receive both limestone and phosphate.

Thus we shall always have the satisfaction of seeing whatever
clearly apparent effects are produced by this fundamental treatment,
even though we may not be able to bother with harvesting these check
strips separate from the rest of the field.

We have based our decision regarding the use of ground limestone
very largely upon the long-continued work of the Pennsylvania
Agricultural Experiment Station as to the comparative effects of
ground limestone and burned lime, which is supported, to be sure, by
all comparative tests so far as our Illinois soil investigators have
been able to learn.

The practicability and economy of using the fineground natural
phosphate has been even more conclusively established, as you
already know, by the concordant results of half a dozen state
experiment stations. There are only two objections to the use of the
raw phosphate. One of these is the short-sighted plan or policy of
the average farmer, and the other is the combined influence of about
four-hundred fertilizer manufacturers who prefer to sell, quite
naturally, perhaps, two tons of acid phosphate for $30, or four tons
of so-called "complete" fertilizer for $70 to $90, rather than to
see the farmer buy direct from the phosphate mine one ton of
fine-ground raw rock phosphate in which he receives the same amount
of phosphorus, at a cost of $7 to $9.

Until we can provide a greater abundance of decaying organic matter
we may make some temporary use of kainit, in case the experiments
conducted by the state show that it is profitable to do so.