USE OF FERTILISERS

Shannon News, 6 December 1927, Page 1

USE OF FERTILISERS

THEIR RESIDUE EFFECTS.

"BURNING THE SOIL” THEORY.

The question often arises and the statement is frequently made that fertilisers often “burn up the soil.” Just what is meant by this statement is very difficult to say. The idea appears to be, however, that fertilisers have some residual effect on the soil that is detrimental to soil fertility, and subsequently lowers crop yields. This idea is partly correct. At the same time long-continued fertiliser treatment has shown that the yield of wheat can be kept up over a long period of years by the use of mineral fertilisers alone. This has been demonstrated at Rotliamsted, the famous English experimental station.

Other investigations have shown that certain fertiliser materials do have a well-defined action on the soil when applied over a long period of years. This action may be beneficial or detrimental according to the e f' feet desired. For example, the longcontinued use of sulphate ammonia on soils that are neutral of acid brings about a strongly acid condition which is very harmful to many crops, but which is highly desirable on golf greens or lawns. Nitrate of soda, on the other hand, brings about an alkaline reaction in the soil. Acid phosphate, although in many cases acid actually exerts an alkaline effect on the soil —at least it assists in overcoming the effects of soil acidity. Potash-bearing materials have little effect either way, although they are regarded generally as slightly increasing acidity. It. has been claimed by some that one constituent alone tends to deplete the soil of fertility. The idea originated in the fact that when one element only is added the increased growth draws far more heavily on the other plant food constituents of the soil, thereby causing a deficiency for the succeeding crop. This is of very little interest, and does not apply to ordinary farm conditions. Old-established idpas die hard, and although the “burning of the soil” theory is not now generally entertained there are some farmers who “convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.” For this reason they do not fertilise their crops with sufficient liberality to ensure the best result. A few years ago a wellknown wheat grower affirmed that it was little short of madness and merely courting disaster to use more than 451 b. of super an acre. To-day he is applying from SOlb to 1001 b an acre, and he is obtaining considerably heavier yields as a consequence. Farmers may rest assured that there is no risk of this fertiliser exercising any detrimental effects in either a dry or a wet season, and they may be also equally certain that it is profitable to apply it in liberal quantities in all seasons. This has been proved in many districts, and it is becoming more apparent in other cereal-grow-ing districts every succeeding year. Super is a safe- fertiliser for either arable crops or for pastures, and it is also cheap and effective, lor which reason either agriculturalists or pas toralists can e mploy it in large quantities. It increases the yield of crops and pastures as well as improving the health of animals consuming the crops or pastures. It has a remarkably stimulating effect on subterranean clover, the. growth of which is promoted by its use in a wonderful degree. “Unless prepared to supply this valuable fodder plant with ai. the phosphates it requires,” remarked a successful stock breeder and grazier, “a'farmer should not attempt to grow it, as the results will be disappointing." The truth of this statement is obvious to anyone possessing practical knowledge ol: this legume.