VOL. XLVII. NO. 1985. NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 11, 1888, 
[Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1888, by the Rural New-Yorker in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.] 
(Sxijmment Grounds x>f the §tmJ 
FIFTH SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS TO 
DETERMINE WHAT AMOUNT OF PO¬ 
TATO FERTILIZER CAN BE PROFIT¬ 
ABLY USED ON A POOR SOIL FOR 
POTATOES. _ 
SULPHATE OF IRON HARMFUL. 
For the benefit of new readers it is neces¬ 
sary to state in a brief way that the soil of 
our plots is so impoverished by cropping 
through many years without manure that it 
will not yield over 150 bushels to the acre in 
an average season without manure or fertil¬ 
izer. Trenches are dug, in these careful 
trials, about a foot wide and four inches deep 
and three feet apart, measuring from the 
middle of each trench. In these trenches the 
pieces, each having two good eyes, are placed 
exactly one foot apart—the same weight of 
seed in each trench. An inch of soil is then 
hoed over the pieces, and the fertilizer strewn 
as evenly as possible. The trenches are then 
filled and level cultivation given thereafter. 
In this experiment Williams, Clark & Co.’s 
potato fertilizer was used, the minimum 
guaranteed analysis being ammonia, four per 
cent., soluble phosphoric acid, five per cent, 
potash eight per cent. This sells at retail for 
$40 the ton. 
No. 1 received at the rate of 19,800 pounds 
of N. Y. stade manure per acre. The yield 
was at the rate of 328.16 bushels to the acre. 
No. 2 received neither manure nor fertilizer. 
The yield was 212.66 bushels to the acre. 
No. 3 received 440 pounds of the potato fer- 
izer. The yield was 245.66. 
No. 4 received 880 pounds. The yield was 330 
bushels. 
No. 5 received 880 pounds of the potato fer¬ 
tilizer and at the rate of 440 pounds to the 
acre of sulphate of iron. The yield was 
309.83 bushels to the acre. 
No. 6 received 1.320 pounds of the potato 
fertilizer. The yield was at the rate of 388.66 
busnels to the acre. 
No. 7 received 1.320 pounds of the potato 
fertilizer with 440 pounds of the sulphate of 
iron. The yield was 379.50 bushels. 
No. 8. nothing. Yield 264.00, the highest 
yield ever made on this soil without manure 
or fertilizer. 
No. 9 received 1,760 pounds of the potato 
fertilizer. Yield 443 66. 
No. 10 received 2,200 pounds to the acre of 
the potato fertilizer. The yield was nearly 
the same as No. 9, viz., 443 bushels. 
No. 11 received 2,640 pounds. The yield 
was 480.33. 
No. 12 received at the rate of 880 pounds of 
the potato fertilizer and also 220 pounds of 
ground fish, 660 pounds of kainit, 440 of bone 
flour and 4^0 pounds of nitrate of soda—2,640 
pounds to the acre in all. With this exces¬ 
sive application of nitrogen the yield was 
361.16 bushels to the acre. 
In this experiment, as in those recorded, the 
yield is profitably increased by this fertilizer 
up to 1,760 pounds to tbe acre. The tabulated 
figures are: 
440 pounds fertilizer. 
880 
245.66 bushels. 
330.00 
tt 
1,320 “ 
tt 
388.66 
tt 
1,760 “ 
tt 
443.66 
ct 
2,200 
tt 
443.00 
it 
2,640 “ 
tt 
480,33 
tt 
That No. 8 without any fertilizer should 
have yielded more than No. 3, which received 
440 pounds to the acre, cannot be accounted 
for. That 2,200 pounds gave no greater yield 
than 1,760 pounds, while 2,640 pounds largely 
increased the yield over either is also inex¬ 
plicable. 
The copperas decreased the yield in both 
trials. 
As in previous trials the yields of the sev¬ 
eral plots as judged by the growth and ap¬ 
pearance of the vines is shown by ratings 
made by two persons June 27, ten (10) being 
the highest. 
No. 
1 
Rated 5 
1980 stable manure. 
It 
2 
tt 
3 
Nothing. 
tt 
3 
tt 
4 
440 fertilizer. 
it 
4 
tt 
6 
880 “ 
il 
5 
tt 
6 
880 
440 sulphate iron. 
tt 
6 
tt 
8 
1320 fertilizer. 
it 
7 
tt 
8 
1320 
440 sul. iron. 
1 1 
8 
tt 
3 
Nothing. 
tt 
9 
tt 
10 
1760 fertilizer. 
tt 
10 
tt 
10 
2200 
tt 
11 
tt 
10 
2640 
tt 
12 
tt 
8 
2640 mixed fertilizer. 
A 
TALK 
WITH 
FARMERS ABOUT 
CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS. 
