UMASS/AMHERST 315Dt.bDDSflS5Dfl7 i i ^iP'!!ii'l'liiii''iii' • iiiii: '!i , tiii i-iii: ; ! i! !! i i mm.. ii*^ iiPilP ill i-. .^:'il lO ;■. ■ 1 J ' ' lit ' ' H.'MM'.'jjfJtJ* iP'iiii piiiSI Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/farmersexperiencOOmass NOV 5- 1914 A Farmer's Experience With Lime By PROF. W. F. MASSEY Prof. W, F. Nassey, a seventy-five year old experienced practical farmer, is an agricultural and horticultural expert and counsellor, agricultural editor of the '*Times Dispatch," and associate editor on the "Progressive Farmer," "Southern Planter" and "Market Growers' Journal." PROF. W. F. MASSEY The Progressive Fanner, Raleigh, N. C, said of Prof. Massey: "The value of his advice to Farmers can be counted in millions, nnd ik^y wiU soKoe ^^y buj|4 a inonument to him;'' A Farmer's Experience With Lime By Prof. W. F. Massey A man with a college education, who has spent more than fifty years in practical cultivation of the soil and in the study of its needs, will naturally have learned something in regard to the proper treatment of the soils. Especially will this be true when the experience has been gained on a great variety of soils and in different climates. The Scientist's Puzzle One of the things ih at I have learned has been that Nature, in her laboratory, often sets at naught the conclusions which men form from the work they do in their little -laboratories. What is really going on in Nature's soil laboratory has always been the great puzzle to the scientist. Popular Crazes In my long experience as a cultivator of the soil, and' au earnest student of agriculture, I have seen many popular crazes in regard to artificial applications to the soil to increase "pro- duction. Many years ago in the North, especially in New York and Pennsylvania, farmers went completely crazy over the use of plaster, the sulphate of lime. They tound that, for some reason which they did not understand, plaster had a good effect, and they jumped to the conclusion that all they had to do to maintain and increase the productiveness of their land was to keep putting plaster on it. And wherever there was a natural deposit of gvpsum they went to grinding t)laster, from New York to Southwest Virginia, and importing it from Nova Scotia. In a few years they found that plaster no longer had the .effect it hadjat first, and then the first'lime craze started. The Penn- sylvania farmers- found that lime had a wonderful effect on their land, and at once, as in the craze for plaster, they jumped to t4ie conclusion that lime was all that was needed to maintain, fertil- ity. As one writer puts it, "the old Pennsylvania farmer and his son leaned up against the fence and wondered what they were going to do with all the crops the lime was making them." They built lime kilns in every limestone section, and applied it in hundreds of bushels au acre to the land. When I was a col- lege student in the beautifulj, Cumberland Valley the farmers were applying about 200 bushels of lime to the acre, j Then, after awhile, they found less^, effect from'r the lime, the kilns were neglected and went to^ruin, and thel old farmer's son leaned up against the fence and wondered what ■ we.s the matter with the land. They then went to using guano and com- mercial chemical fertilizers with a lavish hand, and found these to have a good effect and they neglected the liming. My Own Theory , Then they soon found that the red clover, which had been so valuable in their farming, no longer flourished, and again the question was, ''What is the matter with the land?" In those days we knew that, somehow or other, clover ^and.. other legume crops did help the land, and investigators discovered that where clover grew the soil did in some way ^contaiu- more nitrogen than elsewhere. The puzzle was, how did the clover get .the nitro- gen, and all sorts of theories wiere broached iu regard to this fact. Finally it was discovered that all those plants belonging to the natural order of leguminosae had on their little roots knots or ncdules, and^the"^scientists began to study these. They found that these nodules were the homes of certain microscopic plants, which at first they called bacteroids, as they seemed to differ in form from any known bacteria. But finally it was de- termined that they were really a form of bacteria. Further ex- periment showed that where these bacteria were absent the clover and other legumes gfot no surplus nitrogen, and the legit- imate conclusion was that it was due to these bacteria that the plants were able to fix the free nitrogen gas of the air in a com- bination to make organic nitrogen in the soil. Just how this is done no one has as yet found out. One writer says that the bacteria simply absorb the nitrogen and leave it in the plants. But nitrogen is a gas in the air, and the absorption of the gas could not account for the combination in which it is found. My own theory about this is — and one theory is as good as an- other until proved wrong — that these minute bacteria are of the nature of ferments. The yeast plant we know is a saccharine ferment, and these little forms are nitric ferments, oxidizing the free nitrogen gas and making nitric acid. As soon as there is nit- ric acid in the soil it seeks abase either of lime or potash or some other element and a nitrate is formed, and green leaved plants always take their nitrogen as a nitrate and in no other form. That the combination is made in the soil and not in the plant is shown by the fact that other jilants, growing with the legumes, benefit by the association. Corn, with cow peas sown among it, will make more corn than corn without the peas, and hence it would seem that the combination is made in the soil and the legumes get the nitrogen, and whatever plant is associatetl with them gets some of it also. ;.- Cannot Grow.Red Clover Any More But, as I have said, the farmers began to find that they could no longer get the luxuriant growth of clover they formerly made. Several years ago I was lecturing at farmers' institutes ia the fiue county of Bucks, Pennsylvania, right next to the city of Philadelphia. I found that there the farmers were run- ning their land in grass year after year to make hay for the city market, mowing the land over until finally there tf:is moss in- ^If ^4 of grass; I asl^e4 them why they did not addpt a ^lioytef fotatiou aud grow more clover. "We cannot grow clover an^ more," was the reply, and tbey simply seemed to accept the fact without trying to find out why clover no longer throve. During th;ii o'd lime craze On the Kastern Shore of Mary- laud one could see the lime barges from the Schuylkill river un- loading lime in every creek, but with the going down of the craze the barges disappeared, and one old successful farmer in Queen Annes county, who had used lime very judiciously and stuck to clover, said that in his opinion lime and a total de- pendence on commercial fertilizers had been the ruin of many. He was disposed to charge too much to the lime and too little to the neglect of maintaining the clover and the feeding of stock for manure. Soil Acidity The Cause But uow, wheu there is a renewed interest in lime and we have found out that it was soil acidity that mainly caused the difficulty in growing clover, it is hard to convince the farmers in the old heavily liming sections that lime is what they now need. In the South Atlantic States, where theie is uow a new impulse being given to improved farming with cotton and where the soils long clean-cultivated annually in cotton have become very acid, the new lime craze is spreading, and farmers are hard to con- vince as to what is the proper function of lime in agriculture. They write to me asking if it will help their fall sown oats to top dress ihem uow with ground limestone or lime» and all seem to think of lime as a fertilizer. Certain fertilizer dealers are promoting this idea by offering what they call "prepared lime," that is, lime mixed with some potash and acid phosphate, and urging farmers to use it as a fertilizer. This is all vvrong. Uaburned Lime Not Available About thirty-five years ago I took charge of a large estate in Northern Maryland, in a beautiful limestone valley. There was a field which was said to be "clover sick." New all over that field there were protrudiug rocks of the white, coarsely crystaline limestone, peculiar to that part of the couiitiy. This limestone decomposes rapidly, and 4lie surface of these protrud- ing: rocks was coarse, white crystals that could be kicked off by the heel, and they washed off from every mass of rock. And yet, the soil where those limestone crystals were con- tinually washed down was found to be very acid. Lime was bumed and spread on this land, and at once the clover-sick field made a wonderful growth of red clover. And now, when Joe Wing and other enthusiasts for the use of ground limestone air their ideas and try to make the farmers believe that all they have to do to make their land fertile and productive is to fill it with tons of ground limestone, my mind reverts to that old field and its decomposing lime rocks, and I feel disposed to put a little salt on their statements. Mr. Wing even advises farmers to use eight or ten tons of ground limestone an acre, evidently having learned its slow action on the soil. Of course no farmer is going to adopt his advice. The Humus Destroying Theory The advocates of ground limestone tell us that Ijurnt lime ■willdestroy the humus in the soil. True, it promotes the growth of the soil bacteria that are concerned in the breaking down of the organic decay in the soil and releasing ammonia for the bac- teria of nitrification to piut in their work, and it is the business of the farmer to keep up a supply of this organic matter in his soil. It is what makes a living soil, as it is the home of the soil bacteria that are workiiig for the farmer, and a soil where, as in the old cotton fields of the South, where all the humus is burnt out and used up, is simply the dead skeleton of a soil. There is another office of lime carbonate in the soil .that is sel- dom noticed." We know that all plants need carbon to build up th^ir structure. Green-leaved plants get this through the power the green matter has for breaking up the combination of the car- bon and oxygen in the air in the form of carbon dioxide, and taking the carbon and releasing the oxygen; And this is the only way tiiey get carbon. But the soil bacteria iiave no green mat- ter; they have, however, a power that green plants have not. They can get carbon directly from a chemical combination like calcium carbonate. But for the purposes for which lime is used it must be in a very finely comminuted state, and no mechanical grind- ing can make it as fine as the burnt lime after it is completely slaked, or as valuable as the burnt lime to the soil. Burned Lime Doubly Valuable A farmer in Eastern North Carolina wrote to me that the ground limestone which he could get in Virgiiiia for $1.00 a toil in bulk would cost him $4.20 per ton at his station, and that lump lime in bulk cost him there $6.75, and he wmted to know which was cheaper. I explained to him that the lump lime would double in bulk in slaking, and he did not have to freight the water; that after slaking one thousand pounds of the slaked lime would have a better effect on an acre of land than a ton of the ground rock, and it was evidently cheaper to freight and cheaper to use than the pulverized rock. That the ground limestone will finally to some extent sweeten an acid soil may be true, but what the farmer needs is a speedy effect, and for this there is nothing equal to slacked burned lime. But there is great work to be done in the educating of the farmers to a proper realization of what lime will do for them and what cannot be expected from liming alone. In the old lime craze they demon- strated the truth of the old proverb that "lime enriches the father and impoverishes the son." Lime is an efficient aid to the farmer who farms in a systematic rotation, and maintains and increases the ht:mu3 in his soil through the gTowth and using of the legumes. Lime Promotes Nitrification So much has been written in regard to the value of the legumes in the improvement of the soil that some ignorant men have thought that the mere growing of cow peas and clover Would enrich their soil. A man dov^n in Alabama wrote to me that what I had been telling the farmers about cow peas helping the soil was all bosh, "for" he said, "I have taken twelve crops of peas in succession from a piece of land, and it has gotten so poor that it will not grow peas or anything else." It is not the mere growing, but the use that is made of the legume crops which helps the land. They must be used either as manure direct, or by feeding them to stock and returning the manure to to the land that grew them. The southern cow peas differ from clover and other legumes in the fact that they will thrive on an acid soil. In fact, lime applied directly to a crop of cow peas often seems to be detrimental to their growth. But having grown a crop of these the lime can then be used to great advan- tage in breaking down and promoting the nitrification of the or- ganic matter, for it is not merely the humus-making character of this growth that we need, valuable as it is mechanically, but the nitrogen locked up in this organic decay is of no use to the crops until it has Ijeen acted on by the growth of the micro-or- ganisms which put it in shape for plants to use. As we have seen, the presence of lime carbonate in a very finely comminuted form greatly promotes the growth and activity of these micro- organisms, we no longer fear that burnt lime will destroy the humus if we do our duty and keep up the supply. Each form of bacterium has its specific duty to perform. One form breaks down the organic matter and releases ammonia Another form feeds on ammonia and makes a nitrite, and still another form takes the nitrite and oxidizes it into nitric acid, and at once there is a nitrate of lime formed and the crops can use this. The great value of lime then in the soil is in its promoting the decay and nitrification of organic nitrogen, and it must have a never ceasing supply of this organic matter either from vegetable de- cay of the crops themselves or the manure made from their feed- ing. Cover Crop Versus Manuring And right here I would like to lay something in regard to farm economy and the maintenance of fertility through the use 8 of legumes and lime. I am otten asked by farmers whether it will not be better to turn the whole cjrowth of peas or clover under, instead of making them into hay. I have studied this matter in a very practical way. I found that I could grow at least two tons of hay equal to that from alfalfa with the southern LOW peas. This ha\' has a feeding value of at least $10.00 a ton or $20.00 on an acre. I can feed that hay to cattle, and by saving the manure and returning it to the soil as fast as made t found that the manure contained over SO percent of the manure- ial value of the pea crop, and in a shape far more readily avail- able to the plants.. The remaining 20 per cent would certainly give me a profit in the feeding, especially at present price of beef. Volumes have been written about green manuring, but I have never been able to understand that the using of valuable feed crops as manure direct is good farm economy. I have alwa^'s found that with the most of the legumes it is far more profitable for farm and farmer to get the feeding value hrst. Crimson Clover There is, howev'er, one legume crop that has come into gen- eral use in recent years which I would always use as a manure crop direct. This is the annu-al or crimson clover crop. It comes at a season when hay making of any sort is difficult — the early part of the season — and it gives such splendid results on the corn crop that I have found it far better to use it in this way. 1 was on a farm in Talbot county, Maryland, two years ago, and saw there a field of corn that made 98J4 bushels an acre all over the field. I asked the farmer what he used on it. He said: "The land was in crimson clover and T turned it under. I then, harrowed in 1000 pounds of slaked lime an acre and no manure whatever." This was on land where the own- er's father made 25 bushels of corn an acre in a good season. The present owner realizes the importance of organic decay and lime, and does not imagine that he can keep that land fertile with one of them alone, hence the result. Lime and Legumes Farmers wlio have been for years depending on commercial Fertilizers alone to make crops and have neglected a proper ro- tation with legumes, have found their land acid, and they charge it to the acid phosphate they have been using, and now they want to know if it will not be better to use the ground phosphate tock. I tell them that this material may be good for a good, farmer, but very poor for a poor one. That to make its pbos- phoric acid available they must have the organic matter in the soil or mix it with their manure. I tell them that no manufac- turer of fertilizers ever has any free acid left in his acid phos- phate if it can be avoided, as it would make it harder to drill, but that in the soil Nature takes hold of the matter and plants use the phosphorus, and the sulphuric acid is set free and at once combines with the lime in the soil, making plaster, which does not keep the soil sweet, and it is the robbing ol the soil of lime carbonate that makes acid, and the cure is lime and manure or vegetable decay with lime. Liming land never made poor land rich and never will, but lime and legumes properly used make a team that will help the farmet to maintain and increase the fertility of his soil. I am glad to see the present great increase of interest in lime in agri- culture if it can only be properly directed, and not allowed to run into the same old ruts that wrecked the old lime craze. A Veterinarian's, Not A Farmer's Advice My attention has been called to an article that appeared in a Southern Farm paper in answer to an inquiry from a corres- pondent who said that he could not buy ground limestone for half the price of the burned lime, and wanted to know if he could afford to pay for the ground rock more than half the price of the burned lime. One of the editors told him that he hadrather have two tons of the ground limestone than one ton of lime, but that he would not pay much over half the price of btirned lime f®r the ground limestone. He further sayS that if the greund ib limestoue costs over $2.50 a ton delivered, it is doubtful tkat a ffirmer should be advised to use it. My correspondent, or rather the person whose letter was sent to me, infers from this that this editor would not advise the use of burned lime