tv JOURNAO-
, .Aivr.rvl.*   w —____i
He far
V
VOL. XXX.
INDIANAPOLIS, IND., JUNE 8, 1895.
NO. 23.
Fertilizers—What and How to Mix.
Editors Indiana Fibueb:
Under the above caption a communication appeared in your valued paper, issue
of Dec. 221, whioh contained more mistakes or errors bo palpable misleading and
injurious in their tendency toward the
very parlies they were supposed to be
written to benefit—the farmers of America
—that we cannot refrain from commenting
a little thereon. The learned author of
the article says: "Without controversy,
the saving, preparation and application of
manures is one of the most important subjects that the farmer oan consider." To
all of which we readily subscribe and say
amen. But the latter or concluding clause
of the article, viz: "With fine ground
phosphate and nitrate of soda, as the basis
of operations we oan now obtain complete
manures for every culture made according to any formula, and oont lining ln a
readily available and assimilable form all
the ingredients called for;" must, if accepted at all, at least be taken with a "pinch
of salt." If by that clause the gentleman
means that the "fine ground phosphate
and nitrate of soda" simply serves "as a
basis" whioh may be added to until a complete fertilizer is formulated and brought
forth to suit the requirements of eaoh individual soil or orop, we have noobjeotion
to offer; but if (as we are led to infer from
the tenor of his previous remarks) he regards those two elements ln any combined
quantity a complete fertilizer and tries to
foist them upon the intelligent farmers of
America as such, we unhesitatingly and
unqualifiedly deny it, and challenge the
gentleman to substantiate his assertion by
furnishing us with just a little proof.
We again quote: "By mixing together 500 pounds of nitrate of soda,
which contains 16 per oent of nitrogen and 35 per cent of soda, and 1,500
pounds of powdered phosphate of
of lime, containing 50 per cent phosphorlo
acid, we have in this mixture 2.000 pounds
the same number of pounds of nitrogen
and phosphoric aoid there is In one ton of
average ground bone." If the gentleman
had stopped right here we still would have
had no reason for complaint, but let us follow him a little farther: "And in addition
there is 175 pounds of soda whioh equals
262K pounds of potash." We deny this in
toto, and again call on the the gentleman
for the proof. "As two pounds of soda,"
he says, "equals three pounds of potash for
agricultural purposes." "By the use of
nitrate of soda and powdered phosphate of
lime, we have what is termed (by that gentleman only) a 'complete' manure, as it
contains nitrogen, phosphorlo acid and
soda, as a substitute for potash." We deny
three of his propositions: 1. That nitrate
of soda and powdmred phosphate of lime
lorm, In any combined quantity, a "complete" manure. 2. That sod. oan (as plant
food, and in any quantity) bs used as a
substitute for potash And (3) that "sulphates" or "muriates" of either pota«h or
soda are (aside from their oaustio properties, whioh ls due alone to their degree of
concentration) "poison to plants." Aa
previously stated, of the ie three separate
and dlstiuot propositions we deny.
We will now state a few facts. 1. No
combination oan be termed "oomplete"
that does not contain all of the leading elements of fertility, viz: phosphorlo acid,
potash and nitrogen. Also, ln order to
obtain best results from above essential
elements, lt is also essential that the soil
be bountifully supplied with both lime
and humus; If not naturally present, they
must bs artificially added. Potash is contained in considerable quantity in all
plants; it Is actually and positively essential to plant life and plant nutrition and
when plants are deprived of lt they speedily die. Soda, on the other hand, is contained In plants only in small  quantities;
it is not essential to plant life or nutrition;
and when found in the ash of plants its
presenoe ls considered more the result of
acoident rather than design. Being in no
way essential to plant life, it is not neoes
sary to apply lt in the shape of fertilizers
It never has, never will, nor never oan be
applied as a substitute for potash; or If so
applied, depend upon it the plant will
rebel. The farmer may, by specious reasonings and misrepresentations, be made to
believe that by applying lt he Is applying
true plant food, bnt be sure the plant is
not so easily fooled. With plenty of soda
ever present in the soil, plants take up
about ten times as muoh potash as they do
of sods. They also take up about twice aa
muoh potash as they do of phosphoric acid.
