Mind you, this does not prove that farming is profitable, but only
that the intelligent use of phosphorus in farming is profitable. In
other words the admixture--brains--is profitable.

In commenting upon his investigations the director of the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station states that the raw phosphate
produced a higher total average yield than acid phosphate, and at
less than half the cost.

The Rhode Island Experiment Station began a series of experiments
with different forms of phosphorus in 1894. If we add together all
the hay and grain crops grown during the decade following the first
year of these experiments, we find that the increases per acre were
14,580 pounds for raw phosphate and 14,550 pounds for acid
phosphate, on unlimed land; while lime and raw phosphate produced
27,030 pounds, and lime and acid phosphate 29,690 pounds, of
increase; and the acid phosphate cost three times as much as the raw
phosphate.

In commenting upon these investigations the director of the Rhode
Island Experiment Station states that the raw phosphate gave very
good results with such farm crops as oats, peas, crimson clover,
millet, soy beans, and so forth, but very poor results with such
garden crops as turnips, rutabagas, cabbage, beets, lettuce, squash,
and so forth, and its use for these garden crops is not advised.

In 1890 the Massachusetts Experiment Station began investigations
with different phosphates applied in equal money value, and in his
report for 1900 the director states that the raw rock phosphate