Newspaper Page Text
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF GEORGIA—CROP REPORT FOR MONTH OF AUGUST, 1889.
pass of stock except by a few prejudiced parties against the law that let
their prejudices overrule their common sense.—A. E. S. Meriwether:
Entire county—1881. Many people who opposed it are now its warmest
advocates. We are now a unit for “no fence.”—Ord’y. Increase in acreage
very considerable. Live stock have greatly improved in quality. We get
more and better butter; better beef, and, I think, more pork than before
the law. Farmers still have troubles on account of stock. We like the
law.—R. M. McC. There was perhaps an increase of 10 per cent, in acre
age, and but for the stock law, at least 25 per cent, of land now in cultiva
tion would have been abandoned. Number of stock less, but of superior
■quality, producing more and better butter. I must say, in all candor, that
it is a great source of bitterness between neighbors and engenders animosi
ties that time can never heal.—J. H. W. Monroe: Entire county—1S7(>.
Perfect satisfaction; our people would not have it repealed.—Ord’y. Mor
gan: Whole county—1882. Entire satisfaction.—Ord’y. Newton: Whole
•county—at different times. General satisfaction.—Ord’y. I think from
observation an increase in acreage in this and the adjoining districts has
been from 5 to 7 per cent. Decided improvement in quality of stock, and
for my immediate neighborhood (which you know is thickly settled), a
friendly rivalry of who has the best milkers, and can make the most but
ter per cow, and raise the finest porkers at the least expense, exists. A
■decided improvement and increase in our domestic supply of beef and
pork. A general feeling full of hope, that our crops will fill up the bill for
•our home supplies. Peaceand quiet reigns, and our Alliance flourishing. Very
little trouble now with unruly stock.—T. A. W. Oconee: I think that it has
been a benefit in all respects; live stock have been improved ; the product
of milk and butter has been increased at least 25 per cent. In other respects
the conditions are about the same as before the law went in to effect—R. L. D.
Oglethorpe: Entire county—1884. Pretty general satisfaction, except in
sparsely settled parts.—Ord’y. 1. The acreage in farm crops increased.
2. Quality decidedly improved. 3. The quantity of butter and milk greatly
increased, and the quality much improved. 4. Amount of beef and pork
greater and of better quality. 5. Nothing better calculated to promote
prosperity, peace and tranquility in neighborhoods. Stock under better
control. The stock law will certainly be of lasting benefit to Oglethorpe
county.—C. A. S. Pike: Entire county—18S2. Never hear any com
plaints. All appear satisfied. More milk and butter, and better beef, and
(I think) more and better pork.—Ord’y. Putnam: Entire county—1880.
Great satisfaction.—Ord’y. Acreage about the same, but better land is
planted. Live stock in much better condition than under the old system.
Milk and butter improved in quantity and quality. Everything except
grain does better where farmers turn their stock out in winter.—0. W. B.
Rockdale: Entire county—1882. Well pleased, without any exceptions
—Ord’y. It has increased the acreage in farm crops, increased the quality
-of stock very much, increased the quantity and improved the quality of
butter and milk; in fact it has been a perfect God-send to the farmers of
Rockdale.—P. II. W. Spalding: Entire county—18S2. Full satisfaction.
—Ord’y. Taliaferro: Whole couuty. Voted down once by the people ;
then passed by the legislature in 1832. Does not give general satisfaction,
and would probably be defeated again if voted on by the people. Many
say the stock law has done more harm than freeing the negroes.—Ord’y.
Talbot: Entire county—18S3. Hear of no dissatisfaction.—Ord’y. In
crease of 10 per cent, in acreage in crops; quality of stock 10 per cent, bet
ter ; quantity of butter 20 per cent, greater; quantity of beef 10 per cent,
greater. Not a man would now vote to put the fences back.—W. H. E.
Increased acreage 5 ; quality of live stock 50, better; quantity and quality
of butter and milk 50, greater; quantity and quality of beef and pork 25,
increase. It would be difficult to estimate the benefits. We are at peace
and harmony—greatly attributable to absence of quarrels and dissensions
incident to stock running at large.—D. G. O. Troup: Entire county—
1881. With few exceptions people are satisfied.—Ord’y. Upson: In
part of four districts—1886-87. Both whites and blacks well pleased.
Ord’y. The “no fence” law has had no effect in any way.—A. J. Y.
Walton: Entire county—1886. I think it gives satisfaction.—Ord’y.
Warren: Entire county. General satisfaction, where it is enforced. Not
enforced in southern party of the county.—Ord’y. Very little effect on
acreage in cultivation as yet. Stock have improved, also butter, both in
quantity and quality, and beef and pork in quality. I hear of no trouble.
Peace reigns wherever the law is in force.—J. L. M. No change in acre
age in farm crops. Has caused us to get better and improved stock.
Have improved our butter and milk 30 per cent. Have lessened our cattle
and increased our hogs; both show great improvement, and have some for
market all the year round. We are more prosperous and satisfied with the
law. Our stock is easy to control as they are handled more, and very docile.
About one-half of our county is well timbered (pine timber), and that
portion keep up fences and stock run out, the neighbors understanding
each other, and all is quiet and harmonious.—J. A. S. Wilkes: Entire
county—1883. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’y.
SOUTHWEST GEORGIA.
Baker: Noelection. Berrien: No election. Brooks: Noelection—Ord’y.
You would confer a favor on nearly every intelligent farmer in this county
if you would agitate and advise the Legislature to pass some law by which
we could abolish fences. The negro vote is solid in favor of fences.—T. W. J.
Calhoun: No election. Chattahoochee: Two districts—18S6-87. Gives
satisfaction.—Ord’y. The planters are generally pleased, though there is
some dissatisfaction. Butter and milk are more abundant; stock better
cared for. There is quite as much if not more beef and pork raised, and
it is of better quality.—J. H. W. Clay: No election. Colquitt: No
election. Crawford: Half the county—1887. Not satisfactory to all.
Quite a number who favored it are not pleased with its workings.—Ord’y.
1. Increase in acreage of farm crops. 2. Improvement in live stock. 3.
Both butter and milk improved in quantity and quality. 4. Cholera and
cowboys. 5. I think a good return in all.—J. W. S. 1. Moving out old
fences and cultivating the hedge rows has added greatly to the yield and
beauty of the farm. 2. Quality of live stock improving. 3. Butter im
proving in quantity and quality. 4. Beef and pork much better. 5. Much
better than under the old system.—J. W. D. Dccaiur: No election.
Dooly: No election. Daugherty: West of Flint River—1886. About
equally divided as to satisfactin.—Ord’y. Early: No election. Hous
ton: Entire county—1883. It gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. The law has
worked well in all respects, and farmers, as a rule, are well pleased.—W. O.
A. Irwin: No election. Lee: Entire couuty—1887. Much opposition
at first among the poorer classes, but not much now.—Ord’y. Lowndes:
No election. Macon: Five districts—1883-88. General satisfaction.
Some discussion.—Ord’y. We have seven districts in the county and
five have the^stock law, and their people are well pleased, or at least a
majority of trmm are satisfied. In these districts there is a marked im
provement in stock; more and better butter, more and better beef, more
and better hogs.—J. B. M. Marion: Two districts—1886-87. Univer
sal satisfaction in those districts.—Ord’y. 1. Differenee scarcely per
ceptible. A little more corn and long forage crops. 2. Stock have better
attention, and quality is being improved. 3. Fully as much butter and
milk from fewer cows on better pastures and better feed. 4. Beef and
pork fully as plentiful and fattened better; both cheap and abundant. 5.
No disturbance between farmers who are holding their own and barely
making both ends meet. Stock are more easily managed. Breeds im
proved.—G. W. C. M. MiNer: No election. Mitchell: No election.—
Ord’y. Muscogee. The “no fence” law works very well. No movement
yet to improve stock, though most of the scrub stock have been sold with
that view. There is a spirit ot hog raising, as it pays better to raise pork
than cattle; and cheaper to raise mules than to buy. It don’t pay, at
present prices of wool, to raise sheep, if they have to be penned in the
winter.—C. O. Quitman: Two districts—1887-88. Generally satisfied.