if it could not be laid down for $5.00 a ton. I hardly think that this inference is justified. So far as my experience goes I had rather have one ton of buimed lime of good quality than two tons of the ground rock. Good lump lime I found to slake over two' to one, and 1000 pounds of this slaked lime will have a better immediate effect than a ton of ground rock. I perfectly agree with the statement that it does not pay to use the ground limestone at more than $2.50 a ton or even at that price, when we take the extra handling into consideration. The editor who gave the advice is not a farmer but veterinary Surgeon, and I hardly think that he ever farmed or spread any lime. He advises that as we have in the South legumes like the cow pea which will thrive on acid soils, the southern farmer can increase the humus in his soil without the use of the lime- stone, and hence thinks that the farmer cannot afford to use the pulverized limestone largely if it costs more than $2 to $2.50 a toHJ and I agree to this. But I do not agree to the inference that he cannot afford to use burned lime when it costs over $5.00 a ton for the lump lime in bulk. If a farmer's soil needs lime he cannot afford not to use it even if it costs him $10.00 a ton de- livered, and there is hardly a point in the South Atlantic coast where it cannot be delivered fromNorth to South for less than that. T do not know any point in Central and Eastern North Carolina where ground limestone can be delivered for $2.50 a ton, even when -it costs but $1.00 at the point of shipment. Nor do I know in the same sections any place where good burned stone lime can be delivered at $5.00 a ton. Therefore to limit its use at this price, *\vould"^simply cut out a large part of North Carolina, a state that hiis'little limestone, from the use of lime altogether. And while it is true that we can grow peas and soy beans on land that is somewhat acid, there are other crops of the farmer which will not reach their best development utitil the soil has been restored "from its acid condition, and there is nothing except lime car- 11 boiiate that will do this. An application of 1000 pounds of slaked lime an acre every five or six years will not be an unsur- mouiitable expense to any farmer who farms right in a good rotation with legumes, and the results in his sale crops will soon show him that the use of lime is profitri.ble, even if it costs him $10.00 a ton delivered. He can get humus-making material into his soil without the lime, and that will but increase its acidity, and he will soon find that he will lose in his corn, cotton and other crops ever}' year more than lime would cost. Fairer Freight Rates What is needed is fairer freight rates on burned lime, for the high prices in most sections are due to excessive freight charges rather than what the lime man- ufacturer gets. We cannot farm in accordance with mod- ern ideas without the legumes, and especially clover. Even our pasture lands in the South will run into broomsedge and sheep sorrel because these can thrive in soil conditions where better grass and legumes will not, and we must have the legume crops for the best of forage for our cattle. The rapid- ity with which a liberal application of lime will bring the or- ganic matter into use was once shown by an accidental experi- meat. I had a field of newly-cleared land, black and full of vegetable decay. I prepared it for corn and started to give it a coat of lime after plowing. Being busy with my classes to ten A. M. 1 had the land roughly staked out in acres and started my foreman with hands to spread the lime instructing him to apply 30 bushels of the slaked lime an acre. When I came out, my horse was saddled at the door as usual and looking across a little valley it seemed to show the soil very white indeed, and I rode rapidly around there and found that they were putting about 100 bushels an acre instead of thirty I stopped this and gave the remainder of the laud the 30 bushels an acre. The extra amount certainly had a decided effect ov«r the smaller application, for the corn was heavier, and the pi,*^ weeds that started after the cultivation ceasedj were twic€ as 12 high as oil the part that had the stualler application. I had simply released more plant food. But the small i^raiti crop that foUow-ed the corn was better where the smaller application w>as made. In fact the heavy application had enabled the crop to use up more of the plant food in the soil, and I went to work »t once with clover to restore the balance. 'J'lie thoughtless farmer, under such conditions, would be apt to jump to the con- clusfon that continued heavy applications of lime would be all ■ that was needed. Red clover, or crimson clover or alfalfa will fix more nitrogen in si soil that has been sweetened with lime than eow peas will in an acid soil, for while the cow peas n'ill grow aud make heavy crops on acid soils, they will have few, if any, of the nitrogen fixing bacteria, for these will not thrive in acid conditions in the soil. Must Have Winter Cover Crop Much too is being written about introducing the bacteria that live on the different legumes, bv inoculating the seed or the soil with laboratory cultures of the bacteria. Where these cul- tures are properly made and kept alive, they certainly are effec- tive in increasing the bacteria. But if introduced into acid soil conditions they soon perish, and no amount of inoculation will avail until the sweetness of the soil has been restored. Inoculat- ing an acid soil with the legume bacteria is simply a waste of money and effort. The liming must come first and then the in- oculation will do a great deal of good. Still, the fact that cow pea? will thrive oil an acid, soil gives the farmer of the South a gTcat-'advajitage iuslartiug the impirpvement of a barren soil. The peaa 'vill give him organic decay,' and lime will then Ire useful ill briuging in conditions where other legume crops will thrive, A winter cover crop of green plauts is vitally neces- sary to prevent the loss of nitrate in the washing rains of our winters, and there is no crop better adapted for this winter cover than the annual crim.son clover, and failures to get a stand of this clover are generally due to the acidity of the poil. \ye cannot alFord to do without this green winter crop 1^ :i: and valuable feeder of the corn crop because scmeone says that we cannot afford to pay more than a certain, price for lime. It is well known that alfalfa has thriven in thC; semi-arid west far better than in the east, simply because the lime has Jiot been leached out of the soil, and we liave only • succeeded in growing- alfalfa in, the east since we learned that for alfalfa, we must not only have, lime enough to sweeten the spilr but an .ex- cess for this lime-loving crop. Red clover, too, uses lime freely. Out in Wisconsin in 1910*two plots of acid soil ..were, sown to. alfalfa. One of them received an application of air-slaked lime, and the other no lime. Both were manured aufJ inoculated.. The next year the limed plot made 2,080 pounds of hay, and the un- limed plot made 1,340 pounds, showing a gain of over 55 per cent. Soil Aeid Test I am often asked by Southern farmers how to tell when their soil was acid. Of course, the blue litmus paper test is easily made, but I often tell them that the natural growth is'as certain an indication of acidity as any, and that where the broomsedge and sorrel come in, acidity is pretty certain to be there. They claim that a permanent pasture is not practicable iu the South, because the grass is certain to run out and_be replaced by the more inferior g:rass known as broomsedge. I tell them that if they maintained the fertility of the pasture byltop dressings of bone meal to replace what 'cattle have taken to make their bony skeleton, and about once in five years harrowed in a dressing of lime, the good grass would give the broomsedge no chance. This has been well shown where I live. Rig:ht across the road from where I am writing this is a field of deep sandy soil, ou which there is as dense a sod of Blue grass as ever gi'ew iu Keott^cl^y, audit has stood thefefc'r many y'e'ars. Not a tussoclj of bVpom- sedgehas made its appearance, while just across another roaU from it is a field waving- all over with the broomsedge. The only difference is that the blue grass is on a field that had been well manured many years ago as a market garden, . 14 a nd coming: into the possession of a Realty Company for the gale of lots it was limed and seeded to blue g:ra5s. Another block of laud near by was covered with broomsedge and weeds. It was simply dressed with lime and not plowed, and the blue grass started in from the seed blown from the other piece that was never cut, and in three years it had sodded over with blue grass and the sedge gave way and disappeared as the blue grass advanced and seeded, for neither field has been cut or pastured, but simply held for sale in building lots^ and it was found that lots with a blue grass sod sell better than those with only weeds and broom sedge. Both of these fields have had clouds of lime dust blown over them by automobiles on the road made of oyster shells, but still one grows broom sedge while the other grov\s blue grass, and the only difference in them is that one had burnt lime and the other none. And in all my long experience in the cultivation of the soil I have fouud that burned lime, in connection with the growiusr and using of the legume crops, has been an effi- cient aid in soil improvement, and while lime alone will not make poor land rich, lime and legumes will do it far more rapidly than legumes alone, even if they could be made to thrive on acid soils. Releasing Potash In The Soil One more effect of burned lime I have not mentioned in what I have said, namely: One of its most useful functions on many soils. Take Virginia and North Carolina for instance, where the blood red soils of the Piedmont section are formed from the disintegration and decomposition of the granite rocks. Granite, it is well known, contains large amounts of potash, and these soils contain a perfectly in- exhaustible store of potash. But this potash is in a completely insoluble state in the soil water. But the burned lime will re- lease some of this potash, and when it is used in connection with maintenance of the humus or organic decay, the lime and the organic acids will release potash as rapidly as the crops need it, and the farmer is released from the necessity of buying potash. Now, whether the ground limestone or the marl will be equally 15 effective in the release of potash, has never been demonstrated so far as I am aware. Chemists, finding such a large store of pot- ash in these clay soils, have advised the farmers that their soil needed no application of soluble potash. This is true when the soil is properly treated, but where no effort is made to release this insoluble potash it is found that the potash salts help. The Ohio Experiment Station has shown that on a soil which con- tained in the first six inches over an acre more than 33,000 pound's of potash, an application of only 40 pounds of muriata of potash made a profitable increase in the corn crop and in the oats fol- lowing the corn, showing the fact that the potash in the soil was unavailable. Qnsimilar soil in Virginia! found that withtheusfe of burned lime and legumes I had no need for purchased potash. 1 have suggested 1000 pounds an acre of burned slaked lime. This is not a heavy application, for I have found that a moderate appli- cation, frequently repeated, is better than a very heavy one at longer intervals, and in a four-year rotation I vvoiild lime every time the field comes in corn, having, of course, a sod to turn for the corn, and harrowing in the lime after plowing. This would mean, of course, that the farm is limed over every four years lightly, and in the mean time the peas and clover are maintained. It would mean having a field to lime every year. What To Buy In conclusion I would say that I have no objec- tion to farmers experimenting with ground limestone, but I have always had such good results from the use of burned lime I can see no reason for going to the extra labor of hauling and spreading a larger amount of the ground rock, and I do not care to freight water, of which I have plenty-.- Hence I would always buy the burned lime in bulk. 43 / OS^-^^-aXTr of th* FEB251Sr 1 1 r';^r«!'j The Home Mixing' of Fertilizers *S4.< PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM S. MYERS, D. Sc, F. C S., Director Chilean Nitrate Propaganda Late of New Jersey State Agricultural College 17 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK Reprinted from Farmers' Digest The HOME MIXING of FERTILIZERS and STRAIGHT FERTILIZER FORMULAS PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM S. MYERS, D. Sc, F. C. S., Director Chilean Nitrate Propaganda Late of New Jersey State Agricultural Collese 17 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK Reprinted from Farmers' Digest Results from use of Home Mixed Fertilizers on Wheat and on Rye. Wheat— 14 Bushels. Average Product per acre for the U. S. of Wheat with Average Farm Fertilization — 1910. Wheat— 37 Bushels. The Product of an acre of Wheat Fertilized with Nitrate of Soda, Home Mixed with Phosphates and Potash— 1910. Rye— 18 Bushels. Average Product per acre for the U. S. of Rye with average Farm Fertilization. — 1910. Rye — 36 Bushels. The Product of an acre of Rye Fertilized with Nitrate of *" Soda, Home Mixed with Phosphates and Potash— 1910. History of Home Mixing of Fertilizers in England and in Europe The very interesting figures published by the United States Department of Agriculture not long since, show- ing the average yields per acre of wheat, oats and barley in the United States and in comparison with those of Germany, disclosed an extraordinary and humiliating condition here in America. The average yields of wheat, oats and barley in Germany, covering a recent ten year period, is 28.4 bushels per acre for wheat; 47.3 bushels for oats; and 34.4 bushels for barley. The United States shows an average yield for the same period of 14 bushels per acre for wheat; 30 bushels for oats; and 26 bushels for barley per acre, in round numbers. In view of our soils being so much newer than those of Germany, and having been in use for comparatively few years, the early soil exhaustion of our lands com- pared with the splendid returns obtained in Germany, make the comparison a very mortifying one for our American farmers. If one looks at the history of the Fertilizer Business in this country, one may perceive some possible causes to account for these striking differences. The rational use of fertilizers has obtained in Germany from the time commercial fertilizers began to be used; that is to say, German farmers have always known Nitrate of Soda, acid phosphate and potash salts by their proper scientific names and uses, because the Experi- ment Stations in Germany were organized in advance of the commercial fertilizer industry, and taught the Home farmers from the very beginning the nature, composi- FerTiiifers *^^^ ^^^ precisc Scientific use of them. On the other hand, here in America, our Experi- ment Stations were not established until a false and ir- rational use of fertihzers had become firmly rooted among our farmers and planters; and even yet com- paratively few of our American farmers know anything about the real nature of the several hundred compounds which are foisted upon them every year by Fertilizer Mixers. The constituents of these numerous compounds may comprise a group of certain chemicals this year, and a group of wholly different ones next year; and as a rule, the printed matter in fertilizer manufacturers' booklets and on the fertilizer bags does not disclose anything whatever of the real nature and character or composition of the constituents of the contained fertilizers. We have pure food laws which are now fairly effective. Our Fertilizer laws curiously, however, are most defective in that they do not show anything as to the percentage of Available Nitrogen; although they may occasionally show the percentage of Available phosphoric acid and of Available potash. The really important element in the fertilizer, both from a com- mercial as well as an agricultural Food Producing standpoint, is its Nitrogen. Since the cheaper forms of Nitrogen are but im- perfectly Available, and, in fact, sometimes scarcely Available at all, — and command in the open market several times the value of the best and most Available forms of phosphoric acid and potash, our Experi- ment Stations would do an additional excellent work by prescribing an official analytical method for Avail- able Nitrogen fertilizers. We sincerely hope that they will continue to advocate Home Mixing and the use of Straight Fertilizers. As long as valueless fillers are used, involvmg a high cost of freight on the filler material which the farmer must pay, and as long as the most inferior and least Available forms of Nitrogenous fertilizers receive the highest valuations by our Experiment Stations, just so long will our farmers be at a disadvantage in com- parison with German farmers in producing maximum crops at minimum cost. The use of fertilizers of the highest Availability — ■ in other words, the rational use of fertihzers, namely, the practical method used in Germany, is what we must come to here in order that our farmers may pro- duce a larger quantity of food stuffs at a lower price. This, in turn, will react upon the general Fertilizer Business and cause a tremendously increased consump- tion of all the best forms of fertilizer materials, as is the case in Germany. It seems extraordinary that our Fertilizer Industry refuses to get in line with modern progress, if only merely for the sake of its own prosperity. Home Mixing of Fertilizers Home Mixing of Fertilizers The Home Mixing of Fertilizers A hundred years ago the farmer of America and Europe had at his disposal but few materials for in- creasing the fertility of the land. Barnyard manure was then the great fertilizer, but only capable, as we realize now, of restoring but incompletely the plant- food carried away by the crops. Yet barnyard manure was justly esteemed for its fertilizing value, and on many a farm cattle were kept, not because they were in themselves profitable, but because of the manure that they produced. However, for all of the cattle kept on the farms of Europe, the productive power of its soils was declining. At this time the use of bones became prevalent and this marked the beginning of more ra- tional methods of soil treatment. The Rise of the Fertilizer Mixing Industry. It was not until the second quarter of the nineteenth century, however, that