Kilgore, B. W.

English

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository

Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Bulletins Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) 2-15-1898 Natural plant food, claims made for it and its value B. W. Kilgore Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins Recommended Citation Kilgore, B. W., "Natural plant food, claims made for it and its value" (1898). Bulletins. 601. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins/601 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact scholcomm@msstate.libanswers.com. EXPERIMENT STfiTION,Special Bulletin No. 43."Natural Plant Food;" ClaimsMade for It and Its Value.flgricultural College, Miss.. Feb, 15, 1898.OFFICERS OF THE STATIONTRUSTEES.His Ex. A. J. McLAT^RIN. Hon. W. B. MONTGOMERY,Ex-Officio Pf^ksidext. Starkvilt-eHon. H. M. STREET .Meridian. Maj. T. C. DOCKERY. Love's StaHon. R. C. LEE. ..Madison Sta. Gen. .T. H. SHARP PennHon. J. F. McCORMICK. .Biloxi. Maj. W. H. ]MORGAN..Shep'dt"nDr. GEO. H. PEETS.WooDvii.T.E. Hon. A. A. KINCANNON. . Jack.Dr. J. B. BAILEY.. CoNEHATTA.GOVERNING BOARD.Gen. S. D. LEE Prest. A. & M. CollegeHon. W. B. MONTGOMERY Local Trustee A. & M. CollegeW. L. HUTCHINSON Director Experiment StationWORKING FORCE.W. L. HUTCHINSON, M. S Director and ChemistE. R. LLOYD, M. S Agriculturist and Assistant DirectorG. W. HERRICK, M. S Botanist and EntomologistA. B. McKAY, B. S HorticulturistJ. C. ROBERT, V. M. D VeterinarianW. R. PERKINS. M. S Associate ChemistE. B. FERRIS, M. S Assistant ChemistJ. S. MOORE, M. S Assistant Botanist and MeteorologistC. T. AMES. B. S Assistant HorticulturistR. C. KING, B. S TreasuresSTAFF OF STATE CHEMIST.B. W. KILCiORE. State Chemist. W. F. HAND . . . Ass't. ChemistE. W. MAGRUDER, Ass'T. Chemist. J. S. CARROLL, Ass*t. ChemistNote.—Th(^ analysis and inspfictioii of comraorcial fertilizers is bylaw (lone by the Professor of Chemistry in theCollej^e, wiio is th(! StateChemist. The results being considered of agricultural vahn^ are .sentout by the Experiment Station. All communications in regard to theseBulletines or anal vses should be addressed to State Chemist.Mississippi Fertilizer Control.UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THECHEMICAL DEPARTMENT OF THEMISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICALCOLLEGE.''NflTURftTT^ftNT FOODfClaims Made for It, and Its Value.By B. \v^. KILQORE, State Chemist.SUMMARY:A fertilizer material under the name of ''Natural PlantFood"' was sold in 1 ae State last season. It was claimedto be the "Best Feralizer on Earth.'" and as a germinatorof seed it was decla 'ed to have no equal. Great stress waslaid on the statement that it was a natural product, andbecause of this was better than any fertilizer that could bemade by man.All the plant food in this material was claimed to beavailable, whereas i.nalyses in the Laboratory showed itto contain very little available phosphoric acid, 34.2pounds in a ton of 2.000 pounds, worth at present pricesabout !^1.50. The phosphoric acid is the only fertilizerconstituent of agri( ultural value in this material.In experiments by farmers "Natural Plant Food*' gaveno apparent increase of crops. Laboratory analyses andtield experiments agree in showing this material to havelittle or no agricultural value."Nacural Plant Food" is a low grade natural phosphateof too poor a quality to be used in the manufacture of acidphosphates or other fertilizers.It was sold to farmers for from $11 to $17 per ton,whereas it has practically no agricultural value and couldbe bought at the mines for $2 to $3 per ton. The moneyspent for it Avas thrown away.Farmers should apply to this department for informa-tion about fertilizers of questionable yalue before purchas-ing them.f5|INTRODUCTION.During the past season (1897) several car loads of fertil-izing material were sold in the State at different points bythe American Fertilizer Company of Washington, D. C,under the name of " Natural Plant F'ood."' This companymade very extravasfant claims for its fertilizer. The statements regarding the analysis and value of the materialare ingenious and misleading, in fact, their method of ad-vertising and sale had so many of the ear marks commonto the well-known patent medic"ne methods that no sur-prise was caused when later in the season it was learnedthat the people selling the "Chefbpest and Best Fertilizerson Earth," as they were pleased to call them, had also amonopoly of the "Best and Cheapest Family Medicine onEarth.""THE CHEAPEST AND BEST FE [UTILIZERS ON EARTH."The following is a fair illustration of the method of ad-vertising and the claims made for the fertilizers:"Every intelligent farmer knows that fertilizer is thebest which can soonest start the seed to growing and causethe largest, number of seeds to sprout and grow, out ofthe whole number