The Rural New-Yorker 
The Business Farmer's Paper 
Vol. LXXVI. NEW YORK, DECEMBER 11. 1915. No. 4356. 
Weekly, One Dollar Per Year 
Postpaid 
Single Copies, Five Cents 
Published by 
The Rural Publishing Co. 
333 W. 30th Street 
New York 
The Question of Phosphates. 
Shall We Use Raw Rock ? 
Recently I have been reading a good deal on soil 
fertility for the purpose of ascertaining the consensus 
of opinion of expert farmers, experiment stations, agri¬ 
cultural colleges, etc., as to the benefit to be derived 
from the use of ground rock phosphate (raw) on soils. 
I had about arrived at the conclusion that raw rock 
phosphate, when applied to manure in the stable or 
compost heap, and thoroughly incorporated therewith 
so as to effect an even distribution on the land, or if 
applied to a good growth of clover or other green crop 
and turned under, would prove highly beneficial. I now 
read, on page 1321, that “a recent bulletin from the 
Massachusetts Experiment Station shows clearly that 
during a long series of years the rock phosphate gave 
little if any benefit.” Arc these differences of opinion 
due to the differences in the humus content or other 
conditions of the soils experimented with? If the phos¬ 
phorus content of the Massachusetts soil was sufficient 
and available for the crops experimented with, the ad¬ 
dition of phosphate rock would show no effect. It 
would be interesting to know whether the use of phos¬ 
phoric acid in these experiments produced better re¬ 
sults. Under the present condition of the commercial 
fertilizer situation, it would be worth knowing how to 
make the best use of such material as can be had, 
especially rock phosphate. w. A. s. 
Bangor, Pa. 
B EFORE we start on this discussion let us under¬ 
stand what these phosphates are. Ground rock 
phosphates or “floats” mean the raw phosphate rock 
ground to a fine powder or dust. “Acid phosphate” 
or superphosphate means this same powdered rock 
mixed with sulphuric acid, so that it is “cut” or 
dissolved and made soluble. Of course the acid 
conclusions reached are stated in the following 
definite manner: 
No injurious secondary effects are known to be asso¬ 
ciated with any reasonable use of dissolved phosphates. 
Our experiments indicate that they do not increase the 
necessity for the use of lime. 
Massachusetts farmers, gardeners and orchardists are 
advised against the general use of raw rock phosphates. 
In so far as they are needed in our agriculture the 
phosphates employed should be the more soluble and 
available kinds, such as acid phosphate (dissolved rock), 
dissolved bone, basic slag meal and bone meals. The 
dissolved forms are advised for a quick start and early 
maturity. 
Natural rock phosphates are unadapted to the condi- 
t ! ons of our agriculture, and their use will, with most 
of our crops and on most soils, give highly unsatis¬ 
factory results. What is needed in our agriculture is 
Irequent (in case of many of our hoed crops, annual) 
anplications of dissolved or quickly available phos¬ 
phates. 
There is no possible way of misunderstanding 
that. A full study of this bulletin will interest any 
farmer who uses fertilizer. Dr. Brooks shows clear¬ 
ly that the essential need of New England soils is 
potash. In the West, or corn belt States, the great 
loss to the soil is phosphoric acid—in grain and live 
stock. In New England the chief crops taken from 
the farm are hay, vegetables, fruit and milk, all of 
which except milk contain four to five times as 
much potash as of phosphoric acid. The farmers in 
that section buy large quantities of purchased feeds, 
which are rich in phosphoric acid. The fertilizers 
which have been used for years also contain more 
phosphoric acid than potash. Thus the drain of pot- 
We have not yet seen any chemical demonstration 
that manure and organic matter actually make the 
raw phosphates more available. The experiments in 
Rhode Island and Tennessee go to disprove that 
theory. We want to be sure that the gains made 
from mixing the raw phosphates in manure actually 
result from the phosphorus. Some of our chemists 
believe that the increased value of the manure is 
due to the work of these phosphates in fixing or 
holding ammonia. Y'ou could use sifted coal ashes 
or dry road dust in the gutters or in the manure and 
obtain some gain in crop through the ammonia which 
these materials held. We have known cases where 
coal ashes or dry sand were plowed and mixed into 
soils so as to improve them, though no plant food 
was added. A favorite trick of the people who sell 
crushed feldspar is to attribute all gains from its 
use to potash when often, like sand, it improves the 
texture of the soil and thus gives the plant roots a 
better chance. 
