The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, November 24, 1919, Page 5

By Farm Journal Expert Says Theory of Balancing the Soil Is Wrong— Revolutionary Ideas on Nitrogen and Phosphate THER the Farm Journal of Phila- delphia is making a big mistake or our methods of us- ing commercial fertilizer are go- ing to be seriously changed in the near future. The September issue of this magazine carries an article which stands the whole fertilizer practice on "its head. The experts will probably be fight- ing the matter out for the next two or three years, and the farmers who use commercial fertilizers should do some thinking of their own about it. They should not rely entirely on the experts; for the theories advanced by the Farm Journal article take the bread and butter as well as the profits away from some large commercial interests. The Farm Jour- nal may be right or it may be wrong. “You can’t pick up a fertilizer bulletin today,” says A. B. Ross, the writer who ‘is responsible for the new ideas, “without finding conclusions as to what the soil needs. The National Fertilizer asso- ciation has its soil improvement committee whose business it is to show the farmer what chemicals he needs to balance his soil. WHAT ARE WE RAISING, ANYHOW — SOIL ; OR PLANTS?” It will be seen by the above quotation that Ross is chal- lenging the basic theory of bal- ancing the soil which was first “What are we raising, anyhow—soil or plants?” asks A. B. Ross in the October number of the Farm Journal. then proceeds to demolish the old theory which all our experts have been working on, of balancing the soil. all farmers who use commercial fertilizers can save from $6 to $30 on every ton of such fertilizer they buy. He believes that we should aim to give the plants what they need rather than bring about a supposed balance of the soil and that plants can hustle for their own nitrogen by taking it out of the air. His conclusions, if correct, hit the nitrates and phosphates a hard blow and make more important than we have thought the supplies of potash in this country and in Germany. of potash for every one of phosphoric acid; and the subsoil shows an even greater surplus of potash. “It is impossible, so long as we cling to the the- ory of balancing the soil, to come to any other con- clusion than that the thing to do with the soil analyzed is to add phosphoric acid and nitrogen.” y The experimenters at the Pennsylvania State college have been trying to do just this, and Ross declares they have explained away bad results by comparison with soil given no fertilizer of any kind; whereas they should have made comparisons with normal land. Also they make comparisons by year rather than by crop-rotation period. He | THIS ROAD CLOSED | And he If he is right, shows by rearranging their own fig- ures that: “l. Fertilizer nitrogen failed to pay for its cost in the extra production in any rotation farming where clover is grown. “2. Nitrogen added to the soil pro- duced crops of lower nitrogen content. “3. Fertilizer nitrogen stimulates in- ferior grasses and weeds at the ex- pense of clover. “4. The experiments show that the use of nitrogen alone or potash alone results in a serious loss of money, and, in the Pennsylvania experiments, at least, the resulting crops were less than in the case of the check plats, which received no fertilizer or manure. “5. The use of phosphoric acid alone and of phos- phoric acid and nitrogen in combination fails to maintain production at its normal level and leads the farming business to ultimate ruin. PHOSPHORIC ACID AND POTASH AS FERTILIZER “6. The Ohio experiments tend strongly to' show that the Pennsylvania ration of phosphoric acid and potash (one pound of phosphoric acid to 2.08 pounds of potash) is the corre¢t one, and that the quanti- ties used in the Pennsylvania experiments are ap- proximately .correct; and that any subtracting of potash or phosphorus, or both, results in lowered production and lower- ed net gains from the use of fertilizer. brought out by the German ex- pert Liebig in 1842, and avhich agricultural chemists for the last 50 years have taken as gospel, or better, self-evident scientific truth. - ‘“Analyze the soil,” said these experts, “find out what chem- icals are lacking, and then sup- ply those deficient.” But Ross says: “Find out what the plants need.” He points out that plants take some of their food from the air, especially nitrogen. It is not only wast- ed money to feed such sub- stances to the soil, but their presence actually reduces crop yields. DECLARES STATISTICS BEAR OUT THEORY - In the course of the article Ross takes the data given in bulletins put out by three dif- ferent experiment stations cov- ering long periods of fertilizer experiments, and shows that this data bears out his theory rather than that of the soil balancers. “A typical illustration,” says Ross, “will show the funda- mental error of this theory that if you balance your .soil your troubles are ended. An . analysis of the soil of the test plats or fields at State College, Pa., shows the following: In soil In subsoil Per cent Per cent Nitrogen ..... 0.1473 0.0667 Phosphoric acid 0.122 0.096 Potash ....... 8.015 3.463 “Now we know from analysis of the plants grown in the Pennsylvania experiments that they require nearly twice as many pounds of nitrogen as of phosphoric acid and potash combined, and - nearly one pound of phosphoric acid for every two pounds of potash. “Here is a splendid opportu- nity for the soil enthusiast to prove "his theories. This soil shows 20 pounds of potash for every one of nitrogen and 25 ” In the old days of boss control—days t always had an easy access to the state capitol. listened to with-awe by the officials their contributions helped put in office. kota, at least, the back way is closed to the profiteer and the exploiter and to everybody else as well. But the front door will be open to the business men, the farm- HONEST. LEG\SLATOR € “7. The use per acre of 96 e e [ T “NONPARTISA =|THE — [ FARMERS: 1, /i rrerars s fymrrrmsi~= | / 7 % . ers and the workers without favor or prejudice. PAGE _FIVE > L1 R B T B D e A ot S et e P 5 LEAGUE " —Drawn expressly for the Leader by W. C. Morris. hat are not yet over in many states, the profiteers Their advice, prompted by selfishness, was acid and 200 pounds of avail- able potash (without any ni- trogen), half of it applied to corn and half to wheat in the four-year rotation in Pennsyl- vania, has maintained produc- tion on a basis of equality of net returns with the applica- tion of 12 tons of manure per and half to wheat, and has further maintained the highest quality in the forage crops produced. \ “It means that with commer- cial chemicals, we can farm without manure and -at a.cost well within the limits of prof- itable farming, if these chemi- cals are used aright. “8. The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that where manure is reinforced with commercial fertilizer the greatest net returns will be ob- tained by wusing phosphoric acid and potash in the Penn- sylvania proportions of 1 to * 2.08 instead of using phgsphor- ic acid alone. . “We are farming for net profit; we want to use the com- . mercial fertilizer which will bring us the greatest net profit. If by subtracting from the commercial fertilizer a part or all of one of the elements of plant food which up to this time we thought necessary to use, we can procure larger net gains, then that subtraction is justified. “In the Pennsylvania experi- ments the nearest approach to giving the crops in the four- year rotation a-full ration of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, is wHere the total fer- tilizer applied per acre for the four years furnishes the fol- lowing quantities of available plant food: Nitrogen, - 144 pounds; pounds; potash 200 pounds. In In North Da- (Continued on page 22) : ; pounds’ of available phosphorie _ acre per rotation, half to corn - phosphoric acid 96 Issue™