new and important fertilizer ma- terials came into the market. The increasing number of soil and crop analyses had demonstrated the invariable presence of the essential constituents in both soils and plants; while the numerous vegetation experiments showed that Nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash were often present in the soil in amounts too small for profi- table yields. There then came into being a great fertilizer mixing industry. Peruvian guano held for a time a prominent place in the agriculture of contemporary Europe. It was not long, however, before the supply of the best grades of guano became depleted, though this did not occur un- til the chemist pointed the way to new treasures of plant- food. Nitrate of Soda, the most valuable source of com- mercial Nitrogen at present, came to play an increas- ingly important role after the middle of the nineteenth century. The potash salts of the German mines became a marketable commodity when the last battles of our Civil War were being fought; and when the great conflict was over, the phosphate deposits of South Caro- Una, and subsequently of Florida and Tennessee, were ready to supply the third important constituent of com- mercial fertilizers. Home Mixing of Fertilizers The Make-Up of Commercial Fertilizers. The fertilizers sold to American farmers are valu- able in so far as they contain the essential available con- stituents, — Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash. When all are present the fertilizer is said to be complete, otherwise it is incomplete. It is the aim of the fertilizer mixers to supply to farmers both incomplete and com- plete fertilizers, chiefly the latter. Furthermore, usage and state legislation compel them to guarantee that their various brands contain a certain proportion of the essen- tial constituents, but, unfortunately for the farmer, they do not require any disclosure whatever as to the avail- ability of the most valuable content, viz., Nitrogen; hence, the attempt to state a formula on the bags, or on the tags attached to the latter, is a wholly incomplete affair. As an example, we may take a fertihzer whose formula is 4-8-10, that is, one containing 4% of Nitro- gen, 8% of phosphoric acid and 10% of potash. Materials of various qualities and grades are em- ployed for the preparation of so-called complete fer- tilizers, as may be seen from the following list : Materials Furnishing Materials Furnishing Materials Furnishing Nitrogen. Phos. Acid. Potash. Nitrate of Soda Thomas Slag Potash Salts (From Nitrate of Lime Acid Phosphate Germany) Sulphate of Ammonia Bone Meal Unleached Wood Calcium Cyanamid Phosphatic Guano Ashes Dried Blood Fish Scrap Tankage Bone Tankage Fish Scrap Cottonseed Meal Horn and Hoof Meal Hair and Wool Leather Scrap Home Aside from these materials, there are others that are Mixing of Fertilizers 10 occasionally employed by mixers to furnish filler. Availability in Fertilizers. In the making of complete goods from the various straight fertilizers the mixer is largely guided by the cost, as well as the quality of the latter. The question of quality is particularly important, since no high grade fertilizer can he made from inferior ingredients. The conception of quality has been gradually developed by investigators and farmers and the term Availability is commonly employed when the value of straight or mixed fertilizers is considered. We call a fertilizer Available when the Nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash contained in it may be readily used by the crop ; and not Available when it is transformed so slowly in the soil as to offer but little plant-food to the crop at any one time. A strik- ing illustration of the significance of Availability in fer- tilizers is found in the action of comparatively small amounts of Nitrate on grass or grain applied early in the spring. It has been repeatedly observed that soils containing as much as .15% of Nitrogen, or 6000 pounds per acre-foot out of a total of 2000 tons which such an acre-foot weighs and capable of yielding about one ton of hay per acre, may be made to produce two tons of hay when top-dressed in the spring with only 100-150 pounds of Nitrate. At first it may seem strange that the 23 or 24 pounds of Nitrogen in 150 pounds of Ni- trate of Soda should produce this magic effect, when measured against the 6000 pounds of ordinary Nitrogen already in the soil. But the mystery is made clear to us when we remember that Nitrate of Soda is a soluble food that may be directly taken up by plant-roots, whereas the Nitrogen of the soil itself is nearly all locked up in inert humous compounds which must first pass through the various stages of Nitration before they be- come available. With some qualifications a similar com- parison could be made between the phosphoric acid in ground phosphate rock, known as "floats," and that in acid phosphate; or between potash in feldspar rock or ^^"^^ clay and that in sulphate of potash. '""F ^ In order to protect the farmer against fraud, fer- tilizer laws have been enacted in most of the Eastern States. These laws compel the mixers and dealers to guarantee their goods, that is, to state on the bags or tags how much Nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash their fertilizers contain; furthermore, they are also com- pelled, but in an incomplete measure, to guarantee the quahty, i. e., Availability, of the plant-food sold by them. The farmer is given, however, a fair measure of protec- tion in so far as the phosphoric acid and potash pur- chased by him are concerned. He is told definitely how much phosphoric acid is present in available form. He knows, also, that the potash in mixed fertilizers is de- rived almost exclusively from the German potash salts, all of them readily available. On the other hand, he is given little protection in his purchase of Nitrogen. To be sure, the fertilizer laws compel the mixer to state how much Nitrogen there is present in this commodity; yet he is not compelled to tell the exact source or availability of the Nitrogen employed by him. From the consum- er's standpoint this is a serious question, since a pound of Nitrogen costs about four times as much as a pound of either phosphoric acid or potash. If the law required merely the stating of the total per cent, of phosphoric acid or of potash without giving the amount of soluble or available percentages of the same, how incomplete the essential information would be as to the nature or value of the "so-called" complete fertilizers. More than that, the Nitrogen is not only costly but calls for greater farming skill in its use, lest the yields and quality of the produce be unfavorably affected. The Activity as well as the Availability of Nitrogen in materials like leather scrap, hair or peat is but one-fifth to one-tenth as much as that in Nitrate of Soda, and we can therefore realize the necessity of complete knowledge as to the agri- cultural use of Nitrogen. It is conceded by all authorities that more accurate knowledge in this direction may be secured by the prac- Fertilizers 11 Home tice of HOME-MIXING, that is, by the purchase of FertiSers *^^ Straight fertilizers and their mixing at home on the 12 Barley Pots manured with Phosphoric Acid, Potash and Nitrate of Soda. Mm Nitrate of Soda none 1 gr. 2gr. 3 gr. In agricultural practice from 75 lbs. to 200 lbs. of Nitrate of per acre is applied in one or more dressings. Soda farm in amounts and proportions best suited for any particular soil and crop. Advantages of Home-Mixing. The practice of home-mixing has its friends as well as its opponents, but when all the arguments pro and con are summed up the decision must be entirely in its favor. The advantages claimed for home-miocing are : — Home Mixing of 1. Better adaption to soil and crop. Soils vary Fertilizers in their chemical composition, and in their previous 13 history, as to cropping and fertilization. One soil may be deficient in available Nitrogen, another de- ficient in available phosphoric acid. In one instance a heavy application of manure, a crop of crim- son clover, or alfalfa stubble may have been plowed under ; and in a second instance a thin timothy sod. Evidently a crop of corn would not find the same amounts and proportions of food in these cases, and it is therefore idle to assume that a so-called corn fertilizer, whatever its composition, would prove as efficient in the one case as in the other. Again, it is common knowledge that some crops are particularly grateful for applications of Nitrogen, while others are responsive to applications of phosphoric acid or of potash. Yet even here the soil and climate exert an important modifying influence. For instance, clovers and other legumes are capable of securing their Nitrogen from the air and, except in the early stages of growth, are inde- pendent of the supply in the soil or fertilizers. On the other hand, they require large amounts of potash, phosphoric acid and lime. Nevertheless, certain limestone soils require only applica- tions of potash, while many silt loam or clay soils require only applications of phosphoric add. In a word, then, no single formula for any particu- lar crop can be devised to suit all soils and seasons. When the mixing is done on the farm proper ad- justment can be made to suit local conditions, known best by the farm manager after adequate experience. One advantage of i/ome-Mixing is that the farmer may make any combination of plant-food he wishes, and know the form and availability of the ingredients of his own fertilizer, and he will save not only the high price paid for filler, but also the cost of transporting the filler. Home Mixing of Fertilizers 14 2. Better information concerning the quality of materials. The present high prices of organic am- moniates are forcing the fertihzer mixers to em- ploy various organic materials of inferior quality. Since the fertilizer laws do not require any dis- Carrots Pots manured with Phosphoric Acid, Potash and Nitrate of Soda r-%\\<\^- Nitrate of Soda none 1}4 gr. 3 gr. 4^gr. In agricultural practice from 2 cwt, to 4 cwt. of Nitrate of Soda per acre is applied in one or more dressings. tinction between sources of Nitrogen, mixers feel free to meet competition and to reduce the cost of mixing by employing inert materials like leather- scrap, hair, wool and garbage tankage. Moreover, even the better grades of organic ammoniates like Mixing of Fertilizers 15 dried blood, tankage, and ground fish are now ^°^^ adulterated more than formerly. Home-imxing protects the farmer against the use of inferior ma- terials and permits him to purchase his Nitrogen in the readily available forms. Many of the ingredients used by the manu- facturers of "complete" fertilizers are produced directly or indirectly by themselves. Others, like Nitrate of Soda, potash salts and basic slag, are not produced in this country. Naturally the manu- facturers will use as much as possible of the ma- terials produced by themselves, on which they make both a raw material and a mixing profit, and spend as little as possible for imported materials on which the}^ can make but one profit. The "complete" fertilizer manufacturers use large quantities of low grade materials which the farmers would not buy for Home-Mixing because of the doubtful value of the Nitrogen owing to its not being available, that is, indigestible as plant food. But the manufacturer finds them doubly valuable as filler, because he can label his goods as containing so and so much Nitro- gen, notwithstanding its indigestible quality as a plant food. 3. Lower cost per unit of plant-food. As shown by the analyses and valuations of fertilizers made by different experiment stations the so-called over- head charges made by the mixers amount, on the average, to more than six dollars per ton. Other- wise stated, the farmer who buys mixed fertilizers is made to pay about six or seven dollars per ton for mixing, bagging, shipping, agents' commis- sions, profit, long credit, etc. The overhead charges tend to increase the cost per unit of plant-food in all fertilizers, and to a particularly marked extent in the cheaper brands. Home-mixing enables the farmer to secure available plant-food at a lower cost per unit. 16 Home 4 More profitable returns from the use of fertil- ixing o ize7's may be secured when one understands Fertilizers ,. ^.. . e i - ■ ^ their composition and the functions of their single ingredients. The man who takes the trouble to make himself acquainted with the origin, the history and the action of different fertilizers is perforce bound to secure larger returns from them than the man who blindly follows the experience of others. For this reason the ^om^-mixing of fertilizers is an edu- cational factor of great importance. The farmer who does his own mixing is bound to observe the effect of season, of crop and of rotation. He is bound to learn something of the particular influ- ences of Nitrogen, of phosphoric acid and of potash. In the course of time he is led to experi- ment for himself, with different mixtures, propor- tions and methods of application, and doing all these things he becomes more skilled and successful in the business of crop production. The opponents of home-Tcvhdng have claimed, on their part, that the farmer cannot prepare mixtures as uniform as those made at the factory. They have also claimed that the mixtures made at the farm are more costly than similar mixtures made at the factory. As to the first of these objections, it has been demonstrated by most of the experiment stations in the East and the South that home-mixtures can be made mechanically as satisfactory as the best of the commercial brands. It is merely necessary to screen the single ingredients and to use some sort of a filler like dry peat or fine loam to pre- vent caking. The second objection is not at all borr^ out by the actual experience of farmers who have been using home-mixtures for years. Equipment and Methods for Home-Mixing. The equipment required for home-mixing is very simple and inexpensive. It consists of a screen with three (3) meshes to the inch, and about 4-5 feet long and Ij to 2 feet wide, a shovel with square point, an iron rake, and platform scales. 17 The mixing may be done on a tight, clean barn floor, ^°"^* and a heavy wooden post is useful for crushing big pg^^J^g°g lumps of material ; frequently the use of a sieve may be dispensed with by this means. Previous to mixing, the materials are screened, the lumps broken up and again screened. The mixing may then be best accomplished by spreading out the most bulky constituent in a uniform layer about six inches thick. The next most bulky constituent is then similarly spread out on top of the first, and is followed in its turn by the others until the pile is complete. The several lay- ers are then thoroughly mixed by shovelling the entire heap three or four times. Thorough mixing is shown by the absence of streaks of different materials. The mixture may be put in bags or other convenient recepta- cles and kept in a dry place until needed. In mixing various materials some knowledge is re- quired concerning the action of different ingredients upon each other. Such knowledge will prevent the danger of loss of constituents or the deterioration of quality. The materials that should not be employed to- gether in mixed fertilizers are known as incompatibles. As is pointed out in this connection in Farmers' Bulletin No. 225, U. S. Department of Agriculture, it should be remembered that "(1) When certain materials are mixed chemical changes take place which result in loss of a valuable constituent, as when lime is mixed with guano. Nitrogen escapes ; or in a change of a constituent to a less available form, as when lime is mixed with superphosphates, the phosphoric acid is made less sol- uble; and (2), mixtures of certain materials, as, for example, potash salts and Thomas Slag, are likely to harden or 'cake,' and thus become difScut to handle if kept some time after mixing." Potash salts may be mixed with Thomas phos- phate powder, but acid phosphate should not be mixed with quick lime, not sulphate of ammonia with basic slag. The modern farmer in America is beginning to understand the nature of Straight Fertilizers as well as 18 Home |.jjg farmer in Germany. He knows fairly well the Ferti"kers character and qualities of the materials now used in mixing fertilizers; and can thus form his own judgment as to what is best for the different crops and soils. It would be better to spread fertilizers broadcast by hand, or by a top-dressing machine ; fertilizer drills, as a rule, are not of sufficient capacity. Broadcasting is always a more thorough method of applying fertilizers, and gives the following crops a better opportunity to utilize all the material and prevents too much concentra- tion of plant food by the plants. Broadcasting always gives a better root development, since the plants are compelled to utilize a larger feeding area to no disad- vantage, since it is nature's way. It is generally better to harrow in fertilizers after they are applied, except on the seeded crops or on sod lands. Calculations for Mixing Fertilizers. As an example of how the proportions of the differ- ent ingredients in a mixture may be calculated, let it be assumed that a farmer wishes to prepare a 4-8-10 potato fertilizer out of Nitrate of Soda containing 15.5 per cent, of Nitrogen; acid phosphate containing 16 per cent, of Available phosphoric acid and sulphate of potash containing 50 per cent, of actual potash. Remembering that each one hundred pounds of the required mixture is to contain 4 pounds of Available Nitrogen, 8 pounds of Available phosphoric acid and 10 pounds of Available potash, we may best determine the amounts of each per ton by multiplying the given figures by 20. Thus : — 4 X 20= 80 lbs. Available Nitrogen per ton 8 X 20=160 " Available phosphoric acid per ton 10 X 20=200 " Available potash per ton Hence each ton of the mixture is to contain 80 pounds of Available Nitrogen, 160 pounds of Available jrfiosphoric acid and 200 pounds of available potash. We next determine the amount of each ingredient ^°^« necessary to furnish the required quantities of plant- food. Since each one hundred pounds of Nitrate con- tains 15.5 pounds of Nitrogen, the 80 pounds of Nitro- gen required would represent as many hundreds or frac- tions thereof, as 15.5 is contained in 80; or ( 80x100)^.155(15.5%)== 5.16 cwt.= 516 lbs. Nitrate of Soda (160x 100)-^.16 ( 16%) = 10.00cwt. = 1000 lbs. Acid Phosphate (200x100)^.50 ( 50%)= 4.00cwt.= 400 lbs. Sulphate of Phosphate Filler 0.84 cwt.= 84 lbs. Fine dry loam, or Peat, or land plaster 20.00 cwt.