The worship of hygiene and the introduction of practices conducing to the enhanced health and welfare of the community have served to deprive the land of a heavy proportion of that food which, under primitive conditions, it freely receives. Furthermore, the contemporary agriculturist is not content with receiving from the land just what Nature, if left to herself, is disposed to contribute. He practises forced or intensive measures, and in so doing naturally accelerates and accentuates the exhaustion of the soil.
In so far as these islands are concerned—it was equally applicable to other countries similarly affected—the stringency in natural manures was aggravated by the acquisition of all available horse-power for the battle-fronts as well as the need to husband straw for military foraging purposes. So, to ensure the safety and yield of his crops, the farmer has been compelled to fall back upon divers substances, natural as well as chemical, or as they are more popularly termed, artificial manures, although the word “artificial” in this interpretation is somewhat ambiguous, seeing that the materials employed, for the most part, enter into the scheme of Nature.
Under normal conditions British soil was liberally fed with these chemical fertilizers, especially of superphosphate, nitrate of soda, and potash. And for all of these three indispensable soil-foods we were dependent upon foreign sources of supply, which naturally suffered interruption more or less as a result of the outbreak of hostilities. During 1913 we imported 970,185 tons of these manuring agents, for which we paid £3,333,612—$16,668,060. These figures do not include potash, appreciable quantities of which, drawn from the German mines, were used. But, taking the other two materials, phosphate occupied first place in point of quantity with 539,016 tons valued at £874,166—$4,370,830—while the Chilian nitrate claimed premier position in value at £1,490,669—$7,453,345—for which we received 140,926 tons.
Owing to the availability of the foreign manures there was a tendency to turn a blind eye to our own producing capacity in regard to plant-foods of the chemical order. But such an attitude was quite in keeping with the British character; we preferred to pay compliments, in the form of money, to other countries at the expense of our own. With war we learned the folly of our ways and received an awakening, rude but fruitful.
Of the artificial fertilizers essential to plant life we can supply all with the possible exception of the superphosphate, although in this instance we are striving to develop our home resources. Chilian nitrate may be superseded by the atmospheric nitrates: we can derive all the potash we desire by the observance of the necessary care and the lessons which science in its various phases is able to extend. Possibly the results may not be so prolific as when the imported articles are utilized, but this is merely a matter of opinion, and one upon which even experts agree to differ.
Of the domestic contributions to the artificial fertilizer issue, those which have attracted the greatest measure of attention are sulphate of ammonia and basic slag. So far as the first named, of the nitrogenous group, is concerned, a remarkable reversion of opinion is to be recorded. Prior to the war the British farmer, despite the fact that sulphate of ammonia was obtainable in relatively large quantities from home sources, was not deeply impressed with its plant-feeding value. At all events the domestic consumption was relatively low, 60,000 tons being the maximum amount used in any pre-war year. But what the British yeoman disdained, his foreign contemporary seized with avidity. During 1913 our exports of this waste, or by-product from our gas-works and coking-ovens, totalled 323,054 tons worth £4,390,547—$21,952,735—out of a total export of 704,071 tons of fertilizers valued at £5,745,484—$28,727,420. France and Spain, as well as our sugar-growing Dominions, were our largest customers, the farmers of which were prepared to pay more for this soil stimulator than were their contemporaries at home. But, as a result of experience gained under the stress imposed by war, sulphate of ammonia found greater favour in the eyes of our husbandmen. During 1916 the home consumption increased by 15,000 tons, a further 15,000 tons’ improvement was recorded during the first three months of 1917, while for the 1917 season the figure rose to 150,000 tons.
Under normal conditions, in accordance with the law of supply and demand, prices tend to rise coincidentally with the enhanced manifestation of request, but the country took steps to protect the consumer, and at the same time to remunerate the producers adequately. Whereas the pre-war price for this fertilizing agent ranged from £12 10s. to £14—$62.50 to $70—per ton, the war price was officially fixed at £16—$80—per ton. Inasmuch, however, as the controlled quotation included transport and delivery charges, the actual increase in the cost was not appreciable.
But it was the 1917-18 season which revealed the circumstance that the virtues of sulphate of ammonia at last had really gripped the British farmer. From the estimates which were carefully prepared the requirements were set down at 220,000 tons. As a matter of fact they notched 230,000 tons. Thus, in two short years, the consumption of sulphate of ammonia by the hungry soil of Britain was quadrupled, a really startling achievement. The total output of this commodity, both in the solid and liquid forms, reached a round 400,000 tons, and to-day stands at about 460,000 tons. Approximately, one-half of this aggregate is forthcoming from our gas-works and the other half from our coking-ovens and blast-furnaces. During the war the balance remaining after the needs of agriculture had been met, namely 170,000 tons, was absorbed in the manufacture of munitions. But under restored peace conditions this latter volume will be rendered available for home consumption or export.
Seeing that our pre-war export figure was 323,054 tons a year, it would seem as if we are destined to lose some of our revenue from this trade. Obviously only about 170,000, or at the utmost, 230,000 tons will be available for our foreign customers. It would seem as if we are certain to fall a round 100,000 tons short of their actual needs, which will certainly be equal to the ante-bellum figure. As a matter of fact the demand will probably be much heavier, considering that the land of these customers has been denied this food for nearly five years; at least supplies have only been forthcoming in small and totally inadequate quantities. Moreover, the home demand is rising still, which must tend to attenuate the quantities available for export.
But there is no need for us to grow apprehensive. In another chapter I deal with the benzol question, and illustrate how we might increase our supplies of a home-produced fuel to displace imported petrol. In meeting our domestic benzol requirements we can increase our output of sulphate of ammonia at the same time. The ammonia is the substance which so worried gas engineers during the early days of gas-lighting. Then it was an unmitigated curse: to-day it is a blessing. The actual yield of sulphate of ammonia from a ton of first-class gas-distilling coal may be set down at 18 lb. However, seeing that this varies according to the quality of the coal, I will set this figure at 15 lb., which is distinctly conservative. On this basis, if the whole of the coal burned to sheer waste in the private grates of the country, and which may be set down at 100,000,000 tons under normal conditions, were first carbonized, it would be possible to add at least 700,000 tons to our present output of sulphate of ammonia, which would thus be brought up to approximately 1,160,000 tons a year. This would be quite enough to satisfy the needs of all our customers. But, at the present moment, owing to our supineness, the ammonia and the benzol are being allowed to fly up the chimney. Consequently every person who adheres to the consumption of coal instead of coke, in the open grate, just because a blaze is appreciated, is doing his or her bit towards the loss, assuming the value of the fertilizing agent at the modest figure of £10 per ton, of £7,000,000—$35,000,000—per annum. Truly we are paying dearly for the gratification of a whim.