This being the oase, the necessity for a
liberal application of potash to all soils in
which that Indispensable element ls lacking, becomes at once apparent. Nature
accepts no substitutes; on the oontrary,the
chemical content of plant life, the world
.over, it exceedingly uniform and soda
oonspiouous for its absence or lnstgnlfi-
oanco, as far as plant nutrition ls concerned. Now for the gentleman's third
proposition, viz: That "sulphates" and
"muriates" are poisonous to plants." Sulphuric and hy droohlorio acids are found in
all plant life; they (like all other concentrations) are inimical to the life and well
being of plants only when present in excess. If essential to plant life and indispensable to plant nutrition, they oan hardly with justice be termed "plant poisons."
Again, nitrate of soda, when used as a fertilizer at all, is used for the "nitrogen" it
contains, and never for the "soda." It is
used as a oheap, if not the oheapest source
of that important element; but would be
superceded by "nitrate of potash," were lt
not for the faot that the latter salt Is too
expensive for general use as a fertilizer-
The theory that.as an element of plant nutrition, "soda may be substituted for pot'
ash" is "lame] in both legs;" and if ever
believed in and advocated by persons of
ordinary intelligence, was effectually exploded when the world renowned chemist,
"Iilebig," together with his system of accurate chemical analysis and investigations into the laws of plant nutrition and
plant life, oame upon the scene,
* Burgess, Miss. T.
The Work for the T ear.
Editors Indiana Farxh:
It is a poor business man that plans no
farther ahead than the morrow, and he
usually quits business with less than he
began. Farming is a bnsiness In every
sense of the term and is getting to be the
most complicated business extant. The
farmer has not only the frequent ohanges
of temperature and rainfall and the adverse effects thereby incurred to his orop,
but he must battle with all the complex
problems of supply and demand, International commerce, chemistry and natural
physios, if he would reap the greatest
profits from his labor. On all these does
his work for the year depend for the profitable remuneration, and he must needs
plan his work beforehand that he may
have a certain definite end in view to
strive for.
The time ls here when the work should
be planned at onoe; If not already done
and a few thoughts in this line we drop
hoping they will do some one good. In
the first place make a new year resolve
that you will do better this year than last
and that you will do your best in some
definite line. Next plan all the way
through to do not more, but better work;
more thorough—henoe more profitable.
There are none of us bnt do enough
work to enable us to make and save
money every year if it was only done with
a definite end in view. How often have
we seen some one begi n the season's work
without any idea as to what amount of
oorn, oats, potatoes, tobacco, or other field
crops were to be planted—just begin and
go aimlessly along. If the spring is wet,
little oats and potatoes and mnoh oorn, or
vice versa, just owing to when the rain
oomes. Likewise In the breeding of live
stock—anything at all, j ust so it is young
and small, and it lives and shifts for itself
Is all that Is required.
The course of this kind of farmer re
sembles that of a single seed of thistle.
The foroe of natural laws compel him to
move and in the breeze of oironmstanoes
he drifts lazily along and somehow, some
where, he pulls up aimlessly, but satisfactorily to himself, perhaps.
But progress is not made in this way,
and to progress with the age is our desire,
and for this reason we make our plans before the working season begins, making
sure not to have a thousand other things
that must be done in planting or harvest
time. We readily admtt that there are
things that oome np unforeseen every
week that must be handled at onoe,or loss
will result;but*they do not occur nearly so
often as if no general plan was followed,
and the time is never so hard to find to do
these unlooked for things.
If you have been planting large areas of
corn and harvesting small crops of small
ears, and bountiful crops of weeds, plant
less aores this year and harvest more bushels of large ears. Whatever ls done do it
well: do it in season, and always keep
enough good help to keep yonr work along
and push lt; never change places, and let
the work push yon; unfinished tasks are
hard masters, and should be avoided. This
can only be done by careful planning beforehand, and systematically following
them as far as practicable. This will soon
bring the farm into a sort of systematic
business, whioh is the thing to be sought
after.
We have done so and found that after
we had gotten a fairly good plan laid for
work for this year, we unconsciously be
gan to study for the next year, and to plan
this year's work with reference to another
year's wants. Don't say we need not fret,
every day cares for itself; of conne it will,
and the State cares for its poor also, but
that ls no reason why we should have it
care for us; so look ahead and plan for the
future year, and If the plans prove not reliable you have learned a reck to shun
another time, and have lost nothing
thereby. Once adopted, no man ever
went back to the old way of letting eaoh
day provide for Itself; the farm gives the
best and largest field for the prudent and
thoughtful man to exerolse his discretion
and judgment, and just so far as we plan
for the future correctly is our judgment
correct. Dewitt.
