold out through the season, aud yielded 
little more than tho uatural soil. The re¬ 
sults from sulphate of ammonia were little if 
any better than from uitrate of soda — fair 
promises aud poor results. 
Complete manures, particularly the special 
Complete Potato Manure, prove themselves to 
have complete feeding resources of their own. 
While they strengthen the soil and quicken 
it, they feed the crop from their Own resources, 
not only producing healthy vine growth, sus¬ 
taining the plants during dry spells, as in 
last, but bringing large yields. Their action 
approaches certainty, or as near it as any ma¬ 
nure can be expected to do. 
To enable a comparison to be made between the results of the experiments made iu 1884 with those of the past year, 188<>. wc give some extracts from the 
Rural New-Yorker that present the general conclusions of the former experiments. It should be borne in mind that while the past season was a very favorable one, the 
season of 1884 was unfavorable for potatoes. The early part of the season was very dry, aud the benefits of mulching were very marked, adding largely in some cases to the crop. 
kinds of plant food, aud is supplied with but 
one, no .miter how In/ye the quantity may 
ne. the crops will not be materially benefited. 
Thus will be seen that in our careful te.sts.pot- 
asli alone did no good. Dissolved burnt lioue, 
which furnishes phosphoric acid only, did uo 
good. Nitrogen increased the growth of the 
vines, which, for want of potash aud phos¬ 
phoric acid iu the soil, gave no mci'oase of 
tubers. But the complete fertilizers—those 
furnishing all three—gave au increase of crop 
in every case. 
NECESSITY FOR A COMPLETE MANURE. 
When we hear farmers say that they have 
tried kaiuit, or superphosphate, or sulphate or 
muriate of potash, without the slightest effect, 
we earnestly desire to explain the thing to 
them as we ourselves'understand it. Let it be 
borne iu mind that live tons, or a greater 
amouut, of potash or of plain superphosphate 
of lime or of both, might be spread upon au 
acre without any result. But let us, even the 
next season, or possibly ten years afterwards, 
supply nitrate of soda or salts of ammonia 
plentifully, and the farmer would no longer 
sav that fertilizers were worthless upon his 
soil. -hauls, like human creatures, need a 
complete food, aud if the soil does not. supply 
it, we must feed the soil with the deficient ele¬ 
ment. If the soil, from exhaustion, needs 
every element, we must supply a complete food. 
SPECIAL FERTILIZERS (NITRATE 
OF SODA. POTASH, ETC.) COULD 
NOT SUSTAIN THE PLANTS TO 
FULL MATURITY. 
As shown iu our test, elsewhere fully de¬ 
scribed, there is very little contradiction iu 
the results. All the plots tell the same story, 
aud that is that this particular worn-out sandy 
loam needs Complete Fertilizer—that is, phos¬ 
phoric acid, potash aud nitrogen. Nitrogen 
alone, while it gave greater growth of tops of 
a (leaner given color than the others, could not 
sustain the plants to full maturity. Tho tops 
therefore died, mid the yield Wfts pour. 
Plot 37, (the complete potato manure) which 
gives by far the greatest, yield, received less 
fertilizer than either plots 13 or 17. We must 
conclude, therefore, that this is owing to the 
two inches of short-cut Timothy hay which 
was spread as a mulch, The pieces were cov¬ 
ered, as were all the others, with two inches 
of soil. Upon this the hay was evenly spread 
across the trench, and upon this the 590 pounds 
iper acre) of Potato Fertilizer and 50 pounds 
of kaiuit were strewn. The early part of the 
season was so dry that it was thought that all 
of the potatoes received a check. It was then, 
u > doubt, that the mulch of hay jierformed its 
best service. 
[From Rural New Yorker, Oct. IS, 1884.] 
THE RURAL'S POTATO FERTILIZING 
TESTS. 