planted. This, the Natural Plant Foodhas done in every case. The Natural Plant Food makesmore seed grow, out of the whole number planted, thanany other fertilizer on earth. It makes the seed comeup much earlier and faster, grow more vigorously, with-stand a drouth much longer aud finally produce a muchbetter crop than any other fertilizer yet known, as hasbeen fully demonstrated and proven beyond all manner ofdoubt by tens of thousands of witnesses, to its marvelousgerminating and forcing powers. This all goes to sliowthat a natural fertilizer is of vastly more benefit to the soil[6]than an artificial imitation; for, after all, a chemical or ar-tificial fertilizer is simply an attempt in an artificial man-ner, to supply the crops with a chemical mixture which issimply an imitation of a first-class natural fertilizer; sure-ly the Almighty is a better chemist than the human racehas yet produced and better knows the need of all grow-ing things."How high sounding and beautiful all this is—on paper!It is calculated to carry one beyond his element in admira-tion of nature and natural products because they are nat-ural and no^ imitations.Like unto the above, on a letterhead, with address, agen-cies, and other marks so similar that no one would mistakethe source being the same as that from which the fertilizerliterature came, is the advertisement of the•'BEST AND CHEAPEST FAMILY MEDICINE ON EARTH.''The following is an extract from the postscript of a cir-cular letter seat to an agent, who sold " Natural PlantFood:""Although our medicines are the hes'^ on earth, they costour customers less than one-half the isual price of othermedicines, and are in such great dem md that our agentsrealize for their service two or three times as much moneyas they could make in handling any other line of goods."Ours is truly the greatest discovery ever made in themedical line. We are the sole proprietors of these medi-cines and the exclusive agency for th( m should soon ena-ble you with our help, to control tht; medicine trade inyour teritory."It seems unfair, from a material po nt of view, that onecompany should be the possessor not only of the best rem-edy for the ails to which human flesl is heir, but also ofthe "Best Fertilizer on Earth," for the germination ofseed and the growth of plants.[7]CHARACTER OF BUSINESS DONE BY THE COMPANY SELL-ING "NATURAL PLANT FOOD."Notwithstanding the confident claims made by the Amer-ican Fertilizer Company for its "Natural Plant Pood," itseemed disposed not to want it pi t on sale in the State onthe same basis as other fertilizei'S sold, but manifested adisposition to evade the fertilizer law and to prevent theinspection, analysis, and tag'g'ing- of theii* goods.MISLEADING ANALYSIS OF "NATURAL PLANT FOOD."Three grades of "Natural Plar t Pood" are sold by theAmerican Fertilizer Company, Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The anal-yses of Nos. 1 and 2 as published by the Company aregiven below:Moisture (H20)Total Piiosphoric Acid (P205)Eq. to Bone Phosphate of Lime (P02C.\3). .Oxide of Lime (CaO)Oxide of Sodium (Na20)Carbonic Anhydrite (C02)Silicic Anhydrite (Si02) Sol. in Chloridic AcidSilicic Anhydrite (Si02), InsolOxide of Magnesia (MgO)Aluminic (AL203) and Perric (Pe203) OxidesTotal Potash Insoluble (K20)Undetermined ResidueTotalNo. 1PerCent.1.7818.0039.2429.161.3249.74No. 2PerCent.1.7821.6047.1529.161.32.409.779.114.625.141.0016.10100.00 100.00"ALL PLANT FOOD AVAILABLE TO PLANTS IN THE SOIL."The above analyses are misleading:1st. In that they imply that materials like silica, mag-[8]nesia, carbonic acid, etc., have commercial values in fer-tilizers, whereas all our soils contain sufficient quantitiesfor the use of plants, and they do not have values as-signed to them as do nitrogen, i^hosplioric acid, and j^otash.These latter constituents are the only ones to which val-ues are assigned in fertilizers, and it would appear thatthe other materials are added to cause the farmer to be-lieve that they have money values too.2d. The total phosphoric acid is stated to be qual to somuch bojie pliospliate of lirrie. This statement implies thatthe phosphoric acid in "Natural - Plant Food" is of equalvalue in agriculture to that contained in bones, whereas itis well known that the phosphoric acid in phosphate rock,as this is, is not of equal agricultural value to that inbones.3d. The statement that is under the guaranteed analyses"All Plant Food Available to Plants in the Soil" is en-tirely misleading and a misrepresentation, since experi-ments with this fertilizer and analyses in this laboratoryshow that the plant food in it is not available.ANALYSES OF NATURAL PLANT FOOD."Five samples of "Natural Plant Food No. 1" have beenanalyzed in this laboratory with the results shown in thetable:Sample Number and Source.Pounds Phosphoric Acid in100 of Natural Plant Food.Sand andInsol. mat-ter in 100lbs.,N.P.F.Availa-ble.Insolu-ble.Total.No. 1, E. D. Gilmore,No. 2, E. H. Reed,1.821.202.1116. 