cu9^/~
VOL. LXVI1I
INDIANAPOLIS, MAY 31, 1913
NO. 22
The Problem of Keeping up Soil Fertility
In a report recently sent out by the
National Conservation Congress, this
remarkable statement appears:
"During the forty years from 1860
to 1900, the United States lost more
fertility on Its old acreage than It
gained by the addition of virgin acres.
America has been mining its soil rather than farming lt."
If true, this is a most important
matter. The verb "to mine," has various meanings, but the one that seems
to best fit the case in hand is this: "To
ruin or destroy  by slow methods."
Most scientific agriculturalists and noil
chemists know it to be true that farming methods in the United States, have
been wearing out the land, working
Bteadlly toward the exhaustion of its
fertility. There needs to be persistent
a-Hation of the matter—and hence
this  article.
Any System of Cropping is DangefOUA.
l.ft it be admitted at the beginning,
that raising a crop and removing it
from the field where it grew, carries
away a portion of the supply of plant
food. Such a process, if continued,
must certainly impoverish the soil.
How long it will take to exhaust its
fertility, depends on circumstances.
Some soils have more plant food than
others, and some crops consume more
than others; but this only means that,
under certain circumstances, it will
take long, and under others shorter
time, to complete the ruin. In either
case,  however,  ruin is Inevitable.
That we have been losing fertility
for forty years, and longer, is mathematically demonstrable, and the loss
is r.iuch greater than is generally supposed. It is, of course, practically impossible to return to the soil all the
plant food that a year's crops take o«*.
without drawing from sources outside
the farm. It would probably be nearer the truth to say that it is an absolute impossibility, to do so. If all the
vegetable growth fit for such use, was
carefully saved and returned to the
fields,   together   with  all  the   b and
stable manure of the farm, the soil
would still suffer a considerable loss
through the elements of plant food
which go to make up the flesh, bone
and blood of the animals sold off, and
those which go to make the grain that
has been marketed.
loss in Manure on Average Farm.
This statement is made on the supposition that the utmost care has been
exercised in conserving the farm manures. But how much more adverse
ls the result, when little, or no care is
used in this direction; and the practice, unfortunately, is extremely common, to burn tons of straw, and to allow vast quantities of manure to rot
and leach until the larger part of its
value Is lost.
An experiment conducted at the University of Illinois, showed that of the
plant food contained In the rations fed.
19.68 per cent of the nitrogen, 26.66
per cent of the phosphorus and 23.98
of the potassium were not recovered in
the total manures. Add this loss to
the  waste,   and   loss  in   the   manures
By J. H. Rockwell
themselves, already referred to, and we
get a faint notion of ihe loss of fertility and removal of plant loud from
the soil, that is constantly going on.
Why Manure Docs Not Supply Need.
Now go a little farther, and sum up
the number of farm animals that have
been in the country In the forty year.-.
under consideration—the cattle, ho
mules, hogs and sheep. They have
no? all been on the farms, but we will
place them there ami make the
on the side of soil conservation, as
strong as possible. Take the avi
for the five census periods, I860 to
1900, Inclusive, and call ten sheep or
ten hogs equivalent to one horse, cow
or mule, in the production of manure
—which is the usual estimate—and allow ten tons of manure a year as tha
product of each animal so recund—
the usual basis of calculation—and we
have a total of scarcely sufficient to
furnish one ton of manure to each
acre, on the average, under tillage
each year.
Now, as no ton of manure represents.
or can represent, all the plant food
in   the   feed   from   which   it   was   pro
duced, and u no acre can get back, on
this calculation, as mueh as la taken
from it ln the crop, unless it takes ■
portion of what,  in equal distribution,
should go to other acres, the result is
a demonstrated lessening of soil fertility, even if we allow that every acre
does get back something. which,
as a matter of fact, it does not.
The  Phoapboraa  ProWani.
Wisconsin experiments warrant the
conclusion that, In the last half-century one-third of the phosphorus in
the soil had been lost In the tilled
fields. Broadly speaking, this would
mean on its face, that the entire phosphorus content of the soil would he
entirely exhausted In a hundred and
fifty years. But it means much worse
than that—it means that soils so worn,
are already beginning to fall in the
production of paying crops. I^ong
before the original supply of plant food
has been used up, the land must be
abandoned, or It must be liberally enriched. The land owner must live;
and he must have a surplus, or he must
quit.
It may be urged that such a simple
thing as the rotation of corn, oats and
clover—the latter plowed under the
fourth year—will set matters right
Bui "ill It? clover plowed under
once  in  four \ears— equivalent  to one
loa of dry hay to the acre — would give
to the SOU no more nitrogen thun a
forty crop of corn would take from it,
and the clover has no power to add
phosphorus or other mineral elements.
How to keep up the supply of phosphorus and potassium, is tlie question
to be solved; the supply of nitrogen we
know how to maintain. It is a subject well worth careful looking in*o,
for, turn the matter over as we may,
the fact remains, we have been losing
soil fertility, and have been "mining
the soil rather than  farming  it."
More Live Stock  is ..ne Solution  to the  Fertility Problem.
Tll.l.   DRAINAGE  OX   THK FAKM.
The Department uf Agriculture has
in press Farmers' l'.ulletin 524 on "Tile
Drainage on the Farm," by A. ii.
Smith, Agriculturist, Office of Farm
.Management, Bureau of Plant Industry. This bulletin was prepared to
meet the demand that is arising all over
the country for Information on this
subject. It is not designed to apply to
large drainage projects Involving engineering problems, but to cover the
subject fully from the farmer's point of
view.
The United States needs more drainage, says Mr. Smith. Good examples
of drainage can be found in practically
every State, but there are millions of
acres that still require it. The Middle
Western States have done the most
draining, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and
Iowa leading in this respect.
Although there is urgent necesaitj
for drainage In Minnesota, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, and
New York, comparatively little has
been done. Along the coast from Xew
.Jersey to Texas, inclusive, every State
has gigantic drainage problems almost
untouched, while throughout the country there are lands that must be
drained before maximum returns can
be obtained. In reality, drainage in
the Untied States is only fairly begun,
and its Immense possibilities are but
little known.
Mr. Smith summarizes the benefits of
drainage as follows:
It usually Increases the yields and
profits of crops. It makes lands that
are uncertain in production produce
crops every year.
It brings into cultivation lands otherwise worthless. Xot only can swamp
lands be made tillable, but on farms
where there are places too wet to cultivate, drainage will improve the land
and cause it to produce good crops.
Drainage improves the physical condition of the soil by making it more
granulated, porous, and friable. Thus,
stiff soils are more easily handled, the
plants have a greater feeding area, and
the available moisture In the soil Is
increased. Soils also absorb more of a
rainfall, thereby decreasing erosion and
damage by floods. Drainage also warms
the soil, because the evaporation of
moist nre l.y the sun requires heat
which, If the excessive moisture is re-
Continued on page  16.