Newspapers / The Carolina Union Farmer … / April 18, 1912, edition 1 / Page 4
Part of The Carolina Union Farmer (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
^ ■ , • i Page Pour THE CAROLINA UNION PARMER [Thursday, April 18, 1912. Thomas Phosphate vs. Acid Phosphate. To the Editor;—Some time ago, in my regular course of business, I re ceived a letter on the above subject from a State agent of a Southern company who are importers of Thomas phosphate. Some state ments in this letter seemed to me so remarkable and extravagant, and having no means of obtaining expert information, I referred the matter to Mr. C. L. Newman, Professor of Agri culture of A. & M. College. His reply is also interesting. Thinking the North Carolina farmers would like to have this information, and wishing to do all the good I may, I herewith pass it along: The agent says; “As to the differ ence in acid phosphate and Thomas phosphate, I must say from actual ex perience with both that I would not haul acid phosphate from the depot to my farm if the company would give it to me. Acid phosphate robs the soil of lime, sets up an acid con dition, creates destructive bacteria, allows the phosphorous in the phos phate rock to revert back into di- calcinm and become insoluble. Now, when all this is done, what do you think happens when my corn, wheat and cotton demand phosphorous? Thomas phosphate does not revert. It does not rob our soils of lime. It furnishes lime. It increases the bac terial life of nitrate-forming bacteria, etc., etc. No comparison between the two.” The following is Professor New man’s reply: “I am very much surprised that the company with their reputation for fair dealing should allow one of their representatives to so misrepresent acid phosphate, the standard source of phosphoric acid for plant food the world over. The letter you enclose to me recalls the old saying that a little learning ns a dangerous thing. “This agent says that he would not haul acid phosphate from the depot to his farm if the company would give it to him. This statement is too absurd for comment. Do you sup pose that the farmers of the United States guided by the scientific leaders of the world would continue to pur chase a worthless thing? I would like for this representative to explain how acid^ phosphate robs the soil of lime. His statement that acid phos phate creates destructive bacteria, gives it omnipotent power unheard of before. It is true that some of the soluble phosphorus in acid phosphate reverts, but it reverts, in part at least, to the form in phich it is found in the Thomas phosphate. Acid phosphate adds lime to the soil In the form of sulphate of lime, and the use of the word acid, as applied to phos phoric acid in a commercial fertil izer does not mean that the fertil- It’s acid becomes neutralized through the formation of a base. “Shis agent is evidently strenuous ly endeavoring to sell Thomas phos phate, and it is more than probable that his misstatements concerning acid phosphate will do harm. How ever, such error cannot last If the error is exposed.” Evidently Professor Newman con sidered the agent’s statement so pre posterous that he did not deem an ex haustive reply necessary. Possibly we will hear from both these gentle men again. My own understanding is, that both these phosphates add lime to the soil, and In about equally useful forms, the Thomas phosphate adding only about four pounds more to the hundred weight than 16 per cent acid phosphate. If the introduction of Thomas phosphate has disclosed the fact that there is lime in acid phosphate and that it is a valuable constituent, a useful lesson has been taught; for the average farmer without a knowl edge of chemistry never before heard of it. T. IVEY. Cary, N. C., April 13, 1912. CO-OPEKATIVE MARKETING. The remarkabler Scotchman, Mr. Carnegie, whose grasp of the practi cal has placed him among the great men of all times, early saw the un wisdom of the competitive system and chartered a giant corporation which absorbed kindred individual enterprises by exchanging stock, and made an unparalleled success of the iron industry. Norway, Germany, Brazil, and other countries, have suc cessfully applied this principle in handling the problems of agriculture. Living proofs that the foundation of the phenominal success of all big modern enterprises lie in corporate combination are seen in every class of American business save farming, and iT only needs to direct thought to men like Morgan, Rockefeller, Ar mour, Pullman, Edison, Hill, Wanna- maker, the Harvester Company, Kress and Bowers, to show that it is the scientific and practical force of the financial, economic and commercial life of the times. The highest order of intelligence is shown when those with common interests co-operate through a cor poration embracing them all, and we believe when the farmer realizes this, his sense and self-interest can be relied on to secure his support in changing conditions injuriously af fecting his business, by uniting under the Carnegie system, the weak, scat tered enterprises now unable to earn profits or protect the interests of their founders, into one corporation, and make them strong enough to guard against bankruptcy, and insure profits. Not one of the accepted methods used in marketing American farm products is based upon the producer’.