=:2000 lbs. Calculations of Formula of Mixed Materials. It is desirable, at times to determine the propor- tions of plant-food in any given mixture. For instance, a mixture is made up of 200 pounds of Nitrate of Soda, 200 pounds of tankage, 1,000 pounds of acid phosphate and 600 pounds of kainit, what is the formula if the Nitrate contains 15.5 per cent, of Available Nitrogen, the tankage 5 per cent, of Nitrogen and 10 per cent, of phosphoric acid, the acid phosphate 16 per cent, of phos- phoric acid, and the kainit 12.5 per cent, of potash. The amounts of plant food would then be : — Nitrogen Phos. Acid Potash lbs. lbs. lbs. Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. x .155(15. 5%)=31 Tankage 200 lbs. x .05 ( 5%) = 10 Tankage 200 lbs. x .10 ( 10%)=.. 20 Acid Phosphate . . . 100 lbs. x .16 ( 16%) = .. 160 Kainit 60 lbs. X. 125(12. 5%) = . . .. 75 Total 41 180 75 A ton of the mixture would thus contain 41 pounds of Nitrogen, 180 pounds of phosphoric acid and 75 pounds of potash. To get the weight per hundred we divide each of these amounts by 20, obtaining a formula that may be represented by 2-9-3|. Mixing of Fertilizers 19 Home xo Calculate the Value of Mixed Fertilizers. Mixing of Fertilizers 20 Assuming that Nitrate of Soda, containing 15.5 per cent, of Nitrogen, can be bought for $52.00 per ton; acid phosphate with 16 per cent. Available phosphoric acid at $7.75 per ton; and sulphate of potash with 50 per cent, of potash at $41.00 per ton, what would be the value of a mixed fertilizer guaranteed to contain 3.25 per cent, of Nitrogen, 6 per cent, of Available phos- phoric acid and 10 per cent, of potash. As a prehminary step we have to determine the cost per pound of the constituents in the straight fertilizers. Thus:— One ton of Nitrate. . .2000 lbs. x .155(15.5%)== 310 lbs. Available Nitrogen $52.00-^310 lbs.=$0.168 per pound One ton of Acid Phosphate 2000lbs. x.l6 ( 16%)= 320 lbs. Phos. Acid $7.75^320 lbs.=$0.024. per pound One ton of Sulphate of Potash 2000 lbs. x .50 ( 50%)= 1000 lbs. Sulphate of Potash $41.00^1000 lbs.=$0.041 per pound Next comes the determination of the total plant- food in the mixed fertilizer. Thus : — 2000 lbs. X .0325(3.25%)= 65 lbs. Nitrogen at . . .$0.168=$10.92 2000 lbs. X. 06 ( 6%) = 120lbs.Phos. Acid at. .$0,024.= 2.88 2000 lbs. X. 10 ( 10%)=200lbs. Sul. Potash at. $0,041= 8.20 $22.00 Assuming that all the Nitrogen in the mixed fer- tilizer was derived from Nitrate, the value per ton would be $22.00, exclusive of the cost of mixing and bagging. Straight Fertilizer Formulas for Farm, Fruit, and Market Garden Crops. Home Mixing of Fertilizers 21 The primary object in the preparation of fertihzer formulas is to show the kinds and amounts of materials to use in order to provide in a mixture good forms and proportions of the constituents, which shall be in good mechanical condition. It is not believed that any one formula is the best for. all conditions, these vary as widely as the soils and different methods of manage- ment. Substitutions That May Be Made. It is not intended that the kinds of materials shall be absolutely adhered to, for in many cases substitutions of others may be made not only without materially changing the composition of the resultant mixture, but which may also reduce its actual cost. For example, tankage or dried ground fish may be substituted for cot- ton-seed meal in any mixture, and if the right grades are obtained, will substitute the amount of nitrogen in it, though it may be in a slightly less Available form; be- sides, the former contain considerably more phosphoric acid. In other instances, dried blood may be substi- tuted with advantage for the tankage or cotton-seed meal, though naturally one pound of high grade blood will furnish practically twice as much nitrogen as one pound of the others. Again, the bone tankage, which is quite similar to ground bone in its composition, may be substituted for bone, and vice versa, the substitution de- pending upon the cost, as the Availability of the constit- uents is not materially different. In the case of potash, the sulphate may be substituted for the muriate without changing the percentage of actual potash in the mixture ; whereas if kainit is substituted for the higher grades, four times the weight must be included in order to obtain the same amount of potash, and the amount of the mix- Mixing of Fertilizers 22 Home j-^pg applied per acre must be doubled in order to obtain the same number of pounds of the constituents for a given area. For example, if in a mixture of Nitrate of Soda 100 lbs. Ground Bone 100 lbs. Sulphate of Potash 100 lbs. 400 pounds of kainit is substituted for the 100 pounds of sulphate of potash, the percentage composition of the mixture would be just one-half the former, as the con- stituents are distributed throughout twice the weight. Importance of Mechanical Condition. In the next place, care should be exercised in the preparation of mixtures, in order to obtain good mechan- ical condition. It is sometimes a difficult matter to ob- tain a dry mixture from the use of purely mineral fer- tilizing materials, as superphosphates, and muriate of potash, or kainit — it is apt to become pasty in the drill or planter, whereas, if some dry material, as bone or tankage, is added, the mixture is much improved and the composition not materially affected. The Kinds and Amounts to Apply. It should also be remembered that the suggestions in reference both to the particular form of the constitu- ents and the amounts to be applied have reference to their application under average conditions of soil and methods of practice, and as a supplement to the manures of the farm. Where a definite system of rotation is used, and the materials are applied with the purpose of pro- viding the specific crop with the constituents especiallj?^ needed, the formulas may be very materially changed. Where the condition of soil is not good, or where man- ures are not used, the amounts recommended should be largely increased, practically doubled in most cases, and also, particularly for the cereals, a greater proportion of nitrogen should be used. As a rule, soils that are not in good condition will require a larger application of fer- tilizers to obtain the same unit of increase than those in good condition, because in the first case they do not permit the ready penetration of the roots and the easy distribution of the constituents. The indiscriminate use of fertihzers on poor soils is seldom followed by as large a return per unit of plant food applied as where systematic methods obtain. Methods of Application. The method of appHcation should depend upon the character of the soil, the crop and the material. On good soils and for crops which require large quantities, a part at least, of the material should be applied broadcast and thoroughly worked into the surface-soil; the remainder may be used in the row at the time of seeding or setting the plants. It is particularly desirable that formulas that are rich in potash should be in part broadcasted, in order that this element may be thoroughly intermingled with the soil, as the rate at which this constituent fixes, particularly on soils of a clayey nature, is very rapid, and unless thoroughly harrowed in the fixing will take place largely at the surface, and thus not be within reach of the feeding roots. On sandy soils, and for such crops as sweet potatoes, the concentration of the fertilizer in the row is more desirable than in the case of good soils and for white potatoes, though the minerals phosphoric acid and potash may be distributed in part. When ap- plied in the row for sweet potatoes, it is desirable that it should be done two or three weeks, at least, before the plants are set, thus avoiding possible injury from the excess in the soil. Most manufacturers and dealers in fertihzers are willing to supply farmers with the materials sug- gested, or to mix them at reasonable rates. If you cannot conveniently get all the materials for mixing your formulas and can secure any reputable brand of ordinary commercial fertilizer, buy a bag of Nitrate of Soda and mix it with four to six bags of such commercial fertilizer; and the mixing may be done on your barn floor. You will thereby improve and fortify the brand you are buying in a way to vastly en- hance its crop-making powers. Home Mixing of Fertilizers 23 24 Home j£ |-]jg ]^itrate should happen to be lumpy, the use Fertilizers '^^ ^ Straight, heavy fence post, rolled over it two or three times will reduce it to splendid condition for home- mixing. One hundred pounds of Nitrate of Soda is equal in bulk to about one bushel, or 25 pounds to about one peck. Formulas for Farm Crops. Com. (No. 1) Nitrate of Soda 150 lbs. Acid Phosphate 500 Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 250 1000 " Application at the rate of 600 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 2.32 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.00 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. (No. 2) Nitrate of Soda 100 lbs. Acid Phosphate 600 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 600 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 1.55 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 9.60 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Formula No. 1 is best suited for sandy loams or soils. Formula No. 2 is for medium and heavy loams. Oats and Spring Wheat. (No. 1) Nitrate of Soda 250 lbs. Add Phosphate 450 Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.87 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.20 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. (No. 2) Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. Acid Phosphate 500 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.10 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.00 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Formula No. 2 is best suited for use in connection with a leguminous green manure. Winter Wheat, Rye and Hay or Grass Lands. (No. 1) Nitrate of Soda 100 lbs. Acid Phosphate 600 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 1.55 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 9.60 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Home Mixing of Fertilizers 25 "^"'^ (No. 2) Mixing of Fertilizers Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. 26 Acid Phosphate 500 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam ; 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.10 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.00 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Mixture No. 1 is best adapted for heavy soils ; mix- ture No. 2, for medium and light loams. Barley. Nitrate of Soda 250 lbs. Acid Phosphate 450 Sulphate of Potash 100 Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds to the acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.87 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.20 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Clovers, Alfalfa, Cow Peas, Soy Beans and Vetch. Nitrate of Soda 70 lbs. Acid Phosphate 550 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 280 1000 " Application at the rate of 300-500 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 1.08 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.80 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Cotton. ^°"^^ Mixing of Nitrate of Soda 250 lbs. Acid Phosphate 600 " Sulphate of Potash 50 " Fiae Dry Loam 100 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.87 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 9.60 per cent. ; available potash 2.50 per cent. Rice. Nitrate of Soda 100 lbs. Acid Phosphate 800 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 300 pounds per acre. Apply soon after mixing. Composition-. — Available Nitrogen 1.55 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 12.80 per cent. ; available pot- ash 5.00 per cent. Tobacco. Nitrate of Soda : 535 lbs. Acid Phosphate 100 " Sulphate of Potash 225 " Fine Dry Loam 140 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 1100 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 9.40 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 1.60 per cent. ; available potash 11.25 per cent. Fertilizers 27 28 Home ^g a general rule, and subject to any special soil plrtiiizers conditions, we recommend that the above Nitrate of Soda mixture intended to be applied to the tobacco crop be given in three equal dressings or instalments. The first of these should be incorporated with the soil just before the planting out, the second should be given as a top dressing at the time of the first hoeing and the last instal- ment, in the same manner, about a fortnight or three weeks later. Sweet Potatoes. Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. Aeid Phosphate 550 " Sulphate of Potash 150 " Fine Dry Loam 100 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre. Composition:- — Available Nitrogen 3.10 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.80 per cent. ; available potash 7.50 per cent. Early and Late Irish Potatoes. (No. 1) Nitrate of Soda S20 lbs. Acid Phosphate 480 " Sulphate of Potash 100 Fine Dry Loam 100 1000 " Application at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4.96 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.68 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. In order to secure a satisfactory mechanical condi- tion, this mixture will require about 300-400 pounds additional of fine dry loam for each 1000 pounds of material. (No. 2) Home Mixing of Nitrate of Soda 260 lbs. Fertilizers Acid Phosphate 440 " 29 Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4.03 per cent.; avaife,ble phosphoric acid 7.00 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Formula for Market Garden Crops Asparagus, Beans, Beets, (early), Cabbage, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celery, Cucumbers, Egg-Plant, Endive, Kale, Lettuce, Muskmelons, Onions, Peas (early), Peppers, Pumpkins, Radishes, Spinach, Squash, Tomatoes, and Watermelons. Nitrate of Soda 300 lbs. Acid Phosphate 400 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " ir Application at the rate of about 1000 pounds per acre, at the time of seeding and an additional appli- cation at the rate of about 500 pounds to be made be- tween the rows later in the season. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4f.65 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 6.40 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Formulas for Fruits and Berries Mixing of Fertilizers 30 Apples, Pears, Peaches, Plums, Grapes, Currants, Strawberries, Raspberries, Blackberries, and Gooseberries. (No. 1) Nitrate of Soda 300 lbs. Acid Phosphate 400 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Applications at the rate of about 1000 pound for berries and 400-800 pounds for fruit trees. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4.65 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 6.40 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. (No. 2) Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. Acid Phosphate 300 " Sulphate of Potash 100 " Fine Dry Loam 400 1000 " Formula 1 is best adapted for medium and heavy soils, Formula 2 for sandy soils. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 3.10 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 4.80 per cent.; available potash 5.00 per cent. Formulas for Citrus Fruits MiTng of Fertilizers Young Orange Trees. 31 Nitrate of Soda 350 lbs. Acid Phosphate 350 Sulphate of Potash 100 Fine Dry Loam 200 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 5.42 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 5.60 per cent. ; available potash 5.00 per cent. Old Orange Trees. Nitrate of Soda 375 lbs. Acid Phosphate 435 Sulphate of Potash 90 " Fine Dry Loam 100 1000 " Application at the rate of 1600 pounds per acre. Composition: — ^Available Nitrogen 5.81 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.96 per cent. ; available potash 4.50 per cent. Mandarin Oranges. Nitrate of Soda 375 lbs. Acid Phosphate 420 " Sulphate of Potash 80 " Fine Dry Loam 125 1000 " 32 Home Application at the rate of 1200 pounds to the acre. Mixing of Composition: — Available Nitrogen 5.81 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 6.72 per cent.; available potash 4.00 per cent. Grape Fruit. Nitrate of Soda 375 lbs. Acid Phosphate 435 " Sulphate of Potash 90 Fine Dry Loam 100 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 1800 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 5.81 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.96 per cent. ; available potash 4.50 per cent. Lemons. Nitrate of Soda 375 lbs. Acid Phosphate 435 Sulphate of Potash 90 " Fine Dry Loam 1 00 1000 " Application at the rate of 1150 pounds to the acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4.03 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 8.32 per cent. ; available potash 4.25 per cent. Formulas for Olives MiZg of Young Olive Trees. Nitrate of Soda 300 lbs. Acid Phosphate , 450 " Sulphate of Potash 150 " Fine Dry Loam 100 " 1000 " Application at the rate of 660 pounds to the acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 4.65 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.20 per cent. ; available potash 7.50 per cent. Old Olive Trees. Nitrate of Soda 260 lbs. Acid Phosphate 5^0 " Sulphate of Potash 85 " Fine Dry Loam 135 1000 " Application at the rate of 1600 pounds per acre. Composition: — Available Nitrogen 5.81 per cent.; available phosphoric acid 7.96 per cent. ; available potash 4.50 per cent. Fertilizers 33 62d Congress \ 1st Session J SENATE f Document t No. 76 mDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR- BEET CULTUREkmKJLRY OCT 2- 13 ku setts LETTER FROM AND DATA PREPAREQjBgrloTlltixi'al TRUMAN G. PALMER CJoUegl© CONCERNING THE INDIRECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM THE CULTURE OF SUGAR BEETS .i' # •'^l PRESENTED BY MR. SxMOOT July 25, 1911. — Ordered to be printed WASHINGTON 1911 of th 11 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. Washington, D. C, July 17, 1911. Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate, WasJiington, D. O. My Dear Senator: In accordance with your suggestion, I inclose herewith some data which I have prepared on "The increased yield of other crops due to rotation mth sugar beets/' a subject of vital interest not only to the people of your State, but to the Nation. To handle this subject, it becomes necessary to compare the crop yields of Europe and the United States, and the regrettable feature about it is that such comparison does not contribute to one's national pride. A recent magazine article wliich dealt in glittering generalities was put out under the caption, "The United States feeding the world." One of the statements made was that when we shipped our cotton to Europe we sent with it the food products to feed the starving work- men who made it into fabrics and laces. One phase of our all too prevalent vulgar boastfulness would be cured if we but realized that Europe, without Russia ("the granary of Europe"), occupying but 45 per cent of our surface area, tills double the number of acres of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and potatoes that we till, and from that double area devoted to these five crops their farm- ers harvest lour times the number of bushels that our farmers harvest; that of 'these five crops Europe produces more bushels per capita for their 300,000,000 people than we do for our 90,000,000 people, and that during the past 30 years Europe has increased her acreage yield of these live crops 75 per cent, while we have increased ours but 8 per cent. In the accompanying data I have attempted to make plain the fact, so well understood in Europe, that the remarkable economic position of that country has been brought about by the introduction of the humble sugar beet, the leaf buds and roots of which in the time of Augustus Cassar were used as a food for slaves, and must have been considered very vulgar, since Csesar delighted to compare slack persons with boiled mangel, "betizare" dicebat. Although my study of the beet-sugar industry extends over a period of 15 years, during 9 of which I have been secretary of the American Beet Sugar Association, it was not until I began making study trips in Europe that the full value of the industry in its inter- related connection with general agriculture dawned upon me, and since then I have devoted a large portion of my time to a study of this particular feature of the industry. Anybody will admit that it would be desirable to produce at home the $180,000,000 worth of sugar we annually import from foreign countries and our island possessions, and turn this vast sum into the pockets of our own instead of foreign farmers and laborers. That in 4 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. itself would be a consideration of great economic value to the Nation, but it would be small indeed compared to the indirect benefits to be derived if we produced this sugar from beets, the cultivation of which in Germany, in rotation with wheat, rye, barley, oats, and potatoes, has resulted in their farmers securing from the land which they devote to these five crops an excess annual yield worth S900,000,000 more than our farmers secure from a like area devoted to the same crops, and if from our total area devoted to these five crops our farmers secured as great a yield as do the German farmers our farmers would be richer by $1,400,000,000 a year. Fifty years ago Bassett, in his work. Guide Practique du Fabricant de Sucre, said: Tlie manufacture of sugar from beets is one of the most important elements of public prosperity. Resting on agricultural progress and the wants of a constantly increasing population, allied by reason of the cattle which it supports with the production of meat and bread, based upon improving cultivation, it renders to modern society the greatest services, at the same time that it attains for itself the highest point of prosperity and glory to which any industry ever had the ambition to aspire. Louis Napoleon, when imprisoned at Ham, in 1842, said of the beet-sugar industry in his Analyse de la Question des Sucres : It retains workmen in the country, and gives them employment in the dullest months of the year; it diffuses among the agricultural classes good methods of culture, calling to their aid tadustrial science and the arts of practical chemistry and mechanics. It multiplies the centers of labor. It promotes, in consequence, those sound princi- ples upon which rest the organization of society and the security of governments; for the prosperity of a people is the basis of public order. * * * "^^erever the beet is cultivated the value of land is enhanced, the wages of the workmen are increased, and the general prosperity is promoted. In another place the same author puts the following words in the mouth of the sugar mdustry: Respect me, for I improve the soil. I make land fertile which, without me, would be uncultivated. I give employment to laborers, who otherwise would be idle. I solve one of the greatest problems of modern society. I organize and elevate labor. In 1853, when the French Emperor and Empress came to Valen- ciennes, a triumphal arch was erected, with the following inscription: SUGAR MANUFACTURE. Napoleon I, who created it. Napoleon III, who protected it. Before the manufacture of beet sugar Since the manufacture of beet sugar the arrondissement of Valenciennes pro- was introduced the arrondissement of duced 695,750 bushels of wheat and fat- Valenciennes produces 1,157,750 bushels tened 700 oxen. of wheat and fattens 11,500 oxen. Grant, in his Beet Root Sugar and Cultivation of the Sugar Beet (1867), says: I have said a direct net profit of $20 per acre, because it has been found in Europe that there is also an indirect profit on the beet crop in the large increase of crops suc- ceeding it and in the cattle supported by the pulp. Experiments have conclusively proved that lands now yield from two to three times as much grain and support from eight to ten times as many cattle, in the beet-growing districts as they did before the beet was introduced. The great beet-producing districts of France are the grain dis- tricts and the cattle districts also. The three branches of agriculture always coexist. If our farmers were made to know that by proper rotation the culture of 40 acres of sugar beets would increase tiieir yield of all other crops on 160 acres from 20 to 80 per cent, you could not build factories fast enough to care for the beets they would furnish. Grad- ually they will find it all out for themselves, but it is a slow process. INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAE-BEET CULTUKE. 5 Five years a^o a beet-sugar factory was erected at Chaska, Minn., where it since has been operated each year, and as evidence of the time it takes to disprove erroneous impressions and absorb the truths which Napoleon pubhcly proclaimed a century ago, and which since have been proclaimed by practically every European agri- cultural economist of note, I quote a local notice which recently appeared in the Wabasha (Minn.) Herald. This notice says: THE SUGAR BEETS — WHAT IS DONE FOR THE LAND — ^ATTENTION, FARMERS, One of the best crops of "wlieat raised in this vicinity this year was that of George Hauswedel. The wheat was a fine stand of good quality and well filled out. There were 14 acres, and the result in thrashing was an average of 32 bushels to the acre. This comes as a surprise to many farmers, since the field was planted to sugar beets last year, and the impression prevails that a crop of the latter will so exhaust the soil as to yield a poor crop of grain the next year. Mr. Hauswedel, however, has demon- strated the fallacy of this supposition. We understand that the soil v/as given no special treatment, and no particular effort was made toward securing an exceptional result. You see that with a factory operating in their midst for five years the erroneous impression still prevails that sugar beets exhaust the soil. Notwithstanding the contrary experience of all Europe, and of this man, and probably many of his neighbors, I have no doubt but what a canvass of the farmers about Chaska would show that the general idea concerning beet culture is that beets injure the soil, and that unless they harvest ''so many tons of beets per acre at so much per ton" they will decline to grow beets. The average wheat yield of Mmnesota is 13.4 bushels per acre, hence the yield quoted above was 139 per cent in excess of the average wheat yield of the State. If such a yield were secured throughout the State, it would add $84,000,000 a year to the wealth of Minnesota wheat farmers, at 85 cents per bushel. Each mcrease of 1 bushel of wheat per acre in the State of Minnesota v/ill add $4,500,000 annually to the wealth of her wheat farmers. This result at Chaska, which is reported as being a general surprise, is but an echo of what one hears on all sides in the sugar-beets districts of Europe and what our forefathers could have heard over there 50, 75, and even 100 years ago. Last September I visited the 7,000-acre Tachlowic estate at Yenc, 30 kilometers from Prague, Bohemia, one of the imperial estates of Emperor Francis Joseph. Sixty years ago a beet-sugar factory was erected on this estate and since that time one-third of its cultivable area has been planted to sugar beets, grown in rotation with other crops. The records of the estate show that for the 60 years since one- third of the area has been devoted to sugar beets, the remaining two- thirds has produced a greater tonnage of all other crops than did the entire three-thirds for 60 years prior to the construction of the factory, and, in addition to this, the stock-carrying capacity of the estate has been increased 100 per cent. At Hatwan, Hungary, 60 kilometers from Budapest, I visited the 25,000-acre estate of the Barons Alexander and Joseph Hatvany, both of whom are agricultural economists of high repute throughout- Europe. This estate is equipped with the largest beet-sugar factory in Europe, slicing 3,000 tons of beets per day and using the beets grown on 50,000 to 70,000 acres. While they were producing sugar at a small profit, the great inducement in operating the factory was the indirect advantages secured through beet culture. They grow 3,000 acres of beets on the estate, which they rotate with 9,000 acres of 6 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. wheat, barley, and other crops. The balance of their beets are grown on other near-by estates, the owners of which, in order to secure the rotating value of sugar beets, are only too glad to produce large quan- tities of high-grade beets and sell them for a fraction over one-half the average price paid for poorer beets in the United States. Their largest contractor furnishes them with 3,000 acres of beets, which average 18^ per cent sugar, and the price paid per 2,000-pound ton was at the rate of $3.36, our money, as compared to the average price of between $5 and $6 per ton in the United States. I will digress for a moment to state that this estate, formerly the property of Maria Theresa's favorite prime minister, is the most perfectly equipped and managed property I have ever visited. Aside irom the 120-room palace, which in summer is occupied by the Hatvanys, there are beautiful homes for the various managers and superintendents, a small city of workingmen's houses, innumerable barns of great proportions, machine shops, wagon and blacksmith shops, dairies, electric-light plant, ice plant, and everything else necessary to conduct the estate without calling on the outside world. A private narrow-gauge railway, equipped with 600 cars, taps every field. The estate is equipped with an abundance of the best agricul- tural machinery, including numerous steam plows, all of which is carefully housed. It is stocked with 4,000 dairy cows and work oxen, which produce great quantities of manure, and this is prized as highly and protected as carefully as is the grain, being thoroughly rotted before it is spread on the fields. Every pound of milk is shipped to Budapest. The refuse of the sugar factory is used to feed the cattle, and upon learning that American farmers about many of our beet- sugar factories would not haul the pulp away as a gift, they asked me to look the matter up and see if arrangements could not be made to dry it and sell it to them for a term of years. They raise vast quan- tities of wheat, but never sell a bushel, seven modern flour mills on the estate, with a capacity of 30,000 sacks a day, turning it into flour and leaving the by-products to be fed to stock. The same mth the barley; a well-equipped brewery turns it into beer, leaving the by- product for stock food. One can not imagine a more scientifically managed property, where every farthing of profit is secured. First. They secure the customary profit in producing raw cereal products. Second. By preparing the raw material for the table and shipping nothing but what is ready for direct consumption, they secure the manufacturing profit. Third. By feeding the by-products to their own stock instead of wasting or selling them to feeders, they secure the profit from dairying and fattening cattle. Fourth. From their 4,000 head of dairy cows and work oxen they secure an abundance of manure with which to build up the chemical condition of their soil and make it more productive, thus securing another profit. Fifth. By operating a sugar factory which slices the beets from 50,000 to 70,000 acres of ground, they secure the profit derived from sugar manufacture and also from the feeding value of the resultant by-products. Sixth. By growing 3,000 acres of beets, they secure the profits of sugar-beet farming. INDIEECT BENEFITS OF SUGAE-BEET CULTUEB. 7 Seventh. By rotating beets with 9,000 acres of wheat, barley, oats, and other crops, the consequent deep plowing, thorough cultivation, and aerating effect of the beet rootlets keeps their soil in perfect physical condition and so greatly increases the yield of all other crops , that this produces the greatest profit of ail. By following the above method, they are able to extract the last dollar the estate is capable of producing, and however long this method might be continued, the productivity of the soil would be maintained at its maximum. It reminded me of Armour's packing house, where he said they saved all of the hog but the squeal. The Hatvanys own two other large estates in Hungary, one of 15,000 acres, both equipped with huge up-to-date beet-sugar factories, the raw product for which furnishes the inspiration for this character of farming. This is but one of many equally well-managed European estates where sugar beets form the pivot around which all agricultural operations center. At last, by personal experience, those of our farmers who employ correct cultural methods^ and who keep a record of their yields, are beginning to learn what our scientists and economists have failed to teach them concerning the improvement of the soil through beet culture. Numerous letters received from farmers in your State, as well as in other States, show this, and as showing that these bene- ficial effects are not confined to any one section of our country, I have produced a few letters from each of several beet-sugar-producing States. On my next study trip to Europe I hope to conclude my researches on this phase of the sugar question, after wliich I will present you with something more than a boiled-down statement, such as I am inclosing herewith. I then will lay before you and your colleagues and before the country statements in extenso concerning economic facts of record, the results of a long line of experiments conducted by the most prominent agricultural scientists and economists Europe has produced during the past century, together with their conclusions, a record of my personal observations in Europe and in the United States, and the statements of such American beet farmers in the various States as have kept records of their yields and noted the increase. From the data already gathered, I am confident that I will be able to present such a quantity of indisputable evidence as to prove to any fair-minded person that by producing our sugar at home the net profits accruing to our farmers through the excess yields of other crops would exceed by many times the total value of the sugar produced, and it would seem that an industry of such potentiality for creating wealth should interest every tliinking per- son, irrespective of party affiliations or preconceived contrary ideas of economics. To the end that we may increase our national prosperity and at the same time lower the cost of producing our food supply, it w^ould appear that something, anything, everything within reason should be done to force or cajole or coax our farmers to plow deep, to cultivate thoroughly, to care for their barnyard manure properly and to estab- lish a reasonably scientific system of crop rotation, whereby the field to which they apply their energies will be made to yield as much or more than do the rejuvenated soils of Europe. Very sincerely, yours, Truman G. PalmePw b indieect benefits oe sugar-beet ctiltime. Influence of the Sugar Beet on Modern Scientific Agri- culture. THE fountain HEAD OF INSPIRATION WHICH LED TO DEEP PLOWING, SCIENTIFIC ROTATION, INCREASED FERTILIZATION, THOROUGH CUL- TIVATION, AND DOUBLED THE ACREAGE YIELD OF ALL CROPS IN EUROPE. [By Truman G. Palmer.] The production of the food supply of human beings ever has been and ever will continue to be the most important consideration of man, and he who makes a given area produce a bushel and a peck where it formerly produced but a bushel is a public benefactor. Two thousand years before the birth of modern agricultural science that science had reached a high level, and the crop yields probably were greater then than they are to-day. One hundred and fifty years before Christ, Cato the Elder, the Roman statesman and patriot who fought Hannibal and Hasdrubal, wrote a book on farm management, a perusal of wliich would en- lighten the average American farmer to-day and teach him how to increase the yield of his fields. Cato proclaimed the fundamentals of good agriculture in his De Re Rustica when he said: What is the first principle of good agriculture? To plow well. What is the second? To plow again; and the third is, to manure. To the farmer who kept stock, he said: Plan to have a big compost heap and take the best of care of manure. ^^Tien it is hauled out, see that it is well rotted and spread. And to the farmer who had no stock, he said: You can make manure out of litter, lupine straw, chaff, bean stalks, husks, and the leaves of the ilex and oak. A hundred years after Cato's death, Augustus Caesar made frequent mention of beets, which then were one of the principal foods for slaves, while the leaves long had been used as an auxiliary fodder for stock, and there are those who believe that, known by some other name, beets formed an important feature in Cato's crop system, just as they did after their value had been rediscovered 20 centuries later. People forgot Cato's teaching, and when, 2,000 years later, Napo- leon Bonaparte stepped upon the stage at the beginning of the nine- teenth century, the worn-out soils of Europe had reached their lowest ebb in productiveness, and scientists and economists were in despair because of the insufficient food production to feed the