The results of our potato tests with differ¬ 
ent fertilizers and with various combinations 
of them, seem to us to be as instructive as any 
similar ex|>eriments can be that are not re 
fieated from year to year. Many experiments 
of this kind are contradictory, for the reason, 
perhaps, that tbe soils iu which they are made 
are not so for impoverished that they will 
show what food is really needed. Many I antl¬ 
ers who have tried plain superphosphate alone, 
raw bone alone, or potash alone, or any two, 
will see from our tests that they should not 
condemn so-called chemical fertilizers because 
any one, or even any two, should fail to give 
a marked increase of crop. If a soil needs all 
The experiment in potato growing conducted at the Rural Farm both in 1884 aud in 188(i, were on worn-out, sandy loam soil. It will he interesting to compare the re¬ 
sults from these experiment; withe those made by Mr. J. B L:nves on a good, strong loamy laud, full of Hint stones. The fertilizers used are sufficiently similar for useful 
comparison. The superphosphate used by Mr. Lawes and made from oone ash, varies from dissolved bone black and to the extent of containing some two or tnree per cent, 
more phosphoric acid. 
CONTINUOUS GROWING OF POTATOES BY SIR J. B. LAWES, AT ROTIIAMSTED, FOR NINE YEARS ON SAME PLOTS:—Area, two acres—variety, “Rock,” 
1870-1879; “Champion,” 1880-83—Soil, “a good, strong, loamy land, full of llint stones—Rows So inches apart, with 14 inches from plant to plant in the row—Potato 
tops returned to their own plots. 
-Un manured. 
3— Farmyard Manure, 15 2-3 tons, 392 lbs. Su- i 
per-phosphate. ) 
4 — Farmyard Manure, 15 2-3 tons, 392 lbs. Su-/ 
per-phosphate, 550 lbs. Nitrate Soda. .. ) 
5— 400lbs. Ammonia Salts...... 
6— 550 lbs. Nitrate of Soda.:. 
7— 400 lbs. Ammonia Salts No. 10, I , 
all the Ash elements. f ^ om P lete - 
8— 550 lbs. Nitrate Soda No. 10, all i ,. . . 
the Ash elements. f L om P lete - 
9— 392 lbs. Super-phosphate. This plot had re- | 
eeived all the Ash elements (same as ! 
No. 10) for previous wheat experiments , 
formauy years—1*50 to 1874. I 
10—892 lbs. Super-phosphate, Sulphate of Pot -1 
ash (14 per cent.), Sulphate of Soda, aud - 
Sulphate of Magnesia. \ 
I 1876. 
Bushels | 
1877. 
Bushels 
1S78. 
Bushels 
1879. 
Bushels 
1880. 
Bushels 
A v'tre 5 yrs 
Bushels 
1881. 
Bushels 
jxer acre. | 
per acre. 
per acre. 
per acre. 
per acre. 
per acre. 
per acre. 
154 
121 
115 
32 | 
42 | 
93 
81 
170 
*36 
2*3 
97 
*08 
187 
320 
213 
209 
292 
1U1 
245 
212 
279 
209 
320 
338 
159 
201 
269 
283 
110 
102 
141 
40 
35 
102 
101 
155 
214 
140 j 
41 
42 
128 
127 
324 
315 
354 
111 
268 
274 
432 
35* 
347 
368 
98 
30* 
*93 
100 
242 
142 
157 
44 
158 
147 
223 
247 
151 
123 
45 
153 
151 
237 
Changes iu Plots 2, 3, 4. 
\ Farm-yard manure omit- / | 
) ted after 1881. . u 
» Farm-yard manure used / 
i aloue after 1882. » 
1882. 
Bushels 
per acre. 
1883. 
Bushels i 
per acre. 
1884. 
Bushi Is 
per acre. 
78 
104 
92 
160 
210 
103 
231 
242 
158 
185 
188 
163 
84 
129 
98 
83 
127 
80 
341 
358 
2*4 
285 
3*5 
*00 
191 
109 
149 
180 
197 
149 
The above is compiled directly from tables issued by Sir J. B. Lawes in June, 1885. The potatoes arc takeout 40 bushels i5ti pounds) per gross ton. Tbe super-phosphate used was the 
highest grade made from bone ash—the sulphate of potash, -14 per cent, of actual potash. The farm yard manure was of excellent quality, as Dr. Lawes estimates it as containing per tou 3,000 
pounds* nitrogeu. 10K pounds; phosphoric acid, seven pounds; potash, 9(!.f pounds. Total in a tou, 38 pounds. 