There is no question about the great economy 
and saving to farmers if this raw phosphate could 
be made available through the chemical action in 
the manure pile or soil. Sulphuric acid has gone 
much higher in price since Spring, and great quan¬ 
tities are being used for making explosives. This 
will make acid phosphate higher than ever, and if it 
were possible to substitute the raw phosphate for 
growing crops on our Eastern soils we should cer¬ 
tainly advise its use. The weight of both scientific 
A Quartette, of Guernsey Cows Yielding 76,458.50 Pounds of Milk in One Year. Fig. 546. (See page 1468) 
phosphate is more expensive than the ground rock, 
since we must pay for the acid and also for tlu* 
cost of applying it. In return for this extra cost we 
obtain a soluble or “available” form of the phos¬ 
phate. The question is whether we get our money 
back with interest by paying extra for the acid 
phosphate. 
A group of men connected with the Illinois Ex¬ 
periment Station are chiefly responsible for the the¬ 
ory that the ground rock phosphate is most profit¬ 
able. Their argument is plausible at least—that the 
chemical action in manure or in decaying organic 
matter will make this rock phosphate more or less 
available, thus saving the cost of using the expensive 
sulphuric acid. These rock phosphate men appear to 
think that anyone who fails to agree with them 
must be in some way influenced by dishonest mo¬ 
tives. The R. N.-Y. would be only too glad to tell 
its readers that they might save the cost of chem¬ 
icals in preparing phosphoric acid, but if we con¬ 
sider the facts we cannot honestly do this. Every 
experiment station in the Atlantic Coast States has 
found that for the soil and crops in this section, acid 
phosphate on the whole is more profitable than the 
ground rock. 
The latest bulletin on this subject is No. 162, from 
the Massachusetts Experiment Station at Amherst. 
This gives, in detail, the results of IS years’ work 
in testing different forms of phosphates. It would 
be difficult to imagine a more thorough test than 
this one conducted by Prof. Win. I’. Brooks. The 
r.sli from this Eastern soil is much heavier than that 
of phosphoric acid, while the imports in grain and fer¬ 
tilizer are all in favor of phosphoric acid. We think 
this condition will he found true of most sections 
of land on the Atlantic slope, where fruit growing, 
dairying and vegetable or hay farming has been 
followed. In such cases while phosphoric acid is 
needed it will not be found the dominating element. 
This being so, the rational way to use phosphates 
would be to apply smaller quantities of available 
phosphoric acid rather than larger quantities of the 
phosphate rock. The experiments in Massachusetts 
and Rhode Island as well as in Ohio and Indiana 
show that there was greater money profit in using 
the acid phosphate. In addition to this the Massa¬ 
chusetts experiments show that the acid phosphates 
stimulated an early root and top development and 
an early and perfect ripening. They also help to 
increase the availability of potash, promote nitrifica¬ 
tion and increase the gain of nitrogen from the air. 
So far as we know the chemists at all the Eastern 
experiment stations agree that on the great major¬ 
ity of our Eastern soils and under our Eastern con¬ 
ditions the plan of using moderate annual dressings 
of acid phosphate is more profitable than using large 
quantities of the rock phosphate. In localities where 
the soil is very deficient in phosphorus it might pay 
• o use the rock phosphate, hut even in such cases we 
think fair amounts of acid phosphate would also 
pay. for the striking effect in pushing the crops 
along noted in this Massachusetts experiment. 
results and practical experience is in favor of using 
annual applications of soluble phosphates. 
A Successful Fruit Farm. 
HE fruit farm of Mr. George Smith at South 
River, N. J., is noted throughout the region for 
its productiveness, and for the quality of fruit it 
yields. The farm is located about six miles from 
New Brunswick by trolley, on the edge of the great 
clay producing region of the lower Raritan. The 
soil varies from a sandy to a gravelly loam, under¬ 
laid by clay, and is deep and fertile; in fact, Mr. 
Smith was told, when he bought the farm a good 
many years ago. that it was too rich for peaches. 
The land is a hit rolling—just enough to give good 
air and water drainage. 
The whole 50 acres are set to apples and peaches, 
with the exception of a small block of Kieffer pears. 
Rome Beauty is his favorite apple, yielding well, 
keeping well, and selling well; but Baldwin, Stay- 
man and Spy are also planted. The Elberta is his 
principal peach, with Carman and Lola, Belle of 
Georgia, Niagara, the Crawfords, and Iron Moun¬ 
tain to round out the season. The apple trees 
are headed to about four feet and the peach trees 
to two or less. The older apple orchards are inter- 
planted with peach trees. In one, about eight or 
nine years old. the trees are set 30x25 feet, with a 
peach filler in the middle of the longer distance. 
Mr. Smith, however, does not recommend the use of 