ever-increasing population. The genealogy of modern European scientific agriculture reaches back to the beginning of the nineteenth century only and shows that the beet-sugar industry was its father and that Napoleon Bonaparte was the father of the beet-sugar industry. German scientists discovered the presence of sugar in the beet and perfected a method of extracting it, but Napoleon Bonaparte's chem- ists and economists, after 10 years of scientific research, became con- vinced that by growing sugar beets on a field one year in four the fertility of the soil thereby was so greatly increased that the combined yield of other crops on the same soil during the next three years was INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAE-BEET CULTUEE. Q greater than formerly it had been for four years, and it remained for Napoleon himself to grasp the tremendous significance of a discovery which could be made to serve the double purpose of solving the nation's food-supply problem and freeing it fi'om dependence on Great Britain. By reason of Napoleon's Berlin and Milan decrees of 1806, pro- hibiting the importation of colonial articles and establishing the '' con- tinental system,'' the price of sugar had risen to $1 per pound, and mutterings against imperial rule were heard upon all sides; but these rumblings in no way affected the plans of Napoleon, now that he had become convinced of the indirect advantages of beet culture. On March 11, 1811, Napoleon said in an address before the Chamber of Commerce: Commercial relations witli England must cease. I proclaim it to you, gentlemen, distinctly. * * * I am informed that from late experiments France will be able to do without the sugars and indigoes of the two Indies. Chemistry has made such progi'ess in this country that it will probably produce as great a change in our com- mercial relations as that produced by the discovery of the compass. On March 18, 1811, Napoleon dictated a note to his minister of the interior in which he said : The minister of the interior will make a report to be sent to the council of state, in which the advantages of developing the manufacture of beet sugar will be included. All steps shall be taken to encourage this culture and if necessary by modifying the customhouse tariff for a period of five years, or even the possibility of prohibiting absolutely the importation of colonial or foreign sugars. The minister will take steps to make trials in a very extensive manner and to establish schools for teaching the manufacture of beet sugar. The minister will apportion among the different departments 60,000 arpents (90,000 acres) of land, on which it will be necessary to grow beet roots sufficient for the entire consumption of France. The proper officers will be appointed to see that the cultiva- tors deliver their proportions. The minister will also advise the cultivators that the growing of beet roots improves the soil and that the residue of the fabrication furnishes an excellent food for cattle. On March 25, 1811, Napoleon issued a decree appropriating 1,000,000 francs ($200,000) for the establishment of six technical beet-sugar schools, compelling the peasant farmers to plant 79,000 acres to sugar beets the following season, and decreed that ' ' From the. 1st of January, 1813 * * * the sugar and indigo of the two Indies shall be prohibited." (Extract from decree attached hereto.) On January 12, 1812, Napoleon issued a decree providing that 100 students should be selected from the schools of medicine, pharmacy, and chemistry and transferred to the technical beet-sugar schools he had established the year before; that 150,000 acres should be sown to beets; that financial inducements be extended to scientists to further perfect the process of extraction and to capitalists to engage in the manufacture, and for the immediate erection of four imperial beet-sugar factories. (Copy of decree attached hereto.) As a result of the perception, determination, and power of one man, the industry which was to revolutionize modern agricultural methods not onlywas created but within two years was established on an extensive scale, as is shown by the report of Napoleon's minister of the interior at the beginning of 1813, m which he said: During this year the manufacture of sugar which is extracted from the beet root will give us 7,700,000 pounds of this staple. It is prepared in 334 factories, all of which are in actual activity. * * * Nothing has been neglected to naturalize this staple at home, and the conquest is finally assm-ed. 10 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. For centuries Europe had been cursed with sagebrush, gravel-pit farming methods, such as our low crop yields demonstrate still are in vogue to a great extent in the United States to-day, and while Napoleon compelled the peasant farmers to grow beets whether they wished to or not, his scientists and their successors developed scien- tific agricultural methods, taught the French farmers how to cultivate beets and otlaer crops properly, and as the beet sugar industry spread to other nations, their scientists and economists vied with the French in this work, until now, in most portions of Europe, everything is farmed properly, as is shown by their superior crop yields. At the time sugar beets were introduced in France, European farmers were plowing but 3 to 4 inches deep, but the beet being a deep rooter, compelled them to adopt deep plowing — Cato's first principle of good agriculture — and as the benefits of it came to be recognized, deep plowing became the custom in the culture of all crops. European economists observed that following beets the roots of cereal crops which theretofore had drawn nutriment from but 3 to 4 inches of soil now followed the interstices left by the millions of decaying beet rootlets which were broken off v/hen the beets were dug, and by drawing nutriment from double the depth of soil they doubled their soil productivity without increasing their acreage. European agriculturists found that the frequent hoeings necessary to the production of a beet crop rid their fields of noxious w^eeds, and thus the full strength of the soil went to the crops they v/ere raising, instead of being drawn upon to maintain a growth which was worse than useless. As a result of sugar-beet rotation in Europe it was observed that where formerly it had been necessary to allow the exhausted soils to lie fallow every fourth year in order to rest them and to tear out the thick growth of weeds, they now could secure a heavy crop each year. Once inaugurated, the growing of sugar beets rapidly increased and soon became one of the most important industries in France, that country since having produced 27,000,000 metric tons of beet sugar. During the time that France has been producing 27,000,000 tons of sugar for home consumption and for export, worth, at 4 cents per pound, $2,364,000,000, our imports of sugar have risen from 50,000 to 2,500,000 tons a year, and during that period we have imported 67,000,000 tons of sugar at a cost to the Nation of $4,600,000,000. We raise and export the wheat from 6 acres of ground and use the proceeds to purchase sugar which we could raise at home on 1 acre. To-day it requires the gold we receive from all the wheat we produce on 11,000,000 acres to purchase abroad the sugar we could produce at home on less than 2,000,000 acres, and by so doing cease tilling 9,000,000 acres or use it for other purposes. The sugar we import contains no fertilizing elements, while each bushel of wheat carries with it 17§ cents worth of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, and the wheat we annually exchange for $180,000,000 worth of sugar carries with it fertihzer to the value of $30,000,000. In exporting 5,000,000,000 bushels of wheat since 1867, and exchang- ing it for sugar, we have robbed our soils of nearly $1,000,000,000 worth of fertilizing elements. IN'DIEECT BENEFITS OF SUGAK-BEET CULTUEE. 11 France is the size of our three greatest wheat-producing States, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota. In 1907 France sowed 16,000,000 to wheat, as did these three States. Since the introduction of beet culture, French soils have been so rejuvenated that from her 16,000,000 acres of wheat French farmers harvested 325,000,000 bushels, while from our 16,000,000 acres the farmers of Kansas, Min- nesota, and North Dakota harvested but 188,000,000 bushels, or 11.7 bushels to the acre to the Frenchman's 20.3 bushels. From France the beet-sugar industry spread to every country of continental Europe, which since has produced 150,000,000 metric tons of sugar, worth, at 4 cents per pound, $13,000,000,000. Europe produces annually 8,000,000 tons of beet sugar, consumes 5,500,000 tons, and exports 2,500,000 tons, while the United States produces 800,000 tons of beet and cane sugar, consumes 3,300,000 tons, and imports 2,500,000, taking a portion of Europe's exports. Not only does Germany produce the sugar her people consume and $50,000,000 worth for export, but by reason of better farming meth- ods, brought about through the establishment of the beet-sugar industry, her so-called "worn-out soils" now produce 30.5 bushels of wheat to our 15.8; 59.1 bushels of oats to our 30.3; 39.4 bushels of barley to our 24.3; 29.4 bushels of rye to our 16.1; and 208.9 bushels of potatoes to our 106.8. In 1907, Germany and Kansas each sowed 5,200,000 acres to wheat and from their 5,200,000 acres of rejuvinated soil, German farmers reaped 145,000,000 bushels, while from our 5,200,000 acres of virgin soil, Kansas farmers reaped but 68,000,000 bushels. Germany alone absorbs one-half of the world's production of potash and the European imports of commercial fertilizer are enormous. As commercial fertihzers aid the chemical condition of the soil, so sugar beets aid its physical condition. When the farmers apply commercial fertilizers, they have to pay for the fertilizer, but when, by growing a crop of beets which they sell for enough to pay for the cost of production, and at the same time add greatly to the produc- tivity of the soil, it is equivalent to securing the fertilizer for nothing. As compared to the total United States production, Germany, with an area equal only to that of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, produces one-tenth as much tobacco, one-fifth as much wheat, three- fifths as much oats, four-fifths as much hops, four-fifths as much barley, three times as much sugar, six times as many potatoes, and nine times as much rye. In 1907, German farmers, from 43,000,000 acres sowed to wheat, rye, barley, oats, and potatoes, harvested 3,000,000,000 bushels, while from the 88,500,000 acres sowed to the same crops in the United States, American farmers harvested but 1,875,000,000 bushels. In other words, from less than one-half our area, German farmers harvested nearly double the number of bushels. If on land devoted to wheat, oats, barley, rye, and potatoes in Germany their farmers secured only our average acreage yield of those crops, German farmers would be poorer by 1900,000,000 a year. If on the land we devote to wheat, oats, barley, rye, and potatoes American farmers secured the same yield per acre as is secured by German farmers, our farmers would be richer by $1,400,000,000 a year. By the expenditure of far more labor the German farmer secures a yield of beets 2 to 3 tons per acre in excess of our average yield, but 12 IlSrDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. the money value of the German's larger crop is less per acre than is the smaller yield of the American farmer, yet German farmers pro- duce 15,000,000 tons of beets annually, while American farmers pro- duce but 3.500,000 tons. On the other hand, Gorman farmers produce 30.5 bushels of wheat per acre to our 15.8 bushels and the price per bushel is higher in Germany than it is in the United States. Not- withstanding these facts we export $119,000,000 worth of wheat and wheat flour and import $180,000,000 worth of sugar, while Germany exports $50,000,000 worth of sugar and imports $65,000,000 worth of wheat. Considering the fact that there is no crop grown the yield of which is increased by preceaing it with a wheat crop and that there is no crop grown the yield of which is not increased by preceding it with a beet crop, are the Germans wise in importing wheat and exporting sugar, or are we wise in importing sugar and exporting wheat ? When we import 95° or 96° sugar, we are importing a product on which practically all of the labor has been performed in a foreign coimtry. To melt and recrystallize tliis sugar and prepare if for the table contributes but little to American industry. In refining the 3,148,818 short tons of raw sugar we imported and consumed last year there accrued to American industry in office expenses, brokerage, labor, fuel, bone black, bags, barrels, and all other supplies $6.48 per ton, or $20,404,340, while in producing but 511,840 tons of refined sugar from American-grown beets there accrued to American industry $38,388,000, on the basis of 3.75 cents per pound average cost. To import all our sugar and merely refine it in this country would con- tribute but $22,842,000 to American iudustr}^, wlule to produce the same amount of sugar from American-grown beets woidd contribute $274,547,000 to American industry. That we have an abundance of sugar-beet land on which to produce our sugar is shov/n by a report of the Secretary of Agriculture, in which he states that if but 1 acre in 50 of our well-defined sugar- beet area were planted to sugar beets once every four years it would produce all the sugar we now purchase from foreign countries, and thus would return our farmers $125,000,000 a year instead of $21,000,000, as at present. We are said to "feed the world," but with only 45 per cent of the surface area of the United States, Europe, without Russia, produces twice as much wheat and oats, three and one-half times as much barley, seven times as much sugar, twelve times as many potatoes, and twenty-five times as much tjg as is produced in the United States, notwithstanding the fact that we lie in the same latitude, have a superior agricultural climate, virgin soils of greater natural richness, and that her soils have been cropped for centuries. While the United States often is represented as "feeding the starving hordes of Europe," the truth is that their rehabihtated soils, even excluding Russia, the "granary of Europe," produce more bushels of the five crops of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and pota- toes per capita of their population than we produce in the United States per capita of our population. As compared to Europe, we have richer soils, a better agricultural climate, more live stock to produce the fertilizer, more and better farm implements and machinery, a more extensive, scientific, and expep^sive Department of Agriculture, presided over for the last 14 limiEECT BENEFITS OF STJGAE-BEET CTJLTUEB. 13 years by the greatest executive agriculturist we have produced, a more intelligent and well-to-do class of farmers, and yet, with all these superior conditions, our combined average acreage yields of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and potatoes in 1907 were but 21.2 bushels per acre, as compared to an average yield of 43 bushels for the same crops throughout the Continent of Europe, exclusive of Russia. Our increased use of commercial fertilizers from $45,000,000 valu- ation in 1890 to $110,000,000 in 1910 would seem to be inadequately reflected in our 8 per cent increase in combined average acreage yield of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and potatoes during the past 30 years, especially when compared to the 75 per cent increase in acre- age yield of the same crops in Germany during the same period, as shown by the following official figures of the two countries : Increase in yield of five staple crops in Germany and the United States. Germany. United States. Increase. 1878-1883 1909 1879 1909 Germany. United States. Germany. United States. Rye Bushels per acre. 15.7 19.2 24.5 31.8 115.5 Bushels per acre. 29.4 30.5 39.4 59.1 208.9 Bushels per acre. 14.5 13.8 24.0 28.7 98.9 Bushels per acre. 16.1 15.8 24.3 30.3 106.8 Bushels. 13.7 11.3 14.9 27.7 93.4 Bushels. 1.6 2.0 .3 1.6 7.6 Per cent. 87.2 58.8 60.8 85.8 80.8 Per cent. 10.9 Wbeat.. 14.2 Barley...; 1.2 Oats 6.7 Potatoes 7.6 As all the preceding statements concerning the acreage yields and production in Europe and the United States are based on official figures which readily can be verified, they should correct the aU but universal misconception concerning this important subject, humiliat- ing though the truth may be. Conceding the fact, which can be substantiated by the written words of Europe's foremost thinkers of the past century, that the beet-sugar industry more than any one or all other causes combined has furnished the inspiration which has resulted in placing Europe so far in advance of the United States in concrete agricultural results, the question naturally arises as to why we have not followed more closely in Europe's footsteps, doubled the acreage yield of our staple crops, and produced all of our sugar at home, instead of producing but 500,000 tons of beet sugar at home and importing 2,500,000 tons, the equivalent of what Europe exports after supplying her 400,000,000 inhabitants. Of minor causes, there are several, including the low wage rate of Europe, the lower price for beets, the fostering care of their govern- ments, extending even to tlie placing of large bounties on sugar exports in order that they might compete successfully with tropical sugars, while our fiscal system has been unstable and vacillating, sometimes affording protection to home producers and sometimes not. Since the time France proliibited the importation of sugar and estabhshed the beet-sugar industry in that nation, the United States customs duty on imported sugar has undergone thirteen revisions, being reduced from time to time by various Congresses from 10 cents per pound to absolute free trade, and now is fixed at 1.65 cents for 95° and 1.9 cents for refined sugar. 