Remarks. —The average increase for five years from the Farm Manure was loss than LOO bushels, while from the Complete Manures, plots No. 7 aud 8, the average increase was nearly 300 
bushels, about doulfte as nmen, aud yet at present prices of fertilizing manures, tbe expense of each would be about the same. 
Plot No. 4 suffers evidently from lack ot potash in available form. Which the farm-yard manure fails to supply. 
On plot No. 3 the annual application of farm-yard mauuro was discontinued in 1883 aud since. On plot Nos. 3 aud 4 all except form-yard manure was discontinued. Tho subsequent re¬ 
sults from these tnree clots wild tend to show the lasting effects of these muterials'applied since INTI and discontinued since 1881 aud 1883. 
suits from these tnree dots wild ■ 
Address the RURAL NEW-YORKER, 34 Park Row, New York. 
It is respectfully submitted, is conceded, by the progressive farmers of the country, to be 
The Lending Farm, Mock, Horticultural, and Family Weekly of Aincriea. 
The best writers in the world; 500 original Illustrations yearly; Experiment Grounds where all new small fruits, ornamental plants, chemical fertilizers, 
etc., are tested. Fine, heavy, natural-colored paper; 16 large pages, with occasional Supplements. §t5.00 a year. 
The New York Times says, in a late issue; 
“The Editor of the Rural New-Yorker is a New Jersey farmer who has an ex¬ 
periment station of his own, which is not equaled in value for the useful practical re¬ 
sults by any of the scientific stations operated at great cost.” 
From T. II. Hoskins, M I)., of the Vermont Watchman: 
“We have visited the Rural s experimental farm and can testify to the truth of 
the above statement. The Editor has felt that his position at the head of the greatest 
of the American agricultural journals required that he should have the means of test¬ 
ing and confirming, or disproving, the many statements put, forth in behalf of various 
Prof. E. M. Shelton, of the Kansas Ag. 
College, says: “The Rural New- Yorker 
has more influence, aud is more quoted, 
than all the rest put together ” 
Ur. W. J. Beat says: “The Rural New- 
Yorker is the best paper.” 
den. Wm. II. Noble, of Connecticut, 
says; ‘‘Let then our Rural pilot us to 
greatness in home and field.” 
den. Wm. 0. Le Dor, ex-U. S. Com. of 
Agriculture, says: "it is the best farm 
paper published.” 
novelties in plants, seeds, implements, etc., etc., which the farmers of the country are 
expected to buy. This he could only accomplish in the way above alluded to, aud*on 
the Rural farm the work is done in the very best and most impartial manner. Be¬ 
sides this a good deal of original work is done in the way of originating new varieties, 
making crosses, forming collections of rare foreign plants, experimenting in new 
methods of culture, and, in short, doing the work of a genuine experiment station. 
As the Editor, aside from his very prosperous paper, is a man of independent means, 
he is enabled to do all this as it should be dime, and not only his own subscribers, but 
the agricultural world, are made the beneficiaries of his intelligent labors. 
Professor .1. T. Cook, of the Michigan 
Agricultural College, says: "The Rural 
New-Yorker leads the world.” 
Usury Stewart, the well-known author, 
says: “The Rural has taken the lead — 
easdv —of the agricultural papers.*’ 
Dr. If Lewis Start/cant, Director of the 
N. Y. Ex. Station, says: “The Rural has 
the best list of contributors of any paper 
of its class.” 
Prof..!. It.Sheblon, England: “The Rural 
New Yorker is a paper of great value.” 
All are invited to send for Specimen Copies, Posters, Premium Lists, etc. 
They will be promptly mailed on application. 