—Ord’y. Randolph: Three districts—1886-7-9. Generally satisfied.
—Ord’y. Schley: One district—18S7. Generally satisfied.—Ord’y.
Stewart: All except 747th district. Gives perfect satisfaction.—Ord’y.
1. Some increase, don’t know the exact per centage. 2. Stock improving
very rapidly by introduction of imported breeds. 3. Improved very much
in proportion of milch cows, the cows being much better attended
than formerly. 4. Quality improved, but not so mueli in quantity. 5.
Almost beyond description, there being hardly ever any depredations by
stock, therefore no cause for disturbances in the communiMes.—G. vV. A.
Sumter: The law has been adopted in the town districts, only. Some
favor, some oppose. In the whole county a majority are opposed to it.—
Ord’y. Taylor: Three districts—1887-8. General satisfaction.—Ord’y.
I see no radical change as yet, the law having only recently gone into effect.
Those districts that,have the law seem well pleased with it.—J. T. A.
Terrell: Never will be adopted in this county.—Obd’y. Thomas: Ut
terly impracticable.—Ord’ y. We have not yet ajdopted it, but some of the
people are advocating iti The poor man is against it, as it gives less stock,
and it runs our native labor out of the ccunty.-^P. L. C. Webster: No
election. Wilcox: No part, and I hope it never will. Only rich men (
who are too close-fisted to pay for rails, and town dudes, are in favor of “ no
fence.” Hard on poor farmers in the way of raising stock.—Clerk Ord’y.
Worth: No election.
EAST GEORGIA.
Bulloch: No election. Burke: One district—18S8. Gives satisfaction.
— Ord’y. Dodge: No election. Emanuel: No election. Glascock: No
election. Jefferson: No election. Johnson: No election. Laurens: No
election. Montgomery: Noelection. Pulaski: Onedistrict—1885. Satis
factory.—Ord’y. It is the most important and beneficial law ever
enacted by the Legislature in the interest of the farmers.—J. L. A.
Richmond: Entire county—1834. Satisfactory in some portions of the
county.—Ord’y. 1. Acreage has been increased. 2. Live stock has been
improved. 3. The quantity has gradually increased and the quality stead
ily improved. 5. The people are friendly and everything tranquil.
There is no trouble with stock. All kinds of stock docile.—J. W. R.
Screven: In 37th, 3Sth and 260th, by Legislative Act—1881. Does not
give general satisfaction, but has caused considerable contention.—Oed’y.
So far the law does not give general satisfaction. It has not advanced the
interests of farmers, nor improved the condition ; and it has been a great
hardship on the poor. I hope the law will be repealed.—E. B. G. Tatnall:
No election. Telfair: No election. Twiggs: Five districts—1887-8.
Gives great satisfaction.—Ord’y. There has been a slight increase in
acreage of crops; finer and better stock; less butter and milk, but better;
less beef and more pork. On the whole, the law has increased the general
prosperity, tranquility, etc.—H. S. W. No increase in acreage in farm
crops; slight improvement in quality of live stock; quantity of butter and
milk diminished, but quality improved; improvement in pork, butdecrease
as to beef; condition of farmers slightly improved ; neighborhood harmo
nious; stock more docile, because the mischievous have been sold or killed.—
Washington: Adopted in three districts—18S5-86, and defeated in four.
Givesgeneral satisfaction in those districts which kaveadopted it.—Ord’y.
Wilkinson: In 327th, 352nd, and 353rd—1886-S7. Generally satisfactory
to those who wanted it; also to some who did not; hut very unsatisfactory
to some.—Ord’y. Three districts adopted the stock law and a great many
who voted for it are tired of it now. Acreage in farm crops less than before,
less cattle and hogs and no improvement in stock generally. No county
can raise pork and have a stock law. Less butter and milk, though some
have plenty and to spare. Less beef and pork every year since the adoption
of the law. Not so prosperous, and more law suits and hard feelings
among neighbors than ever before. But little stock to be docile.—J. A. M.