That Mortgage.
Editors Indiaka Farmer:
Some people are getting alarmed at the
amount and extent to which the country
is encumbered with mortgages. The conn-
try is plastered over with mortgages they
say. Mortgige your property nowadays
and you had as well give it up In the first
place. By means of the mortgage the nat
ural resources of the country are falling
into the hands of a few capitalists. If this
keeps on, where will it end? and similar remarks are heard quite frequently.
Attempts have at times been made to
give the mortgagor speoial advantages by
exempting mortgaged property from taxation. This Is met with the argument that
lt would curtail the revenues and enoour
age people to go ln debt, while debts are
considered the curse of the country.
What is the natnre ot a mortgage, anyhow, that lt Is suoh ground for alarm? A
mortgage ls practically simply a bet. When
a person ventures a wager, and loses, he ls
not considered unfortunate, but foolishly
venturesome.   When a man gives a mort
gage, and loses, the venture of this undertaking seems more obscure. Let me explain: I propose to buy 80 acres for |:.,000.
I have f 1.000 ready to pay on it, and propose to borrow the other $2 000 on a mortgage security. I do so, and give a mortgage in favor of some capitalist, more or
less great. This mortgage document
states, though not ln these words, that I
get $2,000 from Capitalist, whioh I agree to
pay baok, together with interest at the end
of a specified time, and in order to induce
Capitalist to make me the loan I venture to
bet my entire farm that I will meet the
obligation. Capitalist considers this a
good Investment; he gets Interest and has
some ohanoe of winning a bet of f 1,000.
The bargain ls made, the document specifying the terms of the bet is called a mortgage, and under that name is recognized'as
lawful. Now comes the contest as to who
shall win the bet. If I succeed in raising
the f 2,000, plus the interest, then I win; If
not, then capitalist wins.
We hear muoh talk of hard times and
agricultural depression. This is one of the
means to which Capitalist resorts to make
lt possible for him to win the bet, and it is
muoh like playing with loaded dice. Capitalist, when personally acoused with playing with loaded dice, pleads that if he does
so it ls unconsciously, whioh in many
oases is undoubtedly true. But when the
scales of prosperity take an unnatural turn
it may be suspected that some obscure
hand has thrown the scales out of balance
balance, or is playing with loaded dloe.
In the eyes of Capitalist mortgages are
not signs of agricultural depression, but on
the contrary show enthusiasm. For why
would a man who understands tilling the
soil and harvesting crops venture to make
a legal bet of one-half or third the value of
his farm that he oan by farming make
money and pay off his obligation, If at the
same time be believed farming an unprofitable business. The more such bets there
are ventured the more definite are the Indications that farmers think agriculture is
a paying business.
There ls no consistency, reasons Capitalist, in a man's talk of hard times, low
prices, and unprofitableness and at the
same time making such ventures. To
choose between words and actions, actions
speak louder than words, and therefore for
the last 20 years farmers have been getting
more confident in the remunerative quality of agriculture In proportion to the increase of mortgages. And sinoe the political, financial and business policy of Capitalist has brought to light the enthusiasm
of the farmer,the same policy in the future
will develop the ability of the people and
resources of tbe count ry, reasons Capitalist.
So it seems that either the farmer or capitalist, or both, must make radical ohanges
In their way of doing business or else the
farmers of the future will point back to '95
or the latter end of this century as the era
of good times, just as farmers now do to
the years just after the war.
A Dkcatdb County Farm er,
Editors Indiaka Farmer:
I see you suggest a fortune ahead for me
in the [anti-cutworm  business.   What is
his name and what is his business here?
L. W. Thom»s.
The worm is the larva of a beetle that
lives on decayed logs and stumps. There
is a large family of these beetles, and it is
somewhat difficult to name this one, but
If you will send us another specimen we
wlll have him identified if pr x.tble.
A gentlemsn near Pittsburg, Pa., noticed lately that a large number of bees
were frequenting the flowers on his lawn,
and every day when he came home to
lunoh he put a piece of sugar on a brick In
the garden for them. They soon learned
tbe time when they might expect the sugar
and now wait for it regularly.