^ interest: all are arranged to surround the details of selling, with systems earning profits, but not for the farm er. A condition only possible because the American farmer does not use modern methods. As a rule, the business efforts of farm organizations heretofore have been sentimental, experimental and educational, but they prove that to make his business profitable, the far mer must get away from present sys tems and organize his own corpora tion through which to buy and sell. As the Texas Farm Co-operator says: “The farmer must become just as wise as Big Business, and when ever he wants to do anything to keep clear of the law, just take out a cor poration charter and make their own laws to govern their own business.” European farmers not only practice intensive farming but annually trans act business on Carnegie lines, run ning into billions of dollars, while we in the United States have scarce ly made a beginning. In Germany, agricultural banks loaned farmers one and three-quar-. ter billion dollars last year; farm corporations handle the agricultural products of Denmark, and throughout Continental Europe, the principle is used to protect the interests of farm ers. Such institutions will be immeas-* urably more useful in the United States, because of the independent position of the American farmer, and the importance of his products in the financial, commercial and physical life of the world. Eliminate the mistakes, adopt the successful features and unite the properties of each of our enterprises in one corporation, control our prod ucts, and create a company so strong that it can finance the crop; hold or sell it, as the owner decides, and manufacture or buy his supplies from first hands. To me this carries so many advan tages that it looks like every one, save those profiting by present sys tems, would give it their hearty en dorsement. I am not advocating the special fit ness of any certain company as the one into which the others should be amalgamated. Each have certain good and weak features, and all labor under a common burden of mistakes made and errors fallen into, that are , the natural results of starting any business. I advocate a central com pany, like Carnegie organized, to ab sorbs all the others, which shall odopt the successful features and discard the unsatisfactory ones of each. Owners of a warehouse, or any business willing to amalgamate, can appoint a trustee to meet the attor ney of the United Company and ex change stock. To raise cash, either of the follow ing ways can be used: Each stockholder takes $5.00 ad ditional cash stock; or. Each community where a uniting business is located buy $25.00 of cash stock for every $100.00 of stock ex changed; or. The united company sell for cash twenty-year 5 per cent bonds to the extent of 75 per cent of the consoli dated values. The last is the least to be desired, but the easiest to put into effect.— Benjamin West, in Farmers’ Union News. It is quite a chore to get stove pipe up every time just right. Tell you how we do it; When we take the pipe down we mark every length with a piece of white chalk. Do it before you take it down and there will be no trouble next time. “Do you not remember me, Mr. Roosevelt?” said the effusive strang er to the Colonel. “N-no, but de lighted, I’m sure. When did I have the pleasure?” “Why, when you re turned from Africa, and there was that big crow'd on the wharf, I was the man in the brown derby hat.” The life of a hee during the busy season is very short. Often during the honey season they do not live longer than six or eight weeks. Grow sunflowers in the rear yard. They will hide the fence and make good chicken feed. Nasturtiums and morning glories should be planted wherever there is anything to train them on. During the month of November, 6,- 452 tons of salt were shipped to the United States from England. Profits Doubled With The Benthall Peanut Picker If you grow peanuts and do not use a Benthall Peanut Picker, you actually lose money by not owning one The Benthall makes peanut growing doubly profitable The wages you pay—the losses from delays in not getting your crop early to market—the losses from birds and steal ing—cost you more than a machine. If you own a Benthall, you and your boys can do the work of a hundred hands, and do it better. You send your crop to market early—secure highest prices. You stop the theP of your crop. Growers now see that hand picking is far too costly. The folly of attemping to "thresh” them has been plainly shown. For machines that "thresh” them des troy profits. They crack the nuts—and cracked nuts will not keep. They grind the vines to smithereens— and these vines are the equal of alfalfa for feed—worth from $12 to $20 per ton. Contrast such machines with the Ben thall. The vines are fed to the Benthall just as grain to the treshing machine. The peanuts are pulled off the vine without injury to the shell. The machine picks as delicately as human fingers ■ hundreds of times more rapidly Many buyers give preference to Ben thall picked nuts. The vines are saved in perfect condition for hay. The recleaning and bagging attachment makes it unnecessary to run the peanuts over for seed the second time. This is the picker of proved worth proved out in the peanut fields of Virginia. Either Spanish or Virginia varieties are picked equally as well. It is mounted—ready to hitch—as you would a farm wagon. You can easily move it from place to place. There are models suited for horse or engine power—machines that are made i n terchan geable. Every year sees more farmers using th® Benthall. It has supplanted all other methods in many sections. And the de mand this year promises to be greater than we can supply. THE MACHINE THAT PAYS FOR ITSELF. If you don’t want to let profits slip your fingers—if you want to make money growing peanuts, write us for our "How the BenthaJl Pays For Itself.” be Free upon request. Benthall Machine Company, Box SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA
The Carolina Union Farmer (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 18, 1912, edition 1
4
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75