14 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. The main reason why we produce but one-half to two-thirds as many bushels of grain per acre as does Europe is because, with rare exceptions, our American economists have failed utterly to recognize the beet-sugar industry as the father of modern scientific agriculture, the very fountain head of inspiration from which the science sprang, the great "normal school" of agriculture which trains the indifferent farmer to be an expert farmer, because of the fact that sugar beets form the only important "agricultural crop which, unless the price per ton be exceedingly high, refuses to return a profit or even expenses when farmed in a slip-shod manner, and the superior methods which the farmer is forced to apply to beet culture gradually are applied to the production of other crops and finally are adopted by neighbor- ing farmers, even though they raise no beets. It was beet culture that forced European farmers back to deep plowing, compelled them to clear their fields of weeds, caused them to adopt a scientific system of crop rotation, led them to devise new and better implements, doubled their stock-carrying capacity as well as their manure, and brought them to a better realization of the value of barnyard manure, as well as of commercial fertilizers, and as a result what were formerly the ''worn-out soils of Europe" now are so productive as to make our "virgin soils" seem barren in com^parison. While American economists have failed to recognize the sugar beet as the father of modern scientific agriculture, there are some few who realize the great indirect advantages to be derived from the culture of beets, but even they have failed to capitalize and put in concrete form these indirect benefits in order that our people might realize the enormous wealth which would accrue to the Nation by deriving our sugar supply from home-grown beets. As in teaching the farmers the stress has been laid upon "so many tons of beets per acre at so much per ton," so in teaching the people the main stress has been laid upon keeping a hundred or two millions at home each year by- producing our sugar at home instead of importing it, almost uni- versally overlooking the far more important and valuable indirect benefits. Having failed to impress the farmers Avith the rotation value of sugar beets and the enemies of the industry having spread broadcast the erroneous statement that sugar-beet culture injures the soil — • just as in the inception of the industry an English society ofl'ered Achard first $30,000 and then $120,000 if he would declare his process a failure, and finally induced Sir Humphrey Davy to publish a work on beet sugar in which he declared it was far too sour for consumption — the average American farmer has been slow to engage in beet culture, even at prices for his product ranging from 25 to 80 per cent in excess of the prices paid for richer beets in Europe. In establishing 334 beet-sugar factories in as many localities in France in 2 years. Napoleon opened 334 schools of scientific agriculture, while in the 33 years since the establishment of our first successful begt-sugar factory we have created but 66 such schools, concerning which the present Secretary of Agriculture says: Every sugar-factory management in this country must necessarily call to its aid a thoroughly scientific and practical agriculturist, and under him a corps of assistants, equipped and conversant, not only with cultivating sugar beets, but familiar with methods of culture, fertilization, drainage, rotation, and all the necessary scientific knowledge to produce successfully all kinds of crops indigenous to the particular IFDIEECT BENEFITS OE STJGAE-BEET CULTUEE. 15 locality. This agriculturist and his assistants are constantly traveling over the sugar- beet producing district of this particular factory, advising farmers particularly in the growth of beets, and generally in the production of all other crops. They are as much interested incidentally in the handling of the lands producing other crops as they are particularly the one in charge. It is these other lands that will produce Bugar beets next year. A sugar-factory district is an "extension course" in agriculture to every farmer in the district, whether he be growing beets or not. It could not be conceived, with Buch influences constantly in operation, that the sugar industry is not exerting a potent influence most favorable in production of all crops. If the above-mentioned truths, no truer to-day than they have been at any time during the past century, had been drilled into the head of every farmer boy at the little red schoolhouse, as they are and have been in Europe since the tijne of Napoleon, we long since would have been producing our own sugar at home and, because of our superior soil, chmate, and numerous other advantages, our acreage yields of all other crops to-day would be the envy instead of the ridicule of European thinkers. As it is; we have missed the mark completely. As a rule, our farmers have taken the shadow for the substance. "So many tons of beets per acre at so much per ton" is the first tiling considered in America and the last thing in Europe, and if sugar beets failed to yield a greater direct profit than do other crops, the average American farmer abandons the culture and applies himself to growing the more easily produced cereals, while the European farmer will grow beets at a considerable direct loss latlier than to abandon the culture, well knowing that he will far more than make up any losses on the beet crop by the increased yields of other crops with wliich, for three years, he follows beets. It unquestionably is true that, because of the exceedingly low world price of sugar, Europe long ago would have ceased to produce sugar for export, if not for home consumption, had it not been that beet culture so greatly increases the yield of all other crops. Instead of growing beets on the same soil year after year, the European farmer rotates them with other crops, sowing them on the same soil as infrequently as possible, in order to benefit the maximum area, never losing sight of or sacrificing the advantages to accrue for the following three j^ears, while tens of thousands of American farmers, sowing beets only for the direct returns, sow them on the same soil year after year, thereby not only losing the greatest profit beet culture afi^ords, but gradually wearing out their soils as they surely will be worn out by cropping them constantly to any one thing year after year without rotation. In every community where sugar beets are produced, there are farmers who, by_ personal experience, have learned the truths which Napoleon proclaimed a century ago, and their number is increasing yearly, but there are thousands who still miss the main feature in the culture of sugar beets as thoroughly as one would miss it who said that a farmer painted his barn red in order to provide a red building to gaze at. With the European farmer the main purpose in planting sugar beets is to increase the yield of his other crops by rotation with the beets, just as the primary purpose of painting a barn red or yellow is to preserve the wood. With the European farmer, the direct returns from a crop of beets are as truly an incident as is the color of the barn. The following limited selection of letters and reports received from farmers located in beet districts from Oliio on the east to Washington 16 INDIKECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. on the west is sufficient to show that with the spread of the beet-sugar industry and the consequent adoption of proper cultural methods, the farmers of the United States can render their soils even more pro- ductive than are the rejuvenated soils of Europe, and that the beneficial results to be secured from the introduction of this crop are not confined to restricted locaiities. While corresponding closely with other reports on file, the number of reports herewith produced is too sm^all to be used as a basis for an accurate calculation, but that the results obtained by these farmers approximate the results that are obtained by other equally intelligent farmers and which would be obtained by them generally with the further expansion of thebeet-sugarindustry,thereisno reason to doubt. The average of these 30 reports shows that at the time these farmers introduced beet culture, their yield of wheat was 92 per cent above the United States average yield for 1907, their 3deld of barley Vv^as 37 per cent higher, and their yield of oats was 70 per cent higher than the United States average. Notwithstanding this fact, by the intro- duction of beet culture as a rotating crop, they increased their acre- age yield of wheat 42.5 per cent, their barley 78.6 per cent, and their oats 71.8 per cent. If, through the general introduction of beet cul- ture, all of our farmers should increase their yields of wheat, barley, and oats a like number of bushels per acre, based on 1909 farm- prices, they would be richer by a billion and a quarter dollars a year, and if they brought their yields up to those now secured by these farmers, their extra yield of these three crops, on the same acreage, would be worth $2,000,000,000 a year. The average acreage yield of sugar beets secured by these farmers was 14^ tons per acre. One report on alfalfa shows an increase of 1 ton and another of 2 tons per acre, while one report on beans shows an increase of 5 bushels per acre and another 6 bushels. One report on potatoes shows an increase from a merely nominal yield, to 200 sacks, or nearly three times the average United States yield. Whether with the general introduction of sugar-beet culture, the acreage yields of all our farmers would be increased as much, or more or less, can not be determined. That they could do it, there is no question, but that some still would farm in a shiftless manner, is altogether probable. Averages of the following reports: Average acreage yield of wheat, barley, and oats, prior and subsequent to the introduction of sugar beets as a rotating crop. Average United States yield per acre, 1907 bushels.. Average German yield per acre, 1907 do — Excess German yield per acre, 1907 do — Excess German yield per acre, 1907 per cent. . Average yield per acre prior to sugar-beet culture, as shown by following reports of American farmers bushels . . Average yield per acre by same after introducing sugar beets as a rotating crop bushels. . Excess yield per acre caused by rotating with sugar beets do — Increase in yield per acre - per cent. . Yield per acre in excess of United States 1907 average yield bushels.. Excess of United States 1907 average yield per cent. , Yield per acre in excess of German 1907 average yield bushels. Excess of German 1907 average yield per cent. AVheat. 15.8 30.5 14.7 93.0 26.9 43.6 16.7 42.5 27.8 176.0 13.1 43.0 Barley. 24.3 39.4 15.1 C2.0 32.7 58.4 25.7 78.6 34.1 140. 19.0 48.0 Oats. 30.3 59.1 28.8 95.0 40.2 69.1 28.9 71.8 38.8 127.0 10.0 16.0 INDIEECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTUEE. 17 Keports prom American Sugar-Beet Growers, Showing Increased Yield op Other Crops by Reason of Being Rotated with Sugar Beets. OHIO. We are well satisfied in raising other crops where we had beets before. We always raise better crops on our beet ground than on our other ground. We have had sugar beets four years and always find satisfaction. We started with 3 acres and this year 12 acres. We raised wheat, oats, barley, and corn. (Tony Bast, Graytown, R. F. D.,17.) We are now raising our sixth consecutive crop of sugar beets. When we planted the first seed we were told that the beets would wear out the soil; that the sugar com- pany were swindlers and would compel the farmers to pit the beets till winter; that jf the beets were frostbitten they would be worthless. We have yearly realized from |50 to 175 per acre for the beets and, moreover, with experience we are ready to state that we always grow one- third more oats or barley on ground where beets were raised the previous year than on ground that has raised no beets. (Jos. Shiple & Sons, Perrysburg.) MICHIGAN. I wish to say that I have grown sugar beets for the last three years and I can truth- fully say that the growing of sugar beets is a benefit to the soil if the crop is given proper rotation. I have received the best results by following the crop with a crop of oats. This season (1909) I thrashed from 5 acres of measured ground, which was in sugar beets last season, 270 bushels of oats, or an average of 54 bushels per acre. The balance of my oat crop which was on ground following a corn crop (equally as good soil) is yielding about 40 bushels per acre. Therefore I feel that I am justified in making this statement. (Alex. Larkins, Carleton.) I have raised beets for the last seven years and have averaged about 16 tons per acre. I also find that oats will do better on the ground where I raise beets than they will on other ground. This year the oats on my beet ground produced 75 bushels per acre, while the others only produced about 60 bushels per acre. (Sam Seizert, Blissfield.) In regard to beet culture, I wish to say that I have raised sugar beets for six years and consider it one of the most profitable crops that a farmer can raise. Not only because he gets the greater return for his labor, when they are properly cared for, but because the ground is left in the best possible condition for the next crop, for since raising sugar beets my land has been gradually increasing her yield per acre. The increase in yield of oats has been from 15 to 25 per cent, or from 40 or 45 to 55 bushels per acre, and on wheat the increase has been about the same. When I have raised beets two consecutive years on the same piece of ground and then sowed oats thejf were extra. We as farmers are satisfied that we get better crops since raising beets. (S. S. Teed, Middleton.) In regard to the condition of ground that beets have been grown on, will say that I have grown beets quite extensively and find that it is an improvement rather than a detriment to the soil. In 1901 1 grew 2 acres of beets; went about 18 tons per acre; followed with beets, besides adding 29 acres, making 31 acres for 1902, average yield, about llj tons. Out of 31 acres, 17 acres to beans following, yielding 14 bushels per acre. Same 12 acres to wheat yielding 37 bushels per acre, following with the biggest crop of hay ever cut in the neighborhood, and 5 acres of 17-acre bean ground went to oats the following spring, yielding 53 bushels besides one- third loss on account of being lodged, average for year in neighborhood being about 27 bushels. In 1904 had 2^ acres of beets, yielding about 9 tons, following with oats yielding 45 bushels per acre; average in neighborhood, about 30 bushels per acre. In 1905 had 40 acres of beets, 8 tons; following 8 acres to beets again, yielding about 10 tons second year; following next with oats yielding 51 bushels per acre. Balance of 40 acres, 12 acres went to beans; balance of 20 acres were sown to oats, yielding about 47 bushels per acre; following same with wheat, yielding about 28 bushels, when average in neigh- borhood was about 13 bushels. In 1906, had 14 acres to beets, about 10 tons yield, following same with 14 acres to oats, yielding about 47 bushels per acre; then to wheat, yielding 28 bushels per acre; average for wheat that year in neighborhood about 13 bushels per acre. In 1907 had 17 acres in beets, average about 11 tons. Of 17 acres 3 acres went to oats, and seeded 6 acres to beets again, yielding about the same, and balance of 17 acres, or 8 acres, went to oats, yielding 68 bushels per acre; then to wheat, yielding this year 38 bushels per acre, and good seeding in sight. In 1908 had 15 acres of beets, about 10 tons average yield; 12 acres now to oats with a prospect for S. Doc. 76, 62-1 2 18 INDIRECT BENEFITS OF SUGAR-BEET CULTURB. a bumper crop, and balance of 15 acres, or 3 acres, are to beets again tbis year. This year have 26 acres to beets with good prospect for 11 or 12 tons. This report was made and kept on one of my "eighties." On the other have grown in the last four seasons; including 13 acres this year, 71 acres, with about the same results in regard to follow- ing crops, although have no record of different fields and yield. (W. J. Davis,' Sunfield.) It gives me great pleasure in having a chance to show to my brother farmers the lit- tle I know about sugar beets placing the soil in a better mechanical condition for other grain crops than any other crop in the rotation. On a 6-acre lot of beets I harvested 11 tons per acre of beets. I followed the beets with barley and got 50 bushels per acre,' an increase of 50 per cent as compared with, crops raised by my neighbors and m-yself formerly. The above 6 acres was put to wheat after the barley and made 35 bushels per acre, and the stand of clover is good for sore eyes. I am more than satisfied with the beets, not alone for the money crop, but also the permanent good to the land. (W. L. Huber, Charlotte.) WISCONSIN. J. L. Walsh, of Beloit, reports that with a farm of which 400 acres are under cultiva- tion, the principal crops being cabbage, sugar beets, oats, onions, and clover, has gro'svn sugar beets for five years and has 75 acres of beets which, under normal condi- tions, yield 18 tons per acre. Follows a four-year rotation, including cabbages two years; beets one year, oats and clover. Follows sugar beets with grain and clover, then cabbages. Plows 7 inches deep, and disks and harrows until seed bed is perfect. Uses barnyard manure and commercial fertilizer. Hoes his beets twice and culti- vates with a horse seven or eight times. Raised 46 bushels of oats to the acre on a 37-acre field, which the following year was put to beets, and the following year har- vested 107 bushels of oats to the acre, while his yield from a 7-acre field of potatoes which before produced between 75 and 90 bushels, after beets increased to 225 bushels. He says: "I grew 150 acres of beets in 1907, and in 1908 the same land and 100 addi- tional acres to beets on the same farm. In 1909 the whole was sown to oats and pro- duced 87 bushels per acre." In reply to your letter concerning the number of bushels of grain raised on sugar- beet ground, will say that from 11 acres of sugar-beet ground I raised 783 bushels of oats this year (71 bushels per acre), and tiiat was all the oats I had sowed this year. The other farms joining mine only had a yield of between 30 to 40 bushels. Mr, Stieneke, one of my neighbors, raised over 75 bushels of oats to the acre on sugar-beet land. (Dell Tuttle, Ripon.) For the past seven years I have had from 2 acres to 30 acres of beets — sugar beets — on this farm. I always have found sugar-beet land the best for small grain, oats and barley and clover and timothy, of any land; much better than corn land. I find a crop of sugar beets well cared for, pays as good as any crop at high prices, and the best crop to clear the land of all foul weeds, including quack and Canada thistle. On a 15-acre lot where sugar beets were raised last year, 1908, I thrashed and sold 600 bushels of barley (40 bushels per acre) which graded 47 pounds per bushel. Thirty bushels barley per acre is a good crop here. On an 18-acre lot where 11 acres sugar beets and 6 acres cucumbers and 1 acre com were raised last year, 1908, I thrashed 1,000 bushels oats. On the cucumber land the oats were weedy, rusty, and lodged very green, which made a good 60 bushels of oats per acre on the sugar-beet land. Forty to 50 bushels of oats per acre is a good crop here. (R. M. Sherwood, Ripon.) IOWA. In 1908 I grew 3 acres of sugar beets for the Iowa Sugar Co., receiving 12 tons per acre. In 1909 I planted the same ground to corn. Adjoining the 3 acres of beets I broke up some new land and planted it to corn. During the growing season the com on the new land stood taller than the corn on the beet ground. When I husked the com this fall, the yield from the beet ground was 70 bushels per acre, and the yield from the new ground was 60 bushels per acre. In my estimation, beets do not hurt the ground, but improve it for the next crop. (C. Grimm, Cresco.) Followed beets with oats, 1909, 20-acre field. Field seeded to clover and hay taken off the year before the beets. Beets went from 12 to 13 tons per acre. Oats thrashed out 65 bushels per acre and weighed out 70 bushels per acre, average for 20 acrea, the champion yield in Iowa for 1909. (Leonard Miller, Waverly.) E. H. MaUory, of Hampton, has a 200-acre farm and has 44 acres in beets, which have increased his yield of com from 50 bushels to 60 bushels, and oats averaging from 20 to 30 bushels have increased to 50 bushels. HJTDIEECT BENEFITS OF SIJGAE-BEET CULTURE. 19 KANSAS. A. R. Downing, of Deerfield, reports a field of alfalfa plowed up several years ago and put to wheat, yielding 45 bushels per acre. The field was then planted to beeta three years in succession and was then followed by oats, yielding 73 bushels per acre. The oats were followed by wheat, which gave a yield of 53 bushels per acre. Mr. CarlCoerber, of Deerfield, plowed up a field of alfalfa and put it in wheat, which gave an average yield of 35 bushels per acre. This was followed by beets for two years, then oats one year, and wheat following the oats gave a yield of 45 bushels per acre. NEBRASKA. James R. White, of Hershey, route 1, reports that he farms 210 acres. Principal crops alfalfa, beets, corn, and oats. Has grown sugar beets for five years. Has 15 acres in beets, which usually yield 14 tons to the acre. Plows 9 to 10 inches deep. Harrows four times. Fertilizes with barnyard manure. Hoes twice and cultivates six times. A 15-acre field of oats prior to beet culture yielded 35 bushels to the acre; after being in beets two years, yielded 50 bushels to the acre. A 30-acre field of alfalfa, which yielded 4 tons to the acre prior to beet culture, yielded 6 tons to the acre after having been planted to beets three years. S. E. Solomon, of Culbertson, reports that he has a 1,000-acre sandy-loam farm; with 800 acres under cultivation to wheat, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, and alfalfa. Has 300 acres in sugar beets; has grown beets for eight years, and averages 10 tons per acre. He says: "Never practiced sj^stem of rotation; am not following a system, but should do so. Depth of plowing, 6 inches; should be 12; use no fertilizer. Am not employing any system of fertilization or rotation. Hand hoe beets one or two times; horse cultivate two or three times. Am positive that rotation and fertilization would double average yields. _ The most slipshod methods are employed in growing beets in this section. What is needed is deep plowing, careful rotation, and use of barnyard manures. Have- had enough experience to fully demonstrate this." [Frank, but foolish.] COLORADO. Lee Kelim, of Loveland, a large landowner, formerly the owner of the Loveland mill, and who has operated thrashing machines in that vicinity for 25 years, says that previ- ous to the starting of beet growing, 20 to 25 bushels of wheat was considered a large crop, and that out of this they would screen 15 to 20 pounds of wild oats. Now 40 to 50 bushels is considered an average crop, and he feels safe in saying that in the Loveland district the introduction of beets into the crop rotation has increased the yield of grain 100 per cent, and has cleaned the country of the wild oats pest. J. L. Sybrandt, of Berthoud, reports that he has a 360-acre farm, of which 290 acres are under cultivation to wheat, oats, alfalfa, barley, potatoes, and 68 acres to sugar beets, which average 12 tons per acre and which he rotates with other crops every three to five years, and fertilizes his ground with sheep manure. He has grown beets for four years and has increased his wheat yield of 20 to 30 bushels to 56 bushels per acre, and his barley yield from 30 to 40 bushels to 65 bushels per acre. David Snider, of Platteville, reports that he has a 2,000-acre farm, of which he culti- vates 1,200 acres to alfalfa, wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, and sugar beets, of which he had in 400 acres. Has grown sugar beets for six years, secured a yield of 13^ to 18 tons per acre and rotates them with other crops, following them with wheat or barley. Plows his land 10 inches deep. Has increased his wheat yield from 30 to 35 bushels to 35 to 50 bushels per acre; his oats from 20 to 25 bushels to 60 to 75 bushels; his bar- ley from 25 to 30 bushels to 70 to 85 bushels; and his potatoes from a nominal yield to 200 sacks per acre. The Taylor-Fuller Mercantile Co., of Avondale, report that they have been farming for 14 years, operating a 120-acre farm, of which 100 acres are in cultivation. They have grown sugar beets for eight years and average 14 tons to the acre, rotating beets with other crops. By rotating with beets they have increased their wheat yield from 25 to 40 bushels per acre; oats from 30 to 50 bushels; beans from 12 to 18 bushels; and hay from 3 to 4 tons per acre. They say : ' ' Before the introduction of sugar-beet raising farming was conducted in a very loose way, and as it is impossible to raise sugar beets at a profit without employing the best farming methods, it has made better farmers, and they have found the same pay with any crop. For some reason grain and in fact all other crops do well following beets, although the land may be worn out for sugar beets." [Note. — In this section it has been customary to follow the "gravel-pit'! method of farming, and grow beets on the same soil year after year without rotation," with the inevitable result that the land finally refuses to produce a paying crop of 20 IXDIEECT BENEFITS OP SUGAK-BEET CULTURE* beets until it has been rested from this crop. As well try to eat a quail every day for a month as to try to farm in this manner. In both cases, nature rebels.] J. Reimer, of Pueblo, reports that he has been farming in that section 14 years and has 50 acres in cultivation, of which 13 acres are in beets. Has grown beets 5 years and averages 14 tons per acre. Plows 10 inches deep, harrows four times, hand hoea three times, horse cultivates four times, fertilizes with stable manure. Rotation with sugar beets has increased his corn yield from 20 to 30 bushels per acre; oats from 40 to 65 bushels; rye, no increase from 40 bushels; beans from 15 to 20 bushels; and no increase in his alfalfa crop of 5 tons per acre. MONTANA. John B. Clewett, of Promberg, reports that he is operating a 425-acre farm, with 150 acres under cultivation, 60 being to beets; secured yield of 15 tons of beets per acre. A tract of 22 acres which yielded 27 bushels of wheat per acre prior to beet culture was put into beets for three consecutive years, when it yielded 45 bushels of wheat per acre. His oat crop increased from 60 bushels to 80 bushels under like conditions. He says: "Beet cultivation is a good thing for the character of soil in this district, aa it seems to fertilize and increase the production of grain two or three seasons after rotation.'' UTAH. W. T. Wyment, Warren, Weber County, reports 10 acres to beets. Previous to raising beets this land produced 25 bushels of wheat to the acre. Beets were grown on the land for three years, after which it was planted in wheat again, producing 45 bushels to the acre, an increase of 20 .bushels to the acre. J. F. Stoddard, Hooper, Weber County, reports 5 acres to beets. Previous to grow- ing beets the land produced 35 bushels of barley to the acre. Beets were grown on this land for four successive years, after which the land was planted to barley again and produced 55 bushels to the acre, an increase of 20 bushels to the acre. Thomas Jones, Hooper, Weber County, rejoorts 10 acres to beets. Previous to plant- ing of beets, this land produced 20 bushels of wheat to the acre. After growing beeta for three successive years it was again planted in wheat and produced 55 bushels to the acre, an increase of 15 bushels per acre. George A. Pincock, of Sugar City, reports that he has grown sugar beets for five years and has 50 acres in beets, averaging 15 tons per acre. Prior to beet culture, hia wheat yielded 25 to 30 bushels; following beets, 50 to 60 bushels. Oats, prior to beets, 40 to 46 bushels; following beets, 75 to 100 bushels. Barley, prior to beets, 40 to 60 bushels; following beets, 75 to 100 bushels. He says: "I see these yields prevailing wherever beets have been raised." WASHINGTON. James Hays, of Waverly, reports a yield of 80 bushels of oats after spring plowing, and 100 bushels following beets; of wheat, after spring plowing, 40 bushels, and 50 bushels after beets, this being the average during a period of several years. F. Kienbaum, of Waverly, reports his oat yield at 60 bushels after spring plowing,' and 90 bushels on beet land; wheat, 30 bushels after spring plowing, and 50 bushels on beet land. A. D. Thayer, of Waverly, reports yield of 45 bushels of oats after spring plowing,- and 100 buslaels on his beet land; wheat, 35 bushels after summer fallow, and 45 bushels after beets. William Connolly, of Waverly, reports yield of 75 bushels of oats after spring plow- ing, and 85 to 95 bushels after beets; wheat, 40 bushels after summer fallow, and 50 bushels follo->ving beets. CALIFORNIA. D. J. Miu-phy, of Chico, superintendent of the heirs of James Phelan, operating an 8,000-acre farm with 3,000 acres under cultivation, has grown sugar beets for five years and has 600 acres to beets. Secures yield of 12 to 20 tons and practices a rota- tion system consisting of wheat, followed by barley, then pasture of voluntary wheat or barley, followed by sugar beets. Plows 12 inches deep. Reports an increase in yield of wheat, due to sugar-beet rotation, from 10 to 12 bags of 138 pounds each (23 to 27^ bushels) to 15 bags of 140 pounds each (35 bushels); of barley, from 16 bags of 108 pounds each (36 bushels) to 24 bags of 108 pounds each (54 bushels). INDIEECT BENEFITS OE SUGAE-BEET CULTUEE. 21 First Deceee of Napoleon Providing i'or the Encouragement oe the Beet- Sugar Industry. Palace of the Tuileries, March 23, 1811. Napoleon, Emperor of the French, etc. Upon a report of a commission appointed to examine the means proposed to natu- ralize, upon the continent of om* Empire, sugar, indigo, cotton, and divers other productions of the two Indies; Upon presentation made to us of a considerable quantity of beet-root sugar refined, crystallized, and possessing all the properties of cane sugar; Upon presentation made to us at the council of commerce of a great quantity of indigo extracted from the plant woad, which our Departments of the south produce in abundance, and which indigo has all the properties of the indigo of the two Indies; Having reason to expect that by means of these two precious discoveries our Empire will shortly be relieved from an exportation of 100,000,000 francs hitherto necessary for supplying the consumption of sugar and indigo; We have decreed and do decree as follows: Article 1. Plantations of beet root proper for the manufacture of sugar shall be formed in our Empire to the extent of 32,000 hectares (79,040 acres). Art. 2. Our minister of the interior shall distribute 32,000 hectares among the Departments of our Empire, taking into consideration those Departments where the culture of tobacco may be established and those which from the nature of the soil may be more favorable to the culture of the beet root. Art. 3. Om' prefects shall take measure that the number of hectares allotted to their respective Departments shall be in full cultivation this year, or next year at the latest. Art. 4. A certain number of hectares shall be laid out in our Empire in plantations of w^oad proper to the manufacture of indigo in the proportion necessary for our manufacture. ' Art. 5. Our minister of the interior shall distribute the said number among the Departments beyond the Alps and those of the south, where this branch of industry formerly made great progress. Art. 6. Our prefects shall take measure that the number of hectares allotted to their Departments shall be in full cultivation next year at the latest. Art. 7. The commission shall, before the 4th of May, fix upon the most conven- ient places for the establishment of six experimental schools for giving instruction in the manufacture of beet-root sugar conformably to the processes of chemists. Art. 8. The commission shall also, before the same date, fix upon the places most convenient for the establishment of four experimental schools for giving instruction upon the extraction of indigo from the leaves of woad according to the processes approved by the commission. Art. 9. Our minister of the interior shall make known to the prefects in what places these schools shall be formed and to which pupils destined to this manufacture should be sent. Proprietors and farmers who may wish to attend a com'se of lectures in the said experimental schools shall be admitted thereto. Art. 10. Messrs. Barruel and Isnard, who have brought to perfection. the processes for extracting sugar from the beet root, shall be specially charged with the direction of two of the six experimental schools. Art. 11. Our minister of the interior shall, in consequence, cause to be paid the Bum necessary for the formation of the said establishments, which sum shall be charged to the fund of 1,000,000 francs ($200,000) in the budget of 1811 at the disposal of the said minister for the encouragement of beet-root sugar and woad indigo. Art. 12. From the 1st of January, 1813, and upon a report to be macle to our minister of the interior, the sugar and indigo of the two Indies shall be prohibited and con- sidered as merchandise of English manufacture or proceeding from English commerce. Art. 13. Our minister of the interior is charged with the execution of the present decree. Decree op Napoleon, January 15, 1812. Section 1.— School for manufacture ofleet-root sugar. Article 1. The factory of Messrs. Barruel & Chappelet, plain of Vertus, and those established at Wachenheim, Department of Mont-Tonnere, at Douai, (Strasbourg, and at Castelnaudary are established as special schools for the manufacture of beet-root BUgar. 22 INDIRECT BENEFITS OP SUGAR-BEET CULTURE. Art. 2. One hundred students shall be attached to these schools, viz, 40 at that of Messrs. Barruel & Chappelet, and 15 at each of those at Wachenheim, Douai, Stras- bourg, and Castelnaudary ; total, 100. Art. 3. These students shall be selected from among students in medicine, phar- macy, and chemistry. Section II. — Culture of beets. Art. 4. Our minister of the interior shall take measure to cause to be sown through- out our Empire 100,000 metrical arpents (150,000 acres) of beets. The conditions of the distribution of the culture shall be printed and sent to the prefects previous to February 15. Section III. — Manufacture. Art. 5. There shall be accorded throughout our entire Empire 500 licenses for the iju.,nufacture of beet-root sugar. Art. 6. These licenses shall be accorded of preference-^ To all proprietors of factories or refineries. To all who have manufactured sugar during 1811. To all who have made preparations and expenditures for the establishment of factories for work in 1812. Art. 7. Of these licenses shall be accorded of right, one to each Department. Art. 8. Prefects shall write to all proprietors of refineries, in order that they may make their submissions for the establishment of the said factories at the close of 1812. In default on the part of proprietors of refineries to have made their submissions prior to March 15, or at the latest April 15, they shall be considered as having renounced the preference accorded them. Art. 9. Licenses shall include an obligation on the part of those who shall obtain them to establish a factory capable of producing at least 10,000 kilograms (22,000 pounds) of raw sugar in 1812-13. Art. 10. Each individual who, having secured a license, shall have actually man- ufactured nearly 10,000 kilograms of raw sugar resulting from the crop of 1812 to 1813, shall have the privilege and assurance, by way of encouragement, of being subject to no tax, or octroi, upon the product of his manufacture for the space of four years. Art. 11. Each individual who shall perfect the manufacture of sugar in such a manner as to obtain a larger quantity from the beet, or who shall invent a more simple and economical method of manufacture, shall obtain a license for a longer time, with the assurance that no duty nor octroi shall be placed upon the product of his manu- facture during the continuance of his license. Section IV. — Creation of four imperial factories. Art. 12. Four imperial beet-sugar factories shall be established in 1812 under the care of our minister of the interior. Art. 13. These factories shall be so arranged as to produce with the crop of 1812 to 1813, 2,000,000 kilograms (4,409,200 pounds) of raw sugar. o XJLUKA^KY of Nicht einzelm Im Buchhandel kdufiich! JkLA>«'*f><:'']%Tis;*»f hk JAN £71912 Abdruck > aus dem CENTRALBLATT fur Bakteriolop, Parasilenknnile M Infeklionskrankheilen Zweite Abteilung: Allgemeine, landwirtschaftlich-technologische Bakteriologie, Garungsphysiologie, Pflanzenpatholog ie und Pflanzenschutz. In Verbindung mit Prof. Dr. Adametz in Wien, Prof. Dr. J. Behrens, Direktor der biologischen Anstalt zu Dahlen-Berlin, Prof. Dr. M. W. Beijerinck in Delft, Geh. Reg.-Rat Prof. Dr. Delbruck in Berlin, Prof. Dr. Lindau in Berlin, Prof. Dr. Lindner in Berlin, Prof. Dr. MiUler-Thurgau in Wadensweil, Prof. Dr. M. C. Potter, Durham College of Science, New-castle-upon-T5^ne, Prof. Dr. Samuel C. Prescott in Boston, Dr. Erwin F. Smith in Washington, D. C, U. S. A., Prof. Dr. Stutzer in Konigsberg i. Pr., Prof. Dr. Van Laer in Gand, Prof. Dr. Wehmer in Hannover, Prof. Dr. Weigmann in Kiel und Prof. Dr. Winogradsky in St. Petersburg herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. O. Uhlw^orm in Berlin W. 15, Hohenzollerndamm4lI. und Prof. Dr. Emil Chr. Hansen in Kopenhagen. XXIII. Band, 1909. Verlag von Gustav Fischer in Jena.