BEING A RECORD OF ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS 
WHICH AT VARIOUS TIMES HAVE OCCURRED 
BETWEEN THE R N.-Y. AND FARMERS NEAR 
THE RURAL EXPERIMENT GROUNDS. 
R. N.-Y.: How did your potatoes turn 
out? 
Farmer A.: Those ^manured with farm 
manure plowed in last fall yielded 200 bush¬ 
els to the acre. Those upon which I Used 
phosphates yielded about 150. 
R. N.-Y.: What was the phosphate ? 
A: I don’t know. I bought it for $20 a 
ton. 
R. N.-Y.: Did you ever try a higher grade 
of fertilizer ? 
A. Yes. Last year I paid $30 a ton and 
spread it on rye at the rate of 500 pounds, to 
the acre. I left a piece about 50 feet square 
without any phosphate. Tbis piece was just 
as good as the rest Once I tried kainit, but I 
did not increase the crop of corn. There is 
nothing like farm manure if I could only 
afford to buy it. Lime is the best fertilizer 
for me. It has done my land more good than 
all your phosphates. 
R. N.-Y.: What do you understand by the 
word “phosphate?” 
Farmer A.: I understand it to mean chemi¬ 
cal fertilizers. 
R. N.-Y.: And what are the chemical fer¬ 
tilizers made of ? 
A.: Of phosphates I suppose. 
R, N.-Y.: Here we have a phosphate that 
costs $45 per ton and here is another brand 
for $20. Why is it, think you, that many 
farmers prefer the $45 phosphate ? 
A. : I cannot say. I should feel that I was 
throwing away my money. My idea was to 
experiment with the low-priced fertilizer first 
and if I found it increased my crops I then 
proposed to try a higher-priced article. But 
my belief is that phosphates don’t pay on my 
farm. 
R. N.-Y.: Do you use chemical fertilizers? 
Farmer B.: No. I use lime. My father 
before me brought up this farm with lime 
and I use it in prefeience to anything else ex¬ 
cept manure. 
R. N.-Y.: Do you buy manure? 
B. : No. I use what we make from our two 
horses, four cows, from the pigs and poultry. 
My farm consists ot 70 acres. 
R. N -Y.: Do you raise wheat? 
B.: No, we cannot raise wheat any more. 
Besides, rye pays better. The straw always 
brings a good price. 
R. N.-Y.: And why can not you raise wheat? 
B.: Oh! the climate seems to have changed, 
or at any rate, the farm does not seem to be 
adapted to it any longer. 
R. N.-Y.: And how about corn? Can you 
raise as much corn as you could years ago? 
B.: Field corn is no longer a paying crop 
with me. I raise sweet corn, manuring it 
in the hill and send it to market. Sweet corn, 
Lima beaus and tomatoes pay me best. All 
are well manured in the hill. 
R. N.-Y.: Do you raise clover? 
B.: Yes, we seed to Timothy and clover 
after sweet dorn. But clover is uncertain 
nowadays. Sometimes we get a catch, often- 
§r not. The same change of climate seems 
to be the cause. Years ago we could raise 
peaches here in abundance. Now they are of 
no account. And so it goes. 
R N.-Y.: Do you think that lime supplies 
to the soil all the food that plants take from 
it? 
B.: That’s an’old story. No, probably not. 
But I believe that the soil is practically inex¬ 
haustible and that lime makes its food soluble 
as our crops need it. My belief is that chem¬ 
ical fertilizers pass through the soil so that no¬ 
thing remains after the first season. 
R. N.-Y.: Probably you are aware that J. 
B. Lawes of England has raised crops with 
fertilizers alone for over 40 years, and that he 
harvests as large crops as by the use of farm 
manure which for the same length of time has 
been applied to other plots. 
B.: Does it pay him? 
R. N.-Y.: The money equivalent is about 
the same upon both plots. 
B,I believe that all editors of farm pa¬ 
pers advocate the use of fertilizers. They 
seem to have great faith in quack medicines 
also. I receive probably 50 free specimen 
copies every season. They are full of all sorts 
of fraudulent advertisements. In one column 
they advocate temperance; they declare that 
they will not insert unreliable advertisements 
at any price. In other columns, I find adver¬ 
tisements of bitters,which are alcohol in part; 
of positive cures of consumption, fits, deafness, 
cancer; of mines and land schemes; of British 
Claim Agencies and all sorts of frauds, which 
are frauds upon the face of them. You can’t 
afford to tell the truth about these things. 
You would lose your advertising patronage. 
Editors run their papers to make money and 
you must crack up chemical fertilizers. 
R. N.-Y.: Do you read the daily or religious 
papers? 
B.: Yes, I read the weekly issue of the daily 
papers and a weekly religious paper. 
R. N.-Y.: And do you find that they are 
more careful to exclude unreliable advertise¬ 
ments? 
B : Not at all. I have no faith in the in¬ 
tegrity or sincerity of editors. There is no 
class of teachers so given to lying—no class 
that so set themselves up on a high pinnacle 
of morality, that are so ready to bob up or 
down according to the pay they receive. 
Farmer C.: I have never tried chemical fer¬ 
tilizers, but think of doing so. Which make 
would you advise me to buy and what price 
to pay? 
R. N.-Y.: The price depends upon the 
quality of the fertilizer. All reliable manu¬ 
facturers should charge about the same price 
for the same quality. Which gives the most 
plant food for the money can only be ascer¬ 
tained by chemical analyses and these do not 
always show the agricultural value. One ar¬ 
ticle might show as high a per cent, of nitro¬ 
gen as another, while in the one case the ni¬ 
trogen is in leather or hair and not available 
as plant food, and in the other the nitrogen is 
in nitrate of soda, or sulphate of ammonia 
which is in a soluble form. The phosphoric 
acid in one may be in bone, in the other in South 
Carolina rock. The first is worth seven cents, 
the second only two cents a pound. The way 
to find out what fertilizer to buy is just to 
tiud out what kind your laud needs. This can 
only be done by using the various constitu¬ 
ents separately and in varying combinations 
upon small plots. In the absence of this infor¬ 
mation what are called “ complete fertilizers” 
should preferably be used; that is, those which 
furnish all kinds of plant food in which the 
soil is probably deficient. 
C.: And what do they cost? 
R. N.-Y.: From the lowest to the highest 
price. One firm may sell a complete fertilizer 
for $20 a ton—complete because it contains 
one or the other forms of phosphate, potash 
and nitrogen. Another may cost $60 a ton 
because it contains a higher per cent of the 
same constituents in a more soluble form. 
C.: Which am I to choose then? 
R. N. -Y.: It is merely a question of the cost 
of transportation and application. Here are 
two fert lizers, one costing $25 a ton, the other 
$50. We will suppose that the first contains 
just half the plant food that the second con¬ 
tains. You pay half price and have twice as 
much to spread on your land and twice as 
much to pay freight and carriage upon. 
Farmer D.: I understand that you recom¬ 
mend a “complete” fertilizer if a farmer has 
determined to use fertilizers and does not 
know just what his land needs. You say that 
a “complete” fertilizer means one that con¬ 
tains phosphoric acid, potash and nitrogen. 
The land is supposed to have a supply of the 
rest. Do not raw bone and potash make a 
complete fertilizer? 
R. N.-Y.: The word “complete” is an un¬ 
fortunate one as applied to fertilizers, the 
same as “ ‘phosphate,” because both are mis¬ 
leading. A complete fertilizer could be made 
up that would be worth less than five dollars 
a ton. Muck containing a trace of each of 
the three plant foods would be as complete in 
the mercantile sense as if it contained larger 
percentages. 
Farmer D.: Raw bone contains phosphoric 
acid and nitrogen. Suppose we add potash in 
any form, would not that be a good complete 
fertilizer? 
R. N.-Y.: Not the best. Raw bone is slow 
to decompose. Neither its nitrogen nor phos- 
phoi;ic acid is immediately available. Besides, 
its per cent, of nitrogen is rather low, being 
less generally than two per cent. Probably 
the best fertilizers are made up of many differ¬ 
ent forms of plant food. For example, the ni¬ 
trogen is supplied by fish, nitrate of soda, sul¬ 
phate of ammonia, blood and guano. In such 
fertilizers, tbe nitrogen is available from the 
beginning to the end of the plant’s life. First 
| the nitrate of soda is at once ready for the 
plant; then the sulphate of ammonia; then the 
guano, blood and fish. It is the same with 
phosphoric acid. This should be furnished by 
superphosphate first, then by raw bone, etc., 
so that the plant shall have a ready supply at 
every stage of its growth. 
Farmer D.: How am I to be assured that I 
get all this even though I buy the highest 
grades of fertilizers? 
R. N.-Y.: You can’t. All you can do is to 
buy of reputable firms who agree to sell you 
what you ask for. Tne analyses as published 
in the bulletins periodically issued by experi¬ 
ment stations are helpful guides; the crops 
must show the rest. 
Farmer D.: My neighbor used 600 pounds 
to the acre of a high grade $40 fertilizer last 
season on his corn. The crop was very poor. 
R N-Y.: And the season was dry? 
D.: Yes. 
R. N.-Y.: Have you never known farm 
manure to fail in such a season? 
Farmer D.: Do you advise farmers to use 
fertilizers? 
R. N.-Y.: It is far beyond us to advise in 
the matter further than to express the belief 
that farmers, except by chance, cannot use 
them to the best advantage unless they study 
the science of fertilizers as they would study 
a book, and then, with the light of such 