SOUTHEAST GEORGIA.
No elections have been held in the following counties: Appling, Bryan,
Camden, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Echols, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty,
McIntosh, Pierce, Ware and Wayne. An election held in Chatham coun
ty in July, 1889, resulted in a defeat of the law. J. O. D., of Liberty-
county, says: “We are cursed, and ever expect to be, with the burden of
fencing our crops against the depredations of cattle that are worth only
87 per head.” J. R., of Camden couuty, says: “With the present lights
before us, I think Camden would vote ‘no fence’ now, were the matter
submitted to ballot.” J. B., of Coffee county, writes: “The ‘fence’ or ‘no
fence’ question has not been agitated in this county-. Do not think the
‘no fence’ move will suit the people here.” A. F. R., of Effingham : “The
‘no fence’ law has not been voted on here and a large majority of the
people are opposed to the law.”
SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS.
Formation and Substance of Plants—Fertility or Sterility oi
Soils—Barnyard Manure and Chemical Fertilizers
Complete Chemical Fertilizer.
As the object of agriculture is to produce and multiply the most usei'm
plants and animals, her position is of the highest order in the economy m
society, for her duty is to supply- all our wants, to feed us, to clothe us, and
even to provide the animals we use in daily labor.
We will now speak of the growth of plants, manner of their formation,
and the means of cultivating them profitably-. In the first phase of their
existence they find in the seed planted the substance necessary for their
growth ; later they draw it from other sources, anil it is from this point we
will follow them through their evolution.
Question. From whence come the substances that form plants?
Answer. We have already told you: entirely from the seed, during
germination; later, from air, water and soil. Hants draw from the air
through their leaves and from the soil through their roots.
Q. Can air satisfy all the needs for the formation of a plant?
A. No, never; it must have help from the elements which the soil con
tains, and which the soil alone can give.
Q. Is the soil then always provided with substances which vegetation
must seek there ?
A. On the contrary-, it is often wanting in them. While the composi
tion of the air is always the same, the soil varies continually, changing its
properties and fertility.
Q. Can y-ou grow fine crops from a soil which you ouly cultivate and
prepare mechanically according to the old method ?
A. No; in this way crops fall off" very rapidly and the soil gradually
loses its fertility.,
Q. Crops then exhaust the soil ?
A. That is a fact demonstrated by universal experience.
Q. What difference is there between a soil naturally sterile and one ex
hausted by cultivation?
A. None; both produce poor crops, because both are deficient in the
substances without which plants cannot thrive; naturally sterile soils
having never possessed them, and exhausted soils having lost them by too
long continued cultivation.
Q. What must you do to retain the fertility of the soil ?
A. Give back to it, under certain forms, the elements which the crops
have taken from it, and without which, I repeat, there cannot be an en
during productiveness.
Q. And what must be done to make a soil fertile which is not naturally
so ?
A. Enrich it with the same substances which you give an exhausted
soil. In other words, you must manure the soil.
Q. How do you generally manure the soil ?
A. By spreading animal litter and excrement, otherwise called barnyard
manure.
Q. Why does barnyard manure act upon the soil ?
A. Because it contains nitrogenous matter, phosphate of lime, potash
and lime, which are the prime agents of fertility, and the most important
part of all crops.
Q. Does barnyard manure contain but these four substances ?
A. It contains at least ten others, which we need not speak about,
because plants always find them in the air and in the soil.
Q. Then sterile soils are wanting in nitrogenous matter, phosphate of
lime, potash and lime ?
A. Just so.
Q. Then you can always make a fertile soil by use of these four sub
stances.
A. Yes, you can always grow a good crop by use of them.
Q. Is it necessary that these four substances should be in the fprm of
barnyard manure to be efficacious?
A. It is not necessary. Mixing them in the form of a chemical product
gives them the same properties. Practically, a chemical fertilizer is more
effective than barnyard manure, and that is easy to understar d. In barn
yard manure the four fertilizing substances are mixed with different mat
ters which detract from its good effects, while the chemical fertilizer is
formed only of active parts whieh the plants absorb more rapidly and
more certainly; so to' remind you that its efficacy is always certain, I give
you the name of Complete Chemical Fertilizer. The complete chemical
fertilizer, formed extensively of chemical products, is to barnyard manure
what the metal is to the mineral, what quinine is to the bark of the Cin
chona. The mineral contains the metal mixed with earthy matters; cin
chona contains quinine mixed with w-oody parts which are useless. The
chemical fertilizer is barnyard manure deprived of all useless matter.
Q. Then to grow good crops, it is absolutely necessary that the soil con
tains nitrogenous matter, phosphate of lime, potash and lime; that is to
say, the four substances of which tins complete fertilizer is formed?
A. Emphatically yes.
Q. If the soU is wanting in one of these four substances, what happens?
A. In spite of the presence of the three others, vegetation lanquishes and
your crops are poor.
Q. How do you know it is caused by the absence of one of these four
substances?
A. Nothing is easier. Choose a piece of poor soil like that used at the
Experiment Farm at Vincennes, for example. There the ground was cul
tivated for several years without barnyard manure, until the crops went
down to almost nothing. Pt was then laid oft’ into seven plats of thirty
feet square each, divided by a path three feet w-ide around each plat. The
first plat received nothing; the crop was almost nothing. The second plat
received potash; the crop not much better. The third received phosphate
of lime; crop not much better. The same poverty Rom the fourth and
fifth, which received only lime and nitrogenous matter separately. The
sixth received a mixture of nitrogenous matter, phosphate of lime, potash
and lime, that is to say, Complete fertilizer; vegetation is splendid, and
there is nothing to be desired as to abundance and quality of crop. But
that is not all; the seventh plat received a mixture of phosphate of lime,
potash anti lime, that is to say, complete fertilizer with exclusion of one of
the four terms, nitrogenous matter. The yield was as inferior as when the
different terms had been used alone.
The pre-eminence of the complete .fertilizer fully proves., that its effect Is
essentially due to the collective action, arising from the association of the
four substances composing it. To make discussion easier, I will call min
eral fertilizer, the union of phosphate of lime, potash and lime; that is to
say, the complete fertilizer, minus nitrogenous matter.
Q. If it is true, that the complete fertilizer is only efficacious, because it
contains the four substances whose combination gives the conditions which
plant life imperiously demands, then the mineral fertilizer, lacking in
nitrogenous matter, must be inferior in value ?
A. Practically, that is so, for the majority of plants. There are, how
ever, certain plants upon which the mineral fertilizer produces quite as
much effect as the'complete fertilizer.
Q. What plants are these ?
A. Peas, beans, clover, lucerne, sugar-cane, etc., are among the most
prominent of these.
Q. These plants then contain no nitrogen ?
A. On the contrary, they contain a great deal of it. A crop of lucerne,
for example, contains two or three times more than a crop of w-heat.
Q. Where do these plants get this nitrogen ?
A. From the air, 85 per cent, of which is nitrogen.
Q. Why put nitrogen in the fertilizer if air contains such large quanti
ties of it?
A. Because the greater number of plants have not the faculty of drawing
it from the air.
From this point of view, we can divide them into two groups. The first
comprehending plants which draw their nitrogen from the air, and the
second those which take it in preference from the soil. The organization
of vegetation shows this fact, which obliges us in practical agriculture to
distinguish the plants to which we must give complete fertilizer, from
those to which mineral fertilizer is sufficient for attaining full development.
Q. Have the plants which require nitrogenous fertilizer the faculty of
also drawing nitrogen from the air?
A. Yes, but in small quantities and on express condition that the soil is
provided with nitrogenous matter sufficient to insure their full develop
ment.
Q. Do we know what part the air and soil contribute in furnishing
nitrogen to our principal crops?
A. Here are the most reliable tables on this point:
Nitrogen Drawn from Nitrogen Drawn from
the Air. the Soil.
Clover . All. None.
Barley 80 per cent. 20 !.er cent.
Rye. 80 per cent. 20 per cent.
Wheat 50 per cent. 50 per cent.
Beets 60 per cent. 40 per cent.
Rape 70 per cent. 30 per cent.
Q. How can you prove that this is so, and that clover and peas, for exam
ple, take no nitrogen from the soil, and draw it all from the air?
A. This can be proved in two different ways; by experiment in the lab
oratory, and by culture in open air. We first speak of experiments in the
laboratory, because everything there is clear and simple. Earth burned in
a porcelain oven to destroy all the nitrogenous matter the earth contained;
add to this soil phosphate of lime, potash, and lime, and not a trace of
nitrogenous matter. This earth was moistened with distilled water, which
is perfectly pure, and then clover sowed on it. The success was perfect,
and the crop analyzed contained much nitrogen, which could come from
no source but the air, since the soil contained none of it.
Proofs drawn from practice are not less decisive. When you cultivate
soil without manure the crops deteriorate rapidly. If you cultivate wheat
every alternate year, the crop is better. Alternate wheat with beans,
which contains a great deal of nitrogen, and the crop of wheat does not
change. Alternating with beans is almost as favorable as a fallow year.
Why? Because beans draw their nitrogen from the air, while wheat takes
it from the soil.
Fertilizers are said to be assimilable when plants can absorb them; and
plants do not absorb them except the fertilizing substances are soluble. For
this reason it is generally recognized that barnyard manure does not pro
duce its full effect- except when there is sufficient moisture to cause its
decomposition in the soil.
Q. So it can happen then, that substances containing nitrogen, phos
phate of lime, potash, and lime, can be without effect on vegetation ?
A. I can demonstrate this to you by an example in regard to nitrogenous
! matter. For a long time, horn parings and scraps of wool were used by
farmers, but it is found that large scraps of horn parings are almost with
out effect, because they are very difficult of decomposition, and their nitro
gen does not take a soluble form ; so fine horn parings arc used as they are
more easily decomposed. Another striking example : Leather, which is
skin rendered insoluble and unalterable by tanning. Nitrogen is assimila
ble in the skin, and is not assimilable in leather. The skin is a good fertil
izer and the leather is useless.
Q. Is it the same with phosphate of lime, potash, and lime, as with
nitrogen ?
A. The good effect of these three substances is entirely dependent upon
their solubility. There are a large number of substances containing phos
phate of lime, potash, and lime, which cannot act as fertilizer because they
are not assimilable by plants. For example: There are large deposits of
phosphate of lime which cannot be used until after they are treated with
sulphuric acid to make them assimilable. The same fact in regard to
granites and porphyries, forming chains of mountains, and which can nor.
be used as fertilizer, although they contain much potash and lime, because
these two substances are in an insoluble form, and consequently, without
action on plants.
Q. One can then find a soil rich in nitrogen, phosphate of lime, potash,
and lime, and yet sterile ?
A. That is readily found, as a large part of natural soils contain these
elements in an insoluble form, and have no more influence upon crops than
sand, clay or gravel.
Q. If these elements of fertility are in the soil in a non-assimilable form,
will they always be useless ?
A. No; for by the combined action of light, heat, air, drouth, and frost,
these elements undergo a slow decomposition, passing into a semi-soluble
state, but not sufficiently so to produce good crops. This explains the use
fulness of a fallow. The elements of fertility become soluble during the
fallow year and are beneficial to the crops of the following year.
Q. What are the commercial products containing assimilable nitrogen
which agriculture can make use of?
A. Sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, nitrate of potash, and nitro
genous and animal matter, such as night soil, blood and dried flesh, horns,
hoofs, scraps of wool, etc.
Q. What is the per cent, of nitrogen in the substances?
A. Sulphate of ammonia has 20 per cent., nitrate of soda 15 per cent.,
nitrate of potash 14 percent. I say nothing of animal matter, because so
much fraud is used there is no fixing the value of these products.
Q. Can you use sulphate of ammonia and nitrates indifferently as a
source of ammonia ?
A. This is possible, but experience advises reserving nitrates for beets
and Irish potatoes, and sulphate of ammonia for rape and cereals.
Q. Can you use nitrate of soda and nitrate of potash indifferently ?
A. No; because soda has no action on vegetation, whereas, potash has
very great action. Nitrate of soda is useful only through the nitrogen it
contains, while nitrate of potash is useful also through the potash.
Q. If equally rich in nitrogen, has animal matter the same value as sul
phate of ammonia and nitrate of soda?
A. No; because during decomposition a part of their nitrogen goes off
into the air in the form of nitrogenous gas, with which the atmosphere is
superabundantly provided.
Q. Under what form is the nitrogenous part of animal matter absorbed
by plants?
A. In the form of nitrate or of salts of ammonia.
Q. What proportion of nitrogen is lost during the decomposition of ani
mal matter ?
A. Thirty per cent, of the whole nitrogen.
Q. What commercial product contains phosphate of lime?
A. Ground bone, refiners bone-black, and superphosphate of lime, or
acid phosphate.
Q. How much phosphate of lime does ground bone contain ?
A. About 60 per cent.
Q. How much phosphate of lime does the bone-black from refineries
contain.?
A. Its richness varies from 45 to 60 per cent.
Q. What is meant by phosphate of lime ?
A. A phosphate treated by sulphuric acid, which has the power of ren
dering it soluble.
Q. How much soluble phosphate in the commercial acid phosphate ?
A. About 40 per cent.
Q. Under what form does phosphate of lime produce its best effects?
A. That of acid phosphate, generally called superphosphate of lime.
Q. What commercial product contains potash which can be used in the
composition of chemical fertilizers ?
A. Nitrate of potash, known as salts of nitre, or simply nitre ; and chlo
ride of potassium.
Q. But have you not put nitrate of potash among the most efficacious
nitrogenous matters ?
A. "Yes, for it contains both, 14 per cent, of nitrogen and 47 per cent, of
potash, and the union adds greatly to the effect of both.
Q. Are there no other sources of potash than from nitre ?
A. There is potash from decomposing chloride of potassium by nitrate ol
soda; potash from allies,'and from refineries of different origin. *
Q. What is the character of refined potash ?
A. It is white, very soluble in water, attracting moisture from the air,
which it absorbs in great quantities.
Q. What is the richness of pu^e potash ?
A. It contains from 50 to 52 per cent, of real potash.
Q. Which is better to use, nitrate of potash, or pure potash?
A. Nitrate of potash and chloride of potassium.
Q. Is the nitrogen of nitrate of potash ever injurious ?
A. Never, practically.
Q. You have said there are plants upon which the mineral fertilizer is
equally as efficacious as the complete fertilizer ?
A. That is true for certain plants \shieh draw all their nitrogen Rom the
air.
Q. What matter contains lime in an assimilable form and can be used in
the composition of chemical fertilizer?
A. Sulphate of lime and carbonate of lime, or, in other wosd, plaster and
chalk.
Q, To which do you give preference ?
A. To plaster (or sulphate of lime).
Q. Why?
A. Because it is more soluble.
Q. Do commercial fertilizers owe their good effects to the fous substances
which compose the complete fertilizer ?
A. Yes.
Q. What advantage is to be gained by using chemical fertilizer in prefer
ence to barnyard manure?
A. I have told you. Being entirely soluble, they are surer and more
promptly absorbed by vegetation. Tfieir composition beirg of invariable
fixity, they cannot be adulterated without grave charges being incurred by
the manufacturer, which is h protection t® the farmer. There is also
advantage to be gained by associating chemicals with barnyard manure,
according to the nature or the plant on which the manure is used.