3C20. If22 . 2'(18.1821.3624.3818.2622 . 2420.8824.3825.27No. 4, J. D. Hopper,*No. 5, American Fertilizer Co.,1.71 19. G( 24.82*This sample was sent from Fernandina, Fla.[9]Prom these analyses it is seen that the samples con-tained an average of only 1.71 per cent of available phos-phoi'ic acid, or oJf..2 poajids in a ton, which at 4;} cents perpound—the present value given to available phosphoricacid in fertilizers—would make "Natural Plant Pood No.1" worth ^^^1.54 per ton.FARMER'S OPINIONS OF "NATURAL PLANT FOOD."Several farmers who used "Natural Plant Pood" lastyear were so disappointed in the yields of their crops thatthey w^rote to this department in regard to it. A repre-sentative of this department visited a number of placeswhere the material was sold and from the testimonialsthus collected and those obtained by letter, the followingopinions are condensed as to the effect of "Natural PlantPood" in the growth of crops.OPINIONS.,Mr. E. II. Reed, Reform, Choctaoi County:Used 1,400 pounds on cotton and corn, at the rate of 150to 200 pounds per acre. Used no other fertilizer, but leftplots without fertilizer and could tell no difference betweenthe unfertilized and that fertilized with "Natural PlantPood."Mr. Sam G. Kelly, Reform:Used 2,600 pounds on cotton and corn on bottom andhill land; left rows blank in bottom and could tell no dif-ference. On hill it was used with stable and chip manurewithout any result from "Natural Plant Pood." The othermanure showed increase.Mr. H. T. Brock, Reform:Used 800 pounds on cotton and corn.On cotton used about 200 pounds to acre on poor up-land and could see no improvement.Corn.—Used 300 pounds to acre on poor upland between[10]a plot manured with rakings from the lot at the rate of ahalf shovel to the hill and one manured with cotton seedat the rate of about fifteen bushels to the acre. The lotmanure produced twice as good corn as the "Natural PlantFood" plot on which the corn was hardly worth gather-ing. The cotton seed plot also did better than the NaturalPlant Pood; but it was planted later and was caught bydrought.Mr J. E. NorrU, Reform:Used 600 pounds Natural Plant Pood on cotton, whichgave no improvement, though with stable manure therewas a good increase of crop.Corn.—Left some vacant plots and could not tell the dif -ference between those and the Natural Plant Food ones.Mrs. Mary Oiitzs, Mathiston, Webster Gouuty:Used several hundred pounds on cotton, corn, and vege-tables. Could see no improvement in any case. On cot-'ton it was used in alternate rows in comparison with sta-ble manure and the difference in favor of the stable man-ure was so perceptible that passers along the road re-marked on it.Mr. Luke Devore, Mathiston:Cotton.—(Used three sacks.) Used between stable manureand nothing. Could easily tell the row at which the stablemanure stopped, but could tell absolutely no dilference be-tween nothing and Natural Plant Food.Corn.—Used as above with stable manure and nothing.The stable manure made real good corn with heavy ears,while nothing and the Natural Plant Food produced onlyscrubby stalks with inferior nubbins. On this same landin 1892 a very heavy crop was raised by using fertilizermade by East Mississippi Fertilizer Company.Mr. James BeacJiam, Evergreen, Itaioamba County:Used 2,000 pounds mostly on corn at rate of 200 poundsper acre, drilled in furrow with corn while planting; left[11]vacant plot and used some other commercial fertilizer(Home Mixture); could tell no difference between nothin«^and "Natural Plant Pood," while the other fertilizersi>-ave very marked increase of crop. Soil was poor sandyupland on which 200 pounds of good commercial fertilizerwill almost double crop any average year.Natural Plant Pood was also used on potatoes and tur-nips, and was unable to see any improvement.Mr J. W. Mull in, Eocrf/reen:Used 8,000 pounds at a cost of per ton when othergood fertilizer would have cost |18. It was applied indrill before bedding at rate of 200 pounds per acre.Corn.—Tested with cotton seed and nothing; could seeno difference between Natural Plant Pood and nothing,while cotton seed made big improvement.Cotton.—Tested beside stable manure, which gave verymuch better results.Vegetables.—Used on several kinds of vegetables andcould see no improvement. The land is a sandy loam up-land which usually responds most readily to a completefertilizer.Mr. J. B. Burgess, Nettleton, Lee County:Used 3,000 pounds at the rate of 200 pounds per acre oncotton and corn; also used other complete commercial fer-tilizer; and could tell no difference between Natural PlantPood and nothing, while the other fertilizer increased thecrop to about double.The land was sandy upland and fertilizers were drilledin before bedding.Mr. T. S. Mullin, Evergreen:Used 600 pounds on ordinary sandy upland and could seeno improvement in the crop,Mr. J. F. Fears, Bristoto, Monroe County:Used 175 pounds at rate of 200 pounds per acre on yel-low clay upland and could tell no difference from it and[12]nothing, while home made fertihzer gave good results.Complete fertilizers usually give good returns on this soil,Mr. J. M. Kellum, Dido, Choctaw County:Used 1,600 pounds on corn and cotton on upland andbottom at rate of 100, 150, and 200 pounds per acre appliedbefore and after planting. Cotton seed, stable, and penmanure were used in comparison, and gave good results,though the Natural Plant Food did not seem to pay.Mr. J. E. Bright, Amonj, MonroQ Covnty:Used 200 pounds at rate of 150 pounds per acre on clayland, applied in drill when bedding.Left no vacant plot, but esthnates that Natural PlantFood increased crop about one-third, but only about halfas much as stable manure. Natural Plant Food cotton wasconsiderably behind in weed and fruit, and did not givesatisfaction.Mr. J. E. Hopper, TijmrsviUe, Miss,:Used 2,000 pounds on sandy loam soil. The fertilizerwas applied in furrow and bedded on. The yield where"Natural Plant Food" was used w^as no better tlian wherenothing was applied, while a complete fertilizer (Gossy-pium) about doubled the yield on the same land. Mr. Hop-per states that a car load was used in his section withoutany returns.From these opinions and from the analyses made in thelaboratory it is seen that "Natural Plant Food" has verylittle if any agricultural value in immediately increasingthe growth of crops.WHAT IS "NATURAL PLANT FOOD.""Natural Plant Food" No. 1, analyses of which are pre-sented in this bulletin, is unquestionably a low grade nat-ural phosphate, likely Florida soft phosphate. It is toopoor a quality to be used in the manufacture of acid phos-phate and other fertilizers, and for this reason is put on|13|the market as a natural product. The phosphoric acid—this is the only plant food of money vahie in it—in thisphosphate is in the insoluble form and there is not enoughpresent to justify manufacturers to treat it with acid torender the phosphoric acid available to plants.It is to be noted that while the main ofltice of the Amer-ican Fertilizer Company is in Washington, D. C, the sam-ple sent to this laboratory for analysis came from Fer-nandina, Fla.VALUE OF ''NATURAL PLANT FOOD?"As has been seen from the analyses and from the exper-iments of farmers, '-Natural Plant Food" has very little,if any a^jfricultural value or crop produciiui power, and farm-ers should judge it solely from this standpoint. It has acommercial value of from ^2 to $3 per ton at the mines,that is, it costs that much to get it out. This material wassold to farmers in this State last year for from %1\ to Jf>15for No. 1. and 55^14 to %Vl for No. 2, when good completefertilizers could have been obtained for 816 to |18. Themoney spent for this material w^as thrown away. Numer-ous experiments have been made with natural—untreated—phosphates and Florida soft phosphate, and the resultsliave shown, to state it mildly, that these phosphates arer 3markably inferior to acid phosphate in crop producingpower, and on most soils have given no immediate returnsiu increased crops.WARNING TO FARMERS.So far as "Natural Plant Food" and the American Fer-tilizer Company are concerned, we scarcely feel it neces-sary to hav^e sent out the foregoing statement as we be-lieve no more business will be done by this company inthis material—certainly not in the sections where "NaturalPlant Food" was tried last season. The company may,however, attempt to do business in some nook or corner of[14]the State where the character of their goods is not known,and wliere the question of fertilizers is not well under-stood. .Then, too, fertilizers and fertilizing materials ofquestionable character, patent formulas for making cropsgrow, and such things will make their appearance on themarket now and then, and it is with the two fold view ofmaking the statement about "Natural Plant Pood," andof warning farmers against buying fertilizers of question-able character and value that this bulletin is sent out.There is always a plentiful supply of good fertilizers onsale in the State. It is the duty of this department to pro-tect the buyers of fertilizers in ^the character of goods of-fered for sale. Oar bulletins, containing information andanalyses of fertilizers on sale, will be sent free to any per-son requesting theui. In addition to the bulletins infor-mation by letter will be given about any fei'tilizer or fertil-izing material that may be inquired about.

Natural plant food, claims made for it and its value

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=mafes-bulletins

Natural plant food, claims